Talk:Sharyl Attkisson

Sinclair media

An IP removed the description of Sinclair Media as "conservative" without explanation, so I reverted[3], leaving a notice about unexplained content removal on the IP's talk page. The IP made the edit again[4], this time I thought the IP made a valid point in the edit summery so I did not revert, but JzG did[5], using the edit summary It's significant that she broadcaSTS ON WINGNUT CABLE I reverted JzG, pointing out that conservative ≠ wingnut[6], but was reverted by Calton [7].

I want to know what others think about whether to describe Sinclair as "conservative" in this article, I know Sinclair is known for being conservative, but I have seen plenty of mentions of Fox news that don't start with "the conservative media company..." so I am not sure about this. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair point, far-right hyper-partisan would be a better description of Sinclair. It's way to the right of Fox. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be OK with calling them "far right" or "right wing" IF we have sufficient neutral sources that describe them this way, but since we don't usually state a news outlet's political leanings when we mention a news outlet, we should only mention Sinclair's bias here if sources show that they are more blatantly biased than things like Fox and CNN. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Stick with conservative, then as that is supported by a mountain of sources. This is Sinclair, 'the most dangerous US company you've never heard of', Sinclair Made Dozens of Local News Anchors Recite the Same Script, While You Were Offline: Sometimes the News Is the News, Trump said Sinclair ‘is far superior to CNN.’ What we know about the conservative media giant, Sinclair, the pro-Trump, conservative company taking over local news, explained, and so on. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

My question is how do we determine when to mention that a media company is conservative/liberal. We don't say "the left leaning news source CNN" or "the right wing news organization Fox" so why "the conservative media company Sinclair"? I am not entirely against this, but we should have some consistant way to decide whether to list a news outlet's political bias. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It provides context. If you have a problem with that sort of wording, go to a noticeboard and make your argument there. --Calton | Talk 13:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Undue, remove - "Sinclair Broadcast", in quotes, gives you 2,660,000 google hits. Its Wikipedia page had 28,715 visits last month. It is, according to Wikipedia, "the largest television station operator in the United States." It needs no descriptor, just like we write no descriptor when we mention The New York Times, described by some as one of the U.S.' newspapers of record and described by some a lefty bird cage liner. Any description of what Sinclar is or is not on Attkisson's bio is undue and unnecessary political commentary. XavierItzm (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Of course, the media company should be described. If someone works for Big League Politics, Media Matters for America or some other largely unknown media company with clear political leanings, we describe it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this brief descriptor is appropriate; it is well-sourced, encyclopedic, and helpful to the reader. Neutrality^talk 17:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• This article is about Atkisson not.the broadcast company. We should stick to coverage ofnher and her programs. This is a BLP. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The issue at hand should not be Sinclair's political leanings but rather its reliability. If it's not reliable, we should blacklist it. If it is reliable - or at least if it's reliable in this instance - then the reader doesn't need this bit of trivial detail. If they want more information about the publisher, they can elect to click the link for themselves. If we find reliable views that oppose Sinclair's then we should include an example for balance. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Include. Sinclair's political agenda is very noteworthy to an article about Attkisson. She chose to align herself with an aggressively ideological organization. R2 (bleep) 20:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This is Sharyl. May I weigh in on two points? 1. It's certainly fair to call Sinclair an organization run by conservative billionaires. However, if one is going to slant descriptions with politics, it would be important to note my program is nonpartisan. Just like my reporting at CBS, most of the reporting has nothing to do with politics. If it could be characterized it could fairly be called watchdog in nature, stories looking out for taxpayers, citizens, etc. This includes reports on MRI safety, Deep Fakes, terrorism in the Philippines, lawsuits about talcum powder, the aging lawsuits litigating tobacco/cigarette cancer victims, asbestos in houses, greyhound racing, etc. When we do cover politics, I have as many fair interviews featuring liberal politicians such as Rep. Adam Schiff, Sen. Ed Markey, Sen. Dick Durbin, Rep. Jackie Speier as conservative politicians such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, Rep. Jim Jordan and Rep. Mark Meadows. So mention Sinclair's leanings but be fair not to imply my own work or program is "conservative." 2. If we do decide to label Sinclair, then it would only be fair to label (on my biography and others) all organizations based on their political leanings. There is a great deal of bias on this front with liberal organizations often not labelled, but conservative organizations labelled. For example, I worked at liberal CNN, liberal CBS and liberal PBS. For CNN and CBS in particular, when I worked there, they were run by/ managed by liberal billionaire donors (Ted Turner, Sumner Redstone, Les Moonves). That did not impact my reporting any more than working at Sinclair impacts my reporting politically (except in cases I have discussed where corporate influence or political leanings of a particular editor at CBS began to interfere with the general newsroom operations and content). Likewise for those who work at the New York Times, I think there is little dispute it is a liberal newspaper even though it doesn't mean all of the reporting is likewise "liberal." So for what little I matter, for consistency and fairness, I would vote for EITHER labelling all media organizations across Wikipedia when mentioned AND making sure we are not unfairly implicating employees as being ideological OR not labelling media organizations at all. Thank you for your kind considerations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.57.46 (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

None of those organizations are liberal in my view. More importantly, none of them are consistently described as liberal by reliable sources (unlike for example the Huffington Post). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This is Sharyl. Thank you-- but with respect, therein lies the problem with your biased judgement. You are selectively ignoring the documented liberal management of these companies but choosing to accept the judgement of a conservative company you obviously dislike (as a liberal). You also didn't address the idea that if you are going to label an employer, it's only fair to not incorrectly label or taint the employe or program with a political view that is untrue. Further, you are using your own judgment to decide what is "reliable" (in other words, you as a liberal, are waiting for a liberal publication to declare other liberal publications "liberal"; but accepting it when the liberal publications declaring other publications conservative, even when it's used as an obvious propaganda tool to propagandize and smear.) Along these lines, even other liberals besides me would not argue that the New York Times and CNN today are generally "liberal." However, I think there will always be differing opinions and judgement. In light of that, I would argue that it's best to refrain from these arguably-biased and subjective political descriptions on a biography page, which is not intended to litigate these difficult and subjective issues or put them to rest. However, again, Wikipedia does as Wikipedia wishes. I submit these comments with great respect and thank you for engaging even, if you are biased. I believe you do mean well. 173.66.57.46 (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Sharyl - as you know, one of WP's 3 core content policies is NPOV. There are times - often motivated by unrecognized bias - when NPOV is not as closely adhered to as WP policy dictates. If one group of editors with a particular POV outnumber their opposition in an RfC, they have an advantage over consensus which is typically how challenged material ends up in the pedia. I don't think it comes as any surprise that WP leans left but the process eventually self-corrects to reflect a more neutral POV. After an RfC runs its course, the closer (usually an admin when the topic is highly controversial) is supposed to judge the arguments in an RfC based on substance, not on vote count because WP is not a democracy. If the closer agrees with the majority, perhaps because of their own unrecognized bias, they will determine consensus accordingly. Fortunately, the majority of closers are quite capable, fair & neutral. Also, consensus is not permanent and can change (meaning the close can be challenged, or consensus may change later on if another RfC is called), so it's really not a case of Wikipedia doing as Wikipedia wishes; rather, it is a case of consensus & the numbers...always with the possibility that things can change. Rest assured, editors are trying to get the article right. And thank you for taking part in the discussion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Attkisson directing people towards this Wikipedia page

https://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson/status/1132773760304603137

And in this article, she appears to be saying that she herself has been edit-warring on this page.[8] Tryptofish and JzG, you have been described as "agenda editors related to pharmaceutical interests and the partisan blog Media Matters" by a former bigshot reporter at CBS News. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I noticed Attkisson's Twitter post via Scott Adams and popped in for a look (hi!). I've got all the usual Rx for a middle aged guy with lifetime bad habits, but that's about the extent of my bias. In her blog post, Attkisson provides no justification for her claims of bias. I can't help but wonder if her reporting is equally as sloppy. If she's got any unresolved claims for factual errors (she's made a few), then we should do our best to sort those out. I'll start a new section below if I find any. Cheers. Oh, and Scott Adams called me a "national treasure" on Twitter. Can I have my own biography now?Rklawton (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've certainly been called worse, and considering the apparent source, I couldn't care less about their opinion. This is why I stay off Twitter etc. I couldn't find any mention of JzG or me, so maybe they took that down. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You are wise. I'm trying to grok Twitter. No luck so far. Rklawton (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Attkisson's complaints are also making the rounds in the conservative outlets. They're being promoted on Zero Hedge and /r/The_Donald. R2 (bleep) 20:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but wikipedia is broken and lots of people are reporting on it. It has been known forever that working age, middle class views are under represented on WP because they can't compete with the sheer volume of edits counts of people who sit around and just edit WP. People who edit WP are more likely to live on government entitlements and have associated left leaning views. Jimmy has even noted the problem on many occasions."“Earlier on, we had a systemic bias toward liberal issues. However, as Wikipedia has grown, and become more mainstream, the liberal contingent has declined as a proportion of Wikipedia in general. Perhaps our other biases will be partially neutralised in the same way.”" 2605:6000:160A:E116:C821:6950:535B:CAF (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Please stop using this page as a discussion forum about the failings of Wikipedia. If you continue to do so, I will request that administrators block your IP address. R2 (bleep) 20:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Offit description

I've removed a short line providing Paul Offit's opinion. I'm aware that this is probably controversial, but Attkisson - in raising concerns about this article - pointed out that Offit had a piece pulled that he wrote about Attkinsson from the Orange County Register. In checking the correction that was published [9] it seems that a number of concerns about claims were raised. All else being equal, this seems to make Offit a less neutral observer, and given that we have quite a bit criticizing Attkisson already, I don't think that using Offit as well is the best option. That still leaves Seth Mnookin and Anna Kata. - Bilby (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Support - and if Offit has valid claims, we should be able to find independent sources supporting it/them. Rklawton (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Factual errors

Attkisson claims this article contains factual errors.[10] As is our mission, let's correct these errors: Rklawton (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Birth place

I've removed Sarasota, FL since the source cited for this makes no such claim, and Attkisson claims it's incorrect. Rklawton (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Birth date

This information is dubiously sourced. The sourcing indicates this information came from a web page. The web page is for a book on prominent people, and the page contains no information about Attkisson. If the book itself contains information about Attkisson, then we should use a book citation, one that includes a page number. Since Attkisson claims her birth date is wrong and since the citation used is (at least) incomplete, I suggest we remove it until we can find a reliable source. Rklawton (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

There's something odd going on here. In this C-SPAN interview, Brian Lamb said to Attkisson that she was born in Sarasota and she didn't correct him. There may be more to this than meets the eye. I'm going to keep digging. R2 (bleep) 22:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Sarasota was also listed on old versions of her CBS bio while she worked there. I'm mystified as to why she would now insist she wasn't born there. And I haven't managed to find any evidence she or anyone else ever contested these details here. R2 (bleep) 22:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Recognition

This section had been previously removed. However, notable nominations and awards are routinely included in biographies. At the urging of an IP (presumably Sharyl's)[11], it is my intent to restore this section with appropriate references. Rklawton (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about nominations: Sharyl received three different nominations for the same award in one year and won the award for one of them. Should we list all the nominations? My thoughts tend toward simply listing the one award as it takes precedence. I see the value in listing a category nomination when an award isn't won in that given year, but I'm not familiar enough with Emmys to be certain here. Rklawton (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

My general feeling about awards is that they should only be mentioned if there is coverage by independent sources. Meaning, announcements by the awarding body, the the awardee, and/or the awardee's employer, publisher, etc. are insufficient. Otherwise we end up larding up our articles with obscure, non-noteworthy awards that are only announced because they sound good. This approach can be applied to nominations as well. The nominations for a prominent award like the Pulitzer Prize will of course receive plenty of independent coverage, while nominations for other awards may receive no independent coverage. R2 (bleep) 16:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

What's the standard of a notable award? Common practice has been to include awards notable enough for articles in Wikipedia. At any rate, articles for journalists frequently list Emmy Awards. If we don't include them here, we'd have to justify their exclusion. I'd rather keep article editing rules simple. If we can reliably source that the subject received a notable award, then we should include it in their article. Heck, we include non-speaking parts in some actors' biographies, and that's surely less notable than an Emmy nomination. Rklawton (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

News & Documentary Emmy Awards are not only notable but extremely prominent. I would be very surprised if we couldn't find independent coverage of Attkisson's nominations. R2 (bleep) 17:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's a representative story from Politico. Attkisson has won numerous awards, including four Emmys and several Emmy nominations. Voila, based on that I believe all of the Emmys and Emmy nominations should be listed. R2 (bleep) 17:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's another Politico story, this one saying that Attkisson won an Edward R. Murrow Award (Radio Television Digital News Association). (Beware, there are several unrelated awards named after Murrow. I believe the RTDNA one Attkisson received is the most prestigious one by far.) R2 (bleep) 18:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there any disagreement about including Attkisson's Emmy's in this article? Here's a similar article for a local reporter. It seems Emmy Awards are pretty standard fare. Rklawton (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no disagreement about that; in fact, they are already in the article. I object to making a separate section for them without removing those existing mentions from the body + I object to the inclusion of an entire list of awards a BLP wrote up about themselves, without any accompanying citations or even a copyedit or check that these awards are notable. I also object to lumping together legitimate industry awards with awards from advocacy groups or partisan organizations. Toa Nidhiki05 01:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Feedback from BLP subject

This is Sharyl. I gave up on the attempts to stop those trying to controversialize my Wiki page some years ago after several well intentioned editors tried to assist. but admitted in the end they were out-edited by the special interests. But what the heck, a few of you have asked me to talk and you think you can actually make some inroads so when I can I will try to get on here. For Emmys, I can only tell you in my industry the nominations and awards are extremely prestigious, sort of a gold standard. All my Emmy awards and nominations were listed at one point on my Wiki page and then at some point somebody deleted only all my most recent ones, even though it was my biggest year when I was nominated for four Emmys and won two, *and* was invited to be a presenter. Few journalists can point to such a case. I suspect the deletions had something to do with the fact that the Emmys were in part for my undercover investigation into Republican fundraising. That Emmy interrupts the false narrative some are attempting to promulgate that I am a conservative or Republican, so my reporting is biased and not to be trusted. On another simple point, for all the efforts to try to controversialize my factual and award winning reporting on medical issues including vaccine safety, and vaccines and autism, I did not know that I was "accused" in true scientific literature thusly: "In the medical literature Attkisson has been accused of using problematic rhetorical tactics to "imply that because there is no conclusive answer to certain problems, vaccines remain a plausible culprit."[39]" In fact the footnote, when clicked upon, doesn't mention me at all. On the other hand, some years ago, for balance, I pointed to the fact that a letter published in the peer reviewed New England Journal of Medicine, written by a Johns Hopkins neurologist about a vaccine autism case, used my reporting as a referenced citation. That, of course, was deleted from Wikipedia. So there are editors who seem to want to make it seem as though my reporting on this topic is scientifically unsound and roundly criticized, when the criticism comes from conflicted interests I have written about and published on, such a advocate Seth Mnookin. While I'm very proud of my vaccine safety reporting, I would guess it is not even in the top 200 of topics I've covered in terms of frequency and bandwidth-- yet that and only a few other equally obscure topics are of course highlighted on my Wikipedia page while far more obsequious topics I've covered are not. I wonder why. I think I know, though. Another example is the odd attention and section given to the media bias chart I made. And a third is example is the way my computer intrusions case is treated. A fourth example of a problem is a weird comment/quote someone inserted regarding my resignation from Cbs News, about my reporting being bulletproof... that was never part of any discussion or issue regarding my departure, I'm not sure what that even means, it is a non sequitur to be sure. Well that's it for starters. Happy to answer any questions. However, I will not engage with trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.57.46 (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Birth place and date

Thanks for writing. Let’s handle the lowest hanging fruit first. You said in your blog that your birth date and location were wrong. Sources indicate that you were born in Saratoga in 1961. Is that incorrect? R2 (bleep) 01:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks-- Some of the wrong information has been corrected over time, but the birth place is still incorrect. Of course there is no published way to prove this, so is there any point in attempting correction? I know I am not an authority on myself in Wikipedia's eyes. (I was born in St. Petersburg) 173.66.57.46 (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC) More low-hanging.. this is of little importance to me but it's inaccurate: "From 1997 to 2003, Attkisson simultaneously hosted CBS News Up to the Minute and the PBS health-news magazine HealthWeek.[11]" I left CBS News Up To The Minute in Jan. 1995... was working as a Washington based CBS News correspondent after that (when I hosted HealthWeek on liberal PBS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.57.46 (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Let’s deal with one thing at a time. I’m not doubting you about your birthplace, but your CBS bio said for years that you were born in Saratoga. And in an interview on C-SPAN, your interviewer said you were born in Saratoga and you didn’t correct him. (I’m sorry I’m on my phone right now and don’t have ready access to the links, but I provided them further up on this page if you need them.) Can you please explain how/why they were wrong? R2 (bleep) 04:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

R2, what sources claimed Saratoga? Which Saratoga? From the article history I see that Wikipedia said Sarasota. It's quite plausible to me that she could have been born in St. Petersburg, Florida and moved at a very young age to grow up in a nearby place (when her parents moved from an apartment to a "starter home", just speculating?). It's also possible that when she told a reporter or whoever wrote her workplace biography that she grew up in Sarasota, neglecting to mention the birthplace because she has no memory of that apartment, that her "biographer" got sloppy and said she was born in Sarasota. Or maybe she was born in a hospital in St. Pete and then lived in Sarasota as soon as her parents drove her home from the hospital. This kind of thing happens often. Thoroughbred reporters come from many places, not just Saratoga ;) The problem is that Wikipedia implicitly assumes that its so-called "relaible sources" are actually reliable. That is, all RS reporters don't just take a person's word for it, but they actually do the original research we aren't supposed to by searcing the public records to verify the birth date and place. Reality is that this kind of OR can be expensive, and profit- and agenda- driven sources cut corners on things like this. wbm1058 (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

wbm1058, I'm sorry, "Saratoga" was my mistake, I meant Sarasota. The sources are in the "Factual errors" section above. For years CBS's bio for Attkisson said she was born in Sarasota. It also appears in a C-SPAN interview. R2 (bleep) 23:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't explain where people get their incorrect information. Kindly, I don't think I should be expected to correct other people's misinformation or speculate how they came across it, since I have no idea. (If someone reported you were born in a place you weren't, would it be up to you to explain why if you had no idea?) My name is pretty much constantly mispronounced, my birth place has been often cited as incorrect, my positions on matters are often misrepresented, my work history not exactly right, my number of Emmys misquoted, as well as many other details that don't matter to me all that much but it seems to me ought to be correct in an encyclopedia reference. I choose not to correct everyone who has incorrect information even when they intro me when I notice it because it seems ungracious if I do and it's usually unimportant to me. I did correct an interviewer the other day when he introduced me and said I had 12 Emmy awards. (I only have 5 actual awards). That was an important error I noticed because it exaggerated something. If he had said I had one or two I wouldn't have corrected him even though it wouldn't have been correct. I grew up in Sarasota so some people may have assumed without checking that I was born there. And, as is often the case, others often pick up on someone's mistaken information and so on. That's one issue with relying on published information to the exclusion of what may actually be correct, I think. Does that answer?173.66.57.46 (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC) I checked the CBS bio you referred to and noticed a later version omitted the incorrect birth place (deleted birth place entirely). https://web.archive.org/web/20140109102120/http://www.cbsnews.com/team/sharyl-attkisson/ That link above also lists the most recent Emmy activity, which someone on Wikipedia oddly deleted from my bio, while leaving my other Emmy awards. (Why not delete them all or list them all if it's simply a neutral record? The ones that were deleted are arguably more relevant because they are most recent.) I would think that editors who make these sorts of questionable edits might be queried to see why they are making such edits. And perhaps their other edits should be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.57.46 (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Here’s my suggestion. Write a new blog entry pointing to the incorrect sources (old CBS bio and C-SPAN interview) and basically write what you did here, explain that they’re wrong and you were actually born in St. Pete. Then post a link to the blog entry here. Once you’ve done that, we can then use your blog as a published source. R2 (bleep) 06:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we don't currently say where she is born. Unless I'm missing something, that is. Wouldn't it be easier just to continue to leave it out? Then we can worry about the more complex issues. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Found sources for leaving CBS News Up To The Minute in Jan. 1995. --GRuban (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This is Sharyl. I agree it might make the most sense to leave it out. It's of little importance, just an example. Thank you to those of you weighing in. I appreciate it. From my view: The suggestion for me to write new publication about my birth date isn't a bad one considering how Wikipedia operates... but to me it kind of highlights some of the flaws with Wikipedia. Mere mortals like me often do not have the time (or sometimes the ability or desire) to undertake the gyrations required try to correct mistakes or misinformation on their Wikipedia entry. In short: it makes something that should be simple and logically executed a silly bureaucratic quagmire that makes sense only to the brave souls who have chosen to immerse themselves in this reality. It puts the burden of correcting fact errors or misinformation on a subject who frankly may be the only one who knows or cares to correct it about herself, yet is barred from doing so and is not considered a proper source on the material herself. Yet nobody else knows the material (such as where I am born or am I anti-vaccine or does the faulty description of my proven computer "claims" conflate a whole bunch of mixed up and false reporting). Simple facts such as birth place are difficult enough to correct on Wikipedia, but it all becomes more difficult when it comes to rooting out the biased, sloppy, or sometimes paid agenda editors who troll pages like mine and make sure certain topics are shaded in a way that is far from neutral, often using sources that are supposedly barred on Wikipedia -- but they have the power to make them stick. Trying to correct these problems in my experience results in days, weeks, months of tedious time consuming discussions that turn out to be pointless because, in the end, all the well meaning and good editors aside, the editors with the most power will argue it to death, though disingenuously as if a game, and then make the page say what they want regardless of rules, neutrality, sourcing etc. This happened some years ago when I communicated with several helpful Wikipedia editors offline who-- as I said in the end -- said elements of my bio were incorrect, violated rules of neutrality, not properly sourced etc but said they were out edited by other interests who could control the page. I hope I do not sound ungracious, as I appreciate the efforts, attention and time of all good Wikipedia editors. 173.66.57.46 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's considered a valid source if you'd just post your birth date and location on Twitter (if you have a verified account). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sheryl, you need to tweet or blog something about your birthplace and/or year if you want those things corrected or even the misinformation removed. Without that, no matter what we do today, people will continue to reinclude the misinformation over the years. R2 (bleep) 16:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! With respect, I have stated so/published here in the same way I would blog. I really don't mind if the mistake persists on that topic; it's unimportant. It's more or less just an example. I grew up in Sarasota, it's all the same to me, just not technically my birth place (which was St. Petersburg) and so not technically accurate when citing a birth place in an encylopedia. Thank you for your consideration. 173.66.57.46 (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Just an FYI, although writing it here is similar to blogging or tweeting about it, Wikipedia treats it differently (see WP:CIRCULAR. But if you don’t want to tweet or blog about it, no one is going to force you to, of course. R2 (bleep) 17:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that your post on this talk page isn't verifiably from, well, you. All we can write is that someone with IP address 173... said so, and said they are Ms Attkisson. On your Twitter or blog they would have to have your passwords, which is a reasonable verification of identity. --GRuban (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not just that. We can't cite a Wikipedia talk page, even if this Sharyl were to somehow formally prove her identity. R2 (bleep) 21:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I get it; it just emphasizes some inherent flaws; people who don't know me have posted incorrect info but that's good enough for Wikipedia because, well, it's published -- even though untrue. Not your fault, of course, it's the way the system has been set up. For example, I could send my birth certificate to a Wikipedia contact (if I could dig one up), but no processes are set up for true verification, just published material which can be wrong or manipulated all the time, especially in today's environment. The birth info is unimportant but an illustration of issues with other information that have more nuance and is used by bad actors to slant biographies like mine. Thank you for your input and attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.57.46 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

No, no, please don't send your birth certificate; our verification needs to be public (more details in Wikipedia:Verifiability); in other words that our readers need to be able to check what we write. That's why a tweet or blog post or other statement from you, or filmed television episode, or a published article from a newspaper or magazine, that our readers can see will work, but a copy of some certificate that an anonymous editor got once and is keeping won't. --GRuban (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The bottom line is that if you tweet or blog autobiographical details like this then we can cite them. If you don't, then we can't. R2 (bleep) 21:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This is Sharyl. Thank you. I know; I get it. Just pointing out the flaws in the animal... that there's no system under which an authentic document can be used to source biographical information and incorrect information, as long as it's published by someone, is considered all good. And as we know, anybody can publish most anything these days so what used to be kinda sorta probably reliable is no longer necessarily the case. 173.66.57.46 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It's the nature of Wikipedia. Are you going to publish something about this, or should we move on? R2 (bleep) 04:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This is Sharyl. If I write an article about this I will do so and alert you. Some things are very important reputationally etc. The birth place is not important to me per se, just an example of an inaccuracy in a Wikipedia reference that I thought would be low hanging fruit. Makes me realize that accuracy on high hanging fruit may be out of reach entirely for this format ;) But I do thank you for engaging! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.57.46 (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Liberal Awards Excluded while Less Important Conservative Award Mentioned and Shaded in Biased Way

This is Sharyl. Another interesting case is: when CBS accepted an award on my behalf from the conservative group Accuracy in Media for my Fast and Furious Gunwalker reporting. This is mentioned in my Wikipedia biography: "In 2012, CBS News accepted an Investigative Reporting Award given to Attkisson's reporting on ATF's Fast and Furious gunwalker controversy. The award was from Accuracy in Media, a conservative news media watchdog group, and was presented at a Conservative Political Action Conference.[22]"

1. This is not an award that would normally be considered prestigious enough to be worthy of mention on a Wikipedia bio page among other awards.

2. It was added to my bio at the beginning of the organized efforts by Media Matters and its allies to falsely portray me as a conservative, to controversialize me and this important story. So adding the award helped with their narrative.

3. The "tell" is that... When the same reporting then later received an Edward R. Murrow Award and an investigative Emmy Award, those trolling and editing my page did not put that on my bio. Just the "conservative" award. (Get it?) Eventually, the additions were allowed and they are there today. But the less important conservative award remains... to accomplish an attempted slant or taint the story and my page in that subtle way. Propaganda 101 technique.

4. Another "tell" is that the editor wished to mention where the conservative award was presented "at a Conservative Political Action Conference," which seems to be an unimportant detail unless an editor is trying to drive home the propaganda point that I and my reporting should be associated with conservatives.

5. If, indeed, the place of an award presentation is considered important, then the places of presentation for my Emmys, IRE, Loeb and RTNDA Awards should also be included. If not, then it seems to me none of the places should be mentioned.

6. I have received more awards from liberal interests than conservative interests, but only the "conservative" award is mentioned and labelled thusly on my page. Two examples are: I received the Civil Justice Award for my Firestone tire reporting from the liberal Association of Trial Lawyers of America, more prestigious than the one listed, but unmentioned on my biography. I also received an award from the liberal New York Association of Black Journalists, also more important than the one listed on my biography, but also unmentioned.

7. Among the awards more prestigious and important than the "conserviative" award, but not mentioned-- besides the Civil Justice Award and the Black Journalists Awards-- are Loeb awards, additional Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) recognition and numerous others. I'm not arguing that they be listed; I'm simply pointing out somebody has cherry picked a relatively obscure award for their own biased purposes, and presented it in a way that is not neutral. 3. I have received more awards from liberal interests than conservative interests, but only the "conservative" award is mentioned and labelled thusly. One example is I received the Civil Justice Award for my Firestone tire reporting from the liberal Association of Trial Lawyers of America, more prestigious than the one listed, but unmentioned on my biography. I also received an award from the liberal New York Association of Black Journalists, also more important than the one listed on my biography, but unmentioned.

What do you think about cherry picking less important awards and the selective labeling of one (conservative)? Thank you for your consideration 173.66.57.46 (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you'd list your awards along with a source for each award. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of the most recognizable ones (Emmys Edward R Murrow) are already sourced on Wiki and the Emmys that were removed were also properly sourced/footnoted. I don't think all of these should be on there, but here are the ones I have tracked since you inquired. If there is a desire to add any additional that aren't already listed and footnoted I will try to find sourcing if editors cannot find.

Awards List:

2017

New York Times best seller lists for "The Smear"

2016

Finalist Gerald Loeb business awards for “Taxpayer Beware”

Barbara Olson Award for Excellence and Independence in Journalism

2015

Kenneth Y. Tomlinson Award for Outstanding Reporting

New York Times best seller lists for "Stonewalled."

2014

Pillar Human Rights Journalism Award for “Fearless Reporting in the Face of Government Retaliation.”

2013      

Emmy Award Presenter.

Investigative Emmy Award for "Investigating Congress." 

Investigative Emmy Award nomination for "Benghazi: Dying for Security." 

Emmy Award nomination for "Green Energy Going Red." 

Daytime Emmy Award as part of CBS Sunday Morning team Outstanding Morning Program for "Washington Lobbying: K-Street Behind Closed Doors.” 

Brian Terry Courage in Journalism and Reporting Award

Finalist, Gerald Loeb Business Awards for "The Business of Congress"     

2012        

Emmy Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for "Gunwalker: Fast and Furious." 

RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Award for Excellence in Investigative Reporting for "Gunwalker: Fast and Furious."

2011      

Emmy Award Nomination for Investigations of Congress: "Follow the Money." 

Emmy Award Nomination for Investigating Aid to Haiti earthquake victims.         

2010           

Emmy Award for Outstanding Investigative Reporting of a Business News Story for series on Bush Administration's Bait-and-Switch on TARP. 

Investigative Reporter and Editors Finalist Award for Bush Administration's Bait-and-Switch on TARP.

Loeb finalist for Television Breaking News for “Follow the Money: Bailout Investigation, the Bait-and-Switch on TARP."       

2009      

Emmy Award Nomination for "Follow the Money."         

2008      

RTNDA-Edward R. Murrow Award for Overall Excellence (CBS team award)

Finalist for Gerald Loeb business awards for “Earmarks”   

2005      

RTNDA-Edward R. Murrow Award for Overall Excellence (CBS team award)     

2003           

Emmy Award Nomination for Investigating Dangers of certain prescription drugs and vaccines; and conflicts of interest in medical industry.           

2002      

Emmy Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for series on mismanagement at the Red Cross: "Red Cross Under Fire."           

2001           

Emmy Award Nomination for "Firestone Tire Fiasco."     

Civil Justice Foundation Special Commendation for Firestone Tire coverage, Association of American Trial Lawyers.           

2000      

Investigative Reporter and Editors Finalist Award for series on the dangers of certain prescription drugs and vaccines.   

Attkisson received several other awards for her reporting and producing, including a New York Black Journalists Association public service award, a Mature Media National Award, a Florida Emmy Award, a Sigma Delta Chi Award and a Florida Communicator's Award. 173.66.57.46 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, this is super helpful. Someone will get these posted in the next few days. If you want lesser known awards included, we’ll want to find independent sources for them. R2 (bleep) 16:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very helpful of you! I don't think the lesser known awards should be included, including the "conservative" one that's on my page now, but I guess that's up to the community. (What is the general practice on other journalist pages such as Scott Pelley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Pelley?) I'm not equating myself in any sense to Scott, he is far more accomplished and awarded, but I see on his Wikipedia bio various major awards mentioned (though often not footnoted or cited, interestingly, not that I doubt them), and no smaller awards mentioned such as the "conservative" one mentioned on my bio, though I am aware that he has won many of those, too. In terms of "major"-- it's my belief based on my 37 years-- the ones on my bio that are highly regarded in my industry and deserving of citation include: Murrow/RTNDA, Emmy--both nominations and awards, and Investigative Reporters and Editors, and Loeb recognition. The others I think would fairly be considered either lesser known, less competitive or less prestigious-- though I am honored all the same to have my reporting recognized by them. 173.66.57.46 (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think award nominations are normally included. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This is Sharyl. Thank you. It seems that nominations are "normally" included even when they are much lesser known awards. For example, all kinds of nominations are mentioned in many bios:

Louise "Meryl" Streep (born June 22, 1949) is an American actress. Often described as the "best actress of her generation",[1][2][3] Streep is particularly known for her versatility and accent adaptation. Nominated for a record 21 Academy Awards, she has won three.[4] Streep has received 31 Golden Globe nominations, winning eight.[5] She has also won three Primetime Emmy Awards and has been nominated for fifteen British Academy Film Awards, and seventeen Screen Actors Guild Awards, winning two each.

And Rachel Maddow: In 2009, Maddow was nominated for GLAAD's 20th Annual Media Awards for a segment of her MSNBC show, "Rick Warren, Change To Believe In?", in the Outstanding TV Journalism Segment category.[80] In 1994, Maddow received an Honorable Mention in the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Prize in Ethics.[86] In June 2009, Maddow's MSNBC show was the only cable news show nominated for a Television Critics Association award in the Outstanding Achievement in News and Information category.[87]

That being said, it would seem to be fine to list only awards and not the prominent Emmy nominations, for example, but I'd think it should be consistent across the Wikipedia platform if that's what we want to do, which would mean changing a lot of biographies. Even if that's the case, right now not even my "awards" are properly listed since the 2 most recent Emmys were deleted by somebody on Wikipedia and have not been resurrected despite all our discussion. Along those lines, does anyone find it worth investigating or worthy of inquiry as to why an editor deleted these most recent awards? Considering the bias I see in these earlier discussions, it would be reasonable to infer that somebody did not want it to be known that my work investigating Republicans was recognized with two Emmy Awards. That interrupts the false narrative some are wishing to advance that I and my reporting are "conservative." Thank you for your consideration.173.66.57.46 (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There is some disagreement among Wikipedians about how to treat nominations and lesser awards. However there shouldn't be any dispute over Emmy nominations. Emmy nominations are routinely covered by reliable sources and Wikipedia. This is already covered in the "Recognition" discussion above. R2 (bleep) 21:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems the Emmy Awards are covered in the article body but not in the recognition section? If there is to be an award section I think it should be inclusive. I don't know if someone removed some awards that were already covered earlier in the article so they wouldn't be included twice, but I see nothing wrong with covering major awards in the chronology and in an awards section. If there is a recognition / awards section it should include the major awards and per R2 major nominations. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This is Sharyl. Yes to clarify, the major awards are pretty much mostly covered. The ones that are missing are the most recent ones. I provided the links above.

2013      

Emmy Award Presenter.

Investigative Emmy Award for "Investigating Congress." 

Investigative Emmy Award nomination for "Benghazi: Dying for Security." 

Emmy Award nomination for "Green Energy Going Red." 

Daytime Emmy Award as part of CBS Sunday Morning team Outstanding Morning Program for "Washington Lobbying: K-Street Behind Closed Doors.” 

Additional fairly notable awards for your consideration since that time:

2016

Finalist Gerald Loeb business awards for “Taxpayer Beware”

Barbara Olson Award for Excellence and Independence in Journalism

2015

Kenneth Y. Tomlinson Award for Outstanding Reporting

2014

Pillar Human Rights Journalism Award for “Fearless Reporting in the Face of Government Retaliation.”

Thank you for your consideration. 173.66.57.46 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The main chronology sections are kind of a mess and could use a major refactoring. I'm favor moving all awards to the Recognition section. R2 (bleep) 03:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I like that idea. Rklawton (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I've removed this entire section as it is completely unsourced, links to unreliable or partisan awards, includes book sales lists, and incorporates non-individual awards. The Emmys might be salvageable but everything here needs sources and including unsourced content at the request of a BLP subject seems incredibly unwise. Toa Nidhiki05 02:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's a constructive way to move forward on this. At a minimum the Emmys, Emmy nominations, and Murrows should stay, as previously discussed here. By blanking the section you are taking us back to square one. R2 (bleep) 14:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The awards are evidently already mentioned throughout the article. There is no reason to mention them again in some “awards” section, especially when half of it is just outright bad, other than to provide puffery. Toa Nidhiki05 15:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with R2. This action is against consensus and disruptive, as well as disrespectful to the editors who've been working on this. In general, editors who are biased against the subject should not be 'helping' edit the article. The section was under construction and had a tag requesting help with sources. To remove uncontested facts rather than to help build the article with sources when available is not supported by the PAGs.

R2, it does seem a good idea to add the major awards back in, with sources. petrarchan47คุก 20:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The notable awards are already listed in the article in the biography section; listing them twice only serves to be puffery. This section half exists of bad or unnamable awards and was entirely composed by the article's BLP subject, who is railing on Twitter about how unfair the article is to her. This is problematic on multiple levels. Start an RfC on this if you want, per WP:BRD, but as-is this content does not belong.

Also, I don't appreciate you accusing me of disruptive editing. All I did was remove an unsourced, uanessacry, and puffery-ridden section proposed by the BLP subject. You are accusing me of vandalism, essentially, and that's unacceptable. I suggest you ether remove/strike your comment or report me to the appropriate noticeboard if you actually think I'm disrupting anything. Toa Nidhiki05 20:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, if you look back over the development of this article the last few days, you'll see this has nothing to do with puffery. However, I agree with you that having the same awards mentioned twice is undue. There are two editors here (myself and Rklawton) who agreed prior to your arrival that the best approach is to move the awards to a dedicated awards section. This is because Attkisson has won an awful lot of notable awards, and putting them all in the Career section would make it a mess. I think it would read better in a list or bulleted format. In light of this, I wouldn't go so far as to say that your removal of the Recognition was disruptive per se, but it was a step back, not a step forward. Feel free to cull the awards list (as I suggested in my edit summary when I added it) but outright blanking is against consensus. R2 (bleep) 02:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Consensus of two people is not consensus, but more importantly it's not a vote. I see very little value in adding a poorly-formatted, uncited section, and I don't think there is any policy out there that can defend that. I'm more than open to creating such a section if such mentions in the body are culled and moved to such a section, however, since there is no need to repeat information - either we have it in one place or spread out in the bio. I'd actually side with having them in a single awards section and trimming the mentions from the body.

Basically, let's go over each award on a case-by-case basis and ensure there are citations and ensure the descriptions aren't biased (primarily, using the name of the story she is being awarded for rather than a description like "Bush Administration's Bait-and-Switch on TARP"). Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Good, I agree with pretty much everything you've said content-wise. Wo since we all agree on how these awards should be handled, I suggest you start working toward that instead of against it. So far I what I see looks like obstruction. R2 (bleep) 02:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

You are the one arguing broadly for inclusion, so it would be make more sense for you to gather citations first that we can use here; I'm not going to favor any proposal that includes this content without reliable sources. But broadly speaking it might make more sense to decide which awards are notable and which are not, or which should not necessarily be included in a section for objective journalism awards. Toa Nidhiki05 02:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahrtoodeetoo, I see you re-added this again, without any citations or removal of duplicated content earlier in the article. What I’ve said earlier still applies: since you want to add this content, find sources for it and then we can discuss which awards to include. But as of right now this content just is not remotely close to worth being included. Toa Nidhiki05 16:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we must discuss each award on this talk page before it's included? I hope not. Would you mind identifying your specific objection(s) to this material, rather than talking in generalities? R2 (bleep) 16:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m saying literally none of this is cited in the sections and all of it was compiled by a BLP subject who wants their article to be an ad about how awesome they are.

The section is not encyclopedic, is worded poorly, isn’t formatted, and features quite a few awards or recognition that don’t seem notable or worth including in a section for actual journalism awards. Once you find some sources to back up the BLP’s claims here, we can decide which of these are notable and remove the mentions in the bio (to avoid duplicate content). As of right now, I completely object to this section’s inclusion until you do the bare minimum work of finding citations. You are the one who wants this included, so the burden is on you to find them. Toa Nidhiki05 16:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I have found reliable sources indicating that Attkisson has won multiple Emmys, Emmy nominations, and Murrow awards. Those sources are already mentioned on this talk page; perhaps you missed them? The more painstaking work is finding citations verifying each individual item. Do you believe that Attkisson did not win these awards? Perhaps you'd like to help in this effort? R2 (bleep) 17:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The awards you specifically mentioned are already mentioned throughout the article. I am referring to the rest of the section, which is entirely unsourced. It does not matter whether I think she won the awards or not - if there are no citations, it should not be added. Per WP:BURDEN:

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

Since you want the material added, the burden lies on you to find citations. Until there are citations, it should not be included. I have proposed going through each award and determining its notability in order to not waste your time in finding citations for unnotable or non-journalistic awards, but if you’d rather find the citations first and then discuss afterwords that is fine as well. Toa Nidhiki05 17:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand the rulz. That doesn't answer my question however. I'm asking you for your help; care to join me? R2 (bleep) 17:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I have other projects I am working on, but again I question the need for this section at all so I don’t really have a lot of interest in doing so. If you really want this information included, find reliable secondary sources. The sources you just added were self-published by Attkisson; that’s a primary source, which is of questionable validity for claims like awards. Toa Nidhiki05 17:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop re-adding this content while discussion is ongoing. You may want to start an RFC if you are this insistent on adding her awards with entirely self-published sources. Toa Nidhiki05 17:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion request

I have requested a third opinion be offered for this dispute. Toa Nidhiki05 17:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

A 3O request is a waste of time. It will be summarily declined because other editors have already weighed in on this issue. Rklawton, FloridaArmy, and 173.66.57.46 (Sharyl Attkisson herself) have all weighed in and agree that a list of awards should be included in the article. R2 (bleep) 18:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

None of them have actively responded to this dispute between the two of us. The only response from another editor was support for inclusion but a request to include sources - which you have not done. This clearly meets the flexibility guidelines there. Toa Nidhiki05 18:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with making a request - especially since this is a wp:blp and the subject has taken an interest. This is something we want to get right. Rklawton (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

With respect to everyone here, I removed the 3O request: there are simply too many people involved in this dispute, to include the subject of the article (I count at least 4). In addition, with the CoI noticeboard in place, and a RfC further down this talk page, a third opinion does not seem the ideal path forward at this time. I would suggest another dispute venue, along with a moratorium on any further edits to the Awards/Accolades section; please consider WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options. Perhaps let the RfC play itself out. Trumblej1986 (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

This is Sharyl. It would be amusing if not so sad to read some of the libelous and mistaken claims and opinions about me here-- being written by the supposedly neutral editors editing my page. Obviously they are far from neutral and should not be editing here. Toa in particular create a false argument to obstruct the simple awards question. I never suggested "controlling my page," I asked why my most recent Emmys are not included (I know the reason) and an editor asked me for the list, which I provided. All the awards had been properly sourced to original sourcing, not "self sourcing" as Toa pretends to think, so that's not an issue. The question was: why not the most recent Emmys (that destroy the false narrative some are pursuing of me as a conservative). The false conclusions and speculations that I am anti-vaccine are also ridiculous and right on the propaganda train with Media Matters, etc, but the agenda editors are upset at not being taken seriously? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.233.57 (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest you retract your claims of libel; you have already been blocked twice here for legal threats. Your emmy awards are in fact listed in the article already and have been for quite a while now. Toa Nidhiki05 10:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you retract your libelous statements and then, factually, there will be no libel claimed. I'm simply stating a fact. It matters not to me if Wikipedia "blocks" me in retaliation since the system doesn't work anyway. It simply goes further to prove the point. The most recent Emmys are still not listed. You continue to pretend not to understand while continuing to obstruct. With respect, you've made your personal opinions about me-- though you've never met me-- quite clear and have made many false statements... and should not be editing my page due to your obvious bias and animosity. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.233.57 (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve not said anything libelous, so there is nothing to retract. Toa Nidhiki05 15:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

BLP issues

Subjects of BLPs don't have a right to edit or control the edits of their article. We only provide information that can be sourced and presents a neutral article regarding an anti-science, pseudoscience-pushing right-wing "journalist." If we're going to do some fanboi crap here by listing her pathetic list of awards, then that should include adding all of her false anti-vaccine claims over the past few years. That will be fun. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I hate doing this, but if you're going to take that approach then I have to remind you that BLP applies to talk page articles too. Calling Attkisson's list of Emmys and Murrow awards "pathetic" and "fanboi crap" is going to land you on the admin boards. R2 (bleep) 18:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

SkepticalRaptor your ad hominem attacks on the subject would lead anyone to the conclusion that you can't in fact present a "neutral article." CleoDulane (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This is an overt WP:BLP violation and, at the very least, this editor should no longer have access to the subject's article or talk page. It's been reported here. petrarchan47คุก 16:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked SkepticalRaptor for 24 hours for this BLP violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Sharyl Attkisson

I have started a thread about this page on the conflict of interest noticeboard due to disclosed and undisclosed editing on this page, as well as off-site mentions by Sharyl Attkisson. Toa Nidhiki05 01:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Statements on Twitter relating to vaccines - may or may not be worth noting

• 1-ICYMI: #Measles Many reports are either ignorant or intentionally misleading. Govt's own pro-vaccine world-renowned medical expert says he told govt vaccines can cause autism, after all, in exceptional cases--but says govt covered it up.
• For example, the vaccine industry's Dr. Offit could theoretically edit false info about me onto my Wikipedia page, anonymously under a pseudonym, even after being exposed as having provided false info about me. This is how Wikipedia works.
• This is one of the open-minded, fair Wikipedia editors who has been posting false info on my Wikipedia bio for years. :) These people have control on a supposed fact-based encyclopedic resource. (Hint: Pharmaceutical industry interest)
• (Retweet) Just read that 80% of families who win their case in vaccine court had to sign a gag order never to discuss case!!! The other 20% wait decades for $. WHY does the govt. force families 2B silent ?????
• 6-Here is CDC head of vaccine safety *also* acknowledging that vaccines may trigger autism in susceptible children. Many experts and studies suggest the same.

I'm not sure if Twitter is ever notable, but this establishes a clear pattern that yes, she does believe vaccines cause autism, and no, she is not being misrepresented by sources that says she does. It also establishes her lack of good faith here, as she has claimed her Wiki page was written by the pharmaceutical industry. Toa Nidhiki05 01:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

We should not be citing Twitter for this sort of thing. Doing so would be original research. R2 (bleep) 02:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

There are other sources, so we should be able to document that she's an antivaxxer. She pretty much follows the Fox News/Trump party line on many of their anti-science issues. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The article already documents her views on vaccines based on independent sources. Citing a bunch of her tweets to pile onto that would violate a host of core policies. R2 (bleep) 16:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: Twitter: it's handy to double check that secondary sources are generally on target with the subject's own words. The subject's own words represent a wp:primary, and we should not use them as the basis for this article. However, a primary source may be used as an illustration (indeed, all photographs are primary sources). I can explain this in more detail if requested. By not using Twitter to source this article, we also avoid problems with wp:synth and potentially wp:cherry. All said, I would not hesitate to link relevant Tweets here in our talk page discussions if one or more help explain a suggested edit. Rklawton (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Attkisson's entire stance on vaccine reporting should be included in her bio

...in an interview with The Daily Beast, Attkisson states that she believes the U.S. Government has recognized a link, though they specify it isn't causal.

I have re-entered Sharyl's comment which was strangely missing from the article, even though the Daily Beast interview was already being used as a source, and the vaccine section was well flushed out. It was called "irresponsible" to include her remarks when my first entry was removed by Snooganssnoogans in this edit.

Here is the entire section from the source material:

Attkisson says she is very much in favor of vaccinating kids, but that peer-reviewed studies have suggested the possibility of a “small subset of children” who suffer from difficult-to-detect immune deficiencies that might make their brains vulnerable to certain vaccines, much like some children are allergic to polio vaccines.

But she says Big Pharma has actively discouraged scientific research into possible linkages, and that pharmaceutical advertisers similarly persuaded CBS and other broadcasters not to run stories questioning the risk of vaccines for certain children. Never mind that a CBS News veteran, who asked not to be named, says Attkisson’s vaccine-autism reports were eventually killed not because of advertiser pressure, but because they weren’t adequately supported by scientific evidence.

“The fact is, the government has acknowledged there’s a link,” Attkisson says, citing the recent admission by a senior Central for Disease Control epidemiologist that he and his colleagues improperly omitted from a 2004 study the data that tended to support such a link. “They simply say it’s not a causal link.”

The article contains a summary of the first two paragraphs but before my addition, ignored the third. What do other editors think about this? I'm not sure why this is proving to be controversial. petrarchan47คุก 21:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Now the attributed quotation was removed it because "it isn't true". I'm not sure Toa_Nidhiki05 is familiar with WP PAGs. petrarchan47คุก 22:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The “however” falsely makes a contrast between the facts and what she believes, like she has some sort of secret evidence. Her stance on vaccines is already apparent, as is her belief in government conspiracies (mentioned in the January 2019 TV shows). The exact nature of her belief that vaccines cause autism is irrelevant, because it’s flatly false. She believes a casual link exists, and that’s what we note - her misattribution/conspiracy theory about the government isn’t needed. The fact that this has been removed twice now by different editors should give you pause in re-adding it again without consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 23:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I support exclusion as well. It's confusing, not obviously relevant, and arguably misleads readers into thinking that fringe views are accurate. R2 (bleep) 23:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, and I'm sorry that it's confusing to you. But it wasn't considered problematic to the Daily Beast which we've already quoted extensively here. NPOV requires we refrain from cherry picking. petrarchan47คุก 21:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of Attkisson's website to list her awards

Is Attkisson's website a reliable source for awards such as Emmys, Emmy nominations, and Murrow awards? The answer is yes. This is governed by WP:ABOUTSELF. A list of Attkisson's awards is not unduly self-serving for noteworthy awards. We know that at least the Emmys, Emmy nominations, and Murrow awards are noteworthy because, aside from the fact that these are some of the most prestigious awards in broadcast journalism, they have been mentioned by various reliable sources already listed on this talk page. [12] [13] The utility of using Attkisson's website is that it helpfully lists out all of her awards (and nominations) in chronological order. I plan to include independent sources as I find them, but that shouldn't hold up inclusion of this verifiable and noteworthy content. R2 (bleep) 17:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

As explained above - these awards are already mentioned in the article’s body - there is no need for a duplication “Recognition” section unless you are removing those awards from the bio section. Using Attkisson’s website is not ideal here; this list was created specifically for inclusion in her Wikipedia article, which she has said is biased and has attempted to modify for years. There is reason to doubt the accuracy of these, as the author has faced controversy related to her reporting and claims. If these other awards are truly notable, it should be no issue at all to find reliable, secondary or tertiary sources unconnected with the author. Once these sources are gathered - or before they are gathered, to save time for later - it should be no issue at all to identify which ones are notable and which ones are not. This offer has been extended and ignored numerous times.

Moreover, this a clear example of somewhere that ABOUTSELF does not apply. Sourcing her birth location? Entirely appropriate. Sourcing a list of a wards? This fails 1, 2, 3, and arguably 4. Toa Nidhiki05 18:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: awards

Attkisson's self-published bio lists awards she has received, such as Emmys, Emmy nominations, and RTDNA Murrow awards.

1. Should Attikisson's noteworthy awards (and nominations) be moved to a dedicated "Recognition" section?
2. Is Attkisson's personal website a reliable WP:ABOUTSELF source for this content?

R2 (bleep) 18:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes to both. Attkisson's Emmys, Emmy nominations, and Murrows are all noteworthy, as evidenced by reliable independent sources such as Politico ([14], [15]). Even this shorter list of awards/nominations is too long to be integrated comfortably into a prose section about her career. As for the reliability of her website, WP:ABOUTSELF is clear that a subject's published, uncontroversial statements about themselves are acceptable sources. This material is not unduly self-serving. Whatever one thinks of her views, Attkisson is an established, professional journalist. I see no reason to believe that she'd be dishonest about the awards she's received. R2 (bleep) 18:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes to 1, No to 2 The notable awards in her bio should be removed from her body and moved to a new awards or recognition section. However, Attkisson is clearly not a reliable source for her own awards; to suggest citing a fake Wikipedia article that criticizes this one for being “biased” is frankly silly. If other awards are to be included out of the list she provided, they should be reliably sourced before inclusion, and the burden is on the person who wants to add them to find them. Using her website violates lines 1-4 of WP:ABOUTSELF. Toa Nidhiki05 18:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Fake Wikipedia article? R2 (bleep) 18:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, assumed you cited to her “Wikipedia Correction Project” article. My mistake. She must have copied it from her website’s bio and then pasted it here and to the WCP article. Toa Nidhiki05 18:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral on 1, No to 2. I ~agree with Toa Nidhiki05 that it would fail at least 1-3 WP:ABOUTSELF criteria. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• YES to First, NO to Second: Awards, honors, and such are routinely placed in separate sections of a bio article, so I agree with the separation/movement. As for the second, a self-published/written web page is not a reliable source for awards, because it fails the first test under the WP:ABOUTSELF criteria: Self-published [...] sources may be used as sources of information about themselves... so long as that the material is [not] unduly self-serving. (emphasis added). The inclusion of these awards such as these are unquestionably self-serving, if they are only sourced by the subject of the article.

-Trumblej1986 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes to both - per our PAGs. No. 1 can be cited to RS. No. 2 is very clear in WP:ABOUTSELF. She would probably also qualify as an expert per WP:SELFPUBLISH. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes to 1, No to 2. Notable awards should be listed, but, as we have required with other biographies, independent RS must be used. SELFPUB should not be used for puffing up a resume ("unduly self-serving" is the wording). Let other sources do that ("Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources."). -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  Please re-read the guideline for Self-published. We can use info she has published for dates, etc. It has nothing to do with puffery. Not quite sure where things got off track, but please back track. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:ABOUTSELF: "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;" I would say that "I have won these Emmys and other awards" are both self-serving and exceptional, most people don't win Emmys. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Unduly is defined as unwarranted or excessive and when there is no way to corroborate the claim, such as her writing on her page that she is the best journalist in the world - now that would be unduly. Do not conflate verifiable accomplishments with undue promotion. As for exceptional, see WP:REDFLAG. Listing highly publicized Emmy Awards that are already documented/published recognition is not an exceptional claim - it is a statement of fact that can be corroborated. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The Emmy Awards are already cited in the article biography to secondary and tertiary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 13:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, then the SPS is moot for those. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If they are verifiable and highly publicized, why bother with an SPS? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

R2 - maybe strike #2 since the awards are already cited to RS? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This would not resolve the issue as R2 wants the full list of awards that Attkisson has created to be included, and all of them to be cited to her website. This includes a slew of things that either aren’t awards (bestseller lists or nominations), “group awards”, and awards given by partisan or political organizations, not actual journalism awards. The actually notable awards are all cited and included in the body right now - this discussion is over adding more awards, compiled by the BLP subject and sourced to the BLJ subject. Toa Nidhiki05 15:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• YES to First, NO to Second: And that is "noteworthy awards" as in WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION. If there are awards without secondary coverage, it can be reasonable to exclude them. Presumably they'll be included on her personal webpages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Actually, moving the mentions of Emmy awards from the text to a separate section does not sound like a good idea either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes and Yes. Nobs01 (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes to 1, No to 2 A summary in a separate section of major awards a person has been nominated for or received is something that many bios have. It makes the information easy to find and is more succinctly presented. Major awards include things like Emmys and Murrows, not things like presenting at the Emmys. The awards should also include the actual title of the recognized work. Since all of these major awards can be sourced, it makes sense to use those independent sources rather than Attkisson's own site. Independent sources also be used to develop inclusion criteria for such a list; if independent secondary reliable sources exist for an awards (excluding the Emmys and Murrows,which are obviously major), then they can be included in the list. Ca2james (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Toa Nidhiki05, does this RfC capture the scope of our disagreement, or is there something else I should add? R2 (bleep) 19:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

R2 - it appears there's some confusion over why we would use the self-published sources. For some reason, puffery has eased its way into the discussion. Did you have a particular bit of info you wanted to cite to her page? If so, please share it with the rest of us. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

He wants to cite all of her awards to her website. I want all of the notable awards (which is not all of the awards she mentions) to be cited to reliable secondary or tertiary sources - sources like the awards websites, newspaper coverage, etc. Nobody here has any issue with her as a citation for her birthdate or other non-puffery details, but using a list of awards provided by a BLP subject who has tried to modify this article for years into a puff piece is not good imo, and even ignoring that it still violates WP:ABOUTSELF 1-4. Toa Nidhiki05 23:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that not all awards should be listed - only the most notable per RS &/or WP:V ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have withdrawn the RfC because my position has been repeatedly misrepresented and I don't feel like tracking down participants to explain myself. R2 (bleep) 17:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Leadimage

Sharyl Attkisson at the Redneck Country Club 07

I think a cropped version of this image would be a slight improvement, it shows more face. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Only if you also lighten it, otherwise the eyes seem shadowed. Disclaimer: I uploaded most of these images to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sharyl_Attkisson - there are even more at https://www.flickr.com/photos/theredneckcc/albums/72157649557816436 and I chose the ones I thought were best. --GRuban (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Attkisson making false claims about the editing process

On Twitter, she asserts, "if you, as a subject, wish to provide documents like a birth certificate to debunk a mistaken fact on Wikipedia; it's not allowed."[16] Didn't we explicitly tell her that simply making a tweet with a verified account or a post on her own website would satisfy as a source for her birth date for Wikipedia editing purposes? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It has been explained to her multiple times, yes. I believe editors here told her that merely saying where she was born on Twitter or on her website would be sufficient, but that her saying it on the talk page would not be a reliable source. This verges on a competence is required situation because it was explained to her numerous times what she had to do and she does not seem to understand it.

At this point I think it is abundantly clear that she is never going to edit here with good faith. This is buoyed by her repeated attacks on Twitter as well as her repeated attempts over the last 7 years to modify this page into an ad. Yes, a lot of these attacks are off-wiki, but I don’t think you can have a productive exchange with someone like that. Toa Nidhiki05 12:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The Sharyl Attkisson Wikipedia Biography Page BY SHARYL ATTKISSON would be a good place for a birthdate (and perhaps a maiden-name, if there is one?). But we got a birthyear from the LOC, that is good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic, but what are the "Notes" in the infobox for? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Toa, please stop the PAs and allegations of noncompliance with CIR and AGF. Cullen328 has already had to intervene here once over a BLP vio. Kindness and understanding goes a long way, as does working in a collegial environment. She actually did attempt to make corrections June 6, 2019. The combativeness and inappropriate manner in which some editors have approached these issues as evidenced above, have not been not helpful to the project's image or in getting the article right. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

1) Nothing I said is a personal attack. She has tried, for years, to modify this page, either to add positive content or remove negative content (mainly the vaccine section, which she has attributed to Big Pharma) - and she has rarely been upfront immediately about it. That’s a fact. If you actually have an issue, report it to a noticeboard instead of making veiled threats.

2) CIR absolutely applies here. If she can’t understand how sourcing works, that’s a pretty major barrier to editing productively.

3) Her off-wiki activity and attacks on other editors is absolutely worth noting here. She’s displayed a consistent attitude that is hostile to this project and editors that disagree with her.

4) That page is a joke. It’s an ad that’s scrubbed of any content that shows her unfavorably. She’s produced a similar one for Rassmussen Reports, another organization upset that their article is not an ad. Toa Nidhiki05 14:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Lest anyone think what I’ve said is too harsh, here’s some content from her Twitter account:

1. Attkisson accused another editor of being paid off by the “vaccine industry”
2. Accused another editor of being in “Pharmaceutical industry interest”
3. Attkisson accused the page of being run by “Media Matters/Big Pharma”

Here’s some of what she’s done here in the past:

1. Removed negative responses to her vaccine coverage, without disclosing first
2. Accused sources of libel, accused TheRedPenOfDoom of being “Dr. Offit”, called them a “troubled youth”, and demanded an editor delete their account
3. Edited the article to say it was “VANDALIZED BY PRO-PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIAL INTERESTS”. She made this edit three times in one day.

This has been done with numerous accounts and IPs - by my count, at least four, maybe more, almost all of which directly edited the page to make changes without immediately attributing herself as the contributor. So yeah, forgive me if I find substantial issues with her attitude and editing in relation to this page. Combine all of that stuff with her ongoing Twitter attacks that I didn’t list, her repeated lack of understanding of how sourcing works, and her false claims about Wiki and it’s pretty apparent she is not here to build an encyclopedia. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Another one: she just wrote a blog came accusing the editors of this page of being “Pharma Industry Agenda Editors” and “vaccine industry agenda editors”, and promoted it on Twitter with the tweet Wikipedia's agenda editors are at it again... (Fortunately, you're smarter than they are.)

Her blog accuses Wikipedia editors of inserting “false and defamatory information“ and has said that others on Wikipedia are “slandered or censored”. This is legal threat, which she has previously been blocked for. Toa Nidhiki05 17:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

While your analysis seems accurate to me, please stop droning on about off-wiki behavior. I agree with Atsme that it's unnecessary and provocative. It could be construed as harassment. Have you ever heard that old expression, "two wrongs don't make a right"? R2 (bleep) 23:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed for reasons cited. Plus I'd rather focus on improving this article. Rklawton (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me the RFC is leading to a consensus of requiring citations for each award, so I would suggest if anyone wants that stuff here they go ahead and do that. Or we can discuss the validity of each award and then find sources. Toa Nidhiki05 17:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

One of the most consequential frauds

There is some irony that Ms. Attkisson has decided to stop giving feedback here, and has resorted to taking rather nasty potshots at us from the safety of her blog. We're the pharma industry cabal! If she had just alerted us to the fact that she herself didn't utter the words "one of the most consequential frauds," then we could have fixed it sooner without her having to write a whole blog post about it. R2 (bleep) 22:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Not just the pharma industry, but the vaccine industry too! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

I do appreciate her implication that Wikipedia editors are basement-dwelling weirdos, though - really nice. She and her followers are currently harassing User:Gamaliel on Twitter, but that's entirely different and normal behavior as opposed to working to make a nice encyclopedia. Toa Nidhiki05 22:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah well Gamaliel called her a dolt got into a bit of a scrap with her and one of her followers. Personally I prefer to avoid the drama. R2 (bleep) 22:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You can't claim you want to "avoid the drama" immediately after stirring the pot and reporting to all in the Talk Page about all the things she did "from the safety of her blog". Leadership is by Example. That means you.Tym Whittier (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

On the bright side, knowing from our first hand experience that Attkisson is the sort of person who makes public accusations without evidence does much to help us better understand what our reliable sources are trying to communicate about her. Silver lining and all that. Rklawton (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, she is saying mean things about us on Twitter. But you have to admit that this article means more to her than to any one of us. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people "The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by: ... Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are described in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same." Can we try to do that here? Also, of course: don't wake the sheeple. --GRuban (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

We have and are trying. When she has actually made a suggestion and followed policy (ie. Saying her birthdate on Twitter instead of on here), we have edited. But one of her big complaints is the vaccine section, which she wants removed. That’s never going to happen so she will never be happy. So yes, we want to follow policy and behave respectfully - but it’s frankly a cowardly move to attack on another platform and I don’t think that exempts her from AGF, and I don’t think we can ignore it in our involvement with her. Ultimately our job is to make this the best page it can be, and if Sharyl wants to be a part of that that’s fine, but it has to be in accordance with policy and on our terms. Toa Nidhiki05 18:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe that's what the editors here are doing. If only she and her twitter followers would do the same. Gamaliel (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Currently, we've been saying that "... the program called it 'one of the most consequential frauds, arguably in human history.'" The problem is that the program didn't say this, but Robert F. Kennedy, Jr said this. I'm not sure we can ascribe the view of someone interviewed on the program to Attkisson or the program itself. - Bilby (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m okay with changing the attribution, with an accompanying note that RFK Jr. is a prominent anti-vaxx activist. Toa Nidhiki05 13:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Snopes has an amazing track record for accuracy and attributed the quote to the program, not to RFK Jr. I'd like to watch that portion of the program to understand why Snopes did that. If the program was edited in such a way that it effectively endorsed RFK Jr.'s view, then I think we should stick with what the (otherwise) reliable independent source said. R2 (bleep) 15:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Around 3:20. The comment comes from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (misleadingly labeled a “vaccine safety advocate”) but it clearly fits the show’s editorial slant, which is unambiguously that vaccines cause autism and the government covered it up. It might be worth clarifying that RFK Jr. said it (with an appropriate disclaimer that Kennedy is a prominent anti-vaccine advocate) bud I don’t think the current reading is really misleading. Toa Nidhiki05 16:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you can even describe it as an editorial slant. There wasn't even an effort to explain the consensus view or to challenge any of the allegations. R2 (bleep) 16:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have watched the program and the statement at issue (at 3:25). My impression is that it was clear advocacy journalism at best, and Snopes reasonably assessed that Attkisson hid behind RFK Jr.'s statements. She used him to convey not only conclusions but also straight-up facts. For instance, at 4:16, RFK Jr. told a story about how Zimmerman's statements "panicked two DOJ attorneys," who immediately turned around and fired him. There was no scrutiny or rebuttal of any of RFK Jr. comments (or anyone else's, for that matter). He was presented simply as a "vaccine safety advocate" and there was no mention of the fact that Kennedy was well known for distorting vaccine science and promoting discredited conspiracy theories. R2 (bleep) 16:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we’re in agreement here, then - no change needs to be made. Toa Nidhiki05 17:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

We're reading it as showing the slant. The point is simply that we can;t ascribe to any "program" a view expressed by someone interviewed on the program. The view is that of the speaker. Clearly the program is anti-vaccine, but this particular statement belongs only to the person who spoke it. Given that we have already made clear the errors Attkisson made in the program, I don;t think we need to also add errors other people made. - Bilby (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not an error. It's simply a noteworthy view. What Toa and I are saying is that the program has effectively adopted Kennedy's view as its own. That isn't unusual in a certain style of documentary. R2 (bleep) 23:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but ultimately we make it clear what the issues with the program are. We're just currently ascribing to the program something said by an interviewee on the program. I'll fix that aspect, but it is unusual to say "the program said" unless that it is something specifically stated in the program's voice rather than that of someone interviewed. - Bilby (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

We should attribute it to RFK Jr. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Attributing it to the speaker over the program is a decent step. The question then is simply why it shouldn't be on the speaker's article, rather than on Attkisson's article. - Bilby (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, why did you have a problem with this edit? It was originally suggested by Nidhiki05 and Snooganssnoogans, and I thought that simply correctly attributing the source of the quote would be a solution. What was the concern? - Bilby (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Because it lacks consensus. If I'm not mistaken, Toa Nidhiki05 changed their position and opposes this change. R2 (bleep) 17:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

So you say. However, what I'm asking is why you oppose the change. From my perspective it simply makes the text accurate, and avoids needing to rely on how we interpret the program. - Bilby (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm OK with how the edit specifies that RFK JR made the statement on the program. It's literally true, and it illustrates the program's tenor. Rklawton (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Snopes

Attkisson has shown what many already know - Snopes is not always a reliable source (see Forbes piece).

WP:BLPRS contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion...When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

Snopes' claims have not been mirrored outside of Skeptics' blogs; no neutral RS have criticized her January 2019 reporting.

WP:BLPPUBLIC If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

My attempt to remedy this was removed. An entire paragraph sourced only to Snopes remains on the page, in WP's voice, making false claims against the BLP subject, which is a severe violation of policy. Sharyl's denial of the claims made by Snopes can be seen here. If you find her rebuttal in error, please comment below. Until the required multiple RELIABLE sources are produced, I am removing the piece immediately per PAGs.

WP:BLPCOI Also please remember an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.

I am extremely uncomfortable with editors bringing Twitter to the encyclopedia. Discussing social media scuffles on a BLP talk page and using a discredited Snopes article as fact? In my understanding, BLP's require a much higher standard of behaviour and I'm not seeing it here. petrarchan47คุก 21:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Snopes is a RS per the RS noticeboard.[17] So (1) If you want to change that RS status, go to the RS noticeboard. (2) If you want to dispute the contents of a specific Snopes article, explain here how its contents are inaccurate, preferably by pointing to clear-cut and substantial errors or to other RS that dispute the article. You have done neither. The text should be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing has been discredited, and Attkisson is not remotely a reliable source on the issue of vaccines or criticism against herself. I’ve re-inserted this clearly reliable and notable content per policy.

Additionally, Attkisson’s off-wiki comments and arguably harassment are indeed worth noting here. Just because it happened off wiki does not mean it is not relevant, and it ties into her her attempts over the years to modify this article. There is nothing wrong with mentioning it and discussing it within reason. Toa Nidhiki05 22:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, the claim this faced no criticism is patently false. An example. This received no positive coverage, as far as I can tell, outside of anti-vax blogs. Toa Nidhiki05 22:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

This talk page mentioned in Attkisson blog

Her new blog post "The Weaponization of Wikipedia' specifically links to and mentions this talk page as "the place where the agenda editors band together and play games to beat back attempts to change their will". She has (incorrectly) claimed that we have reached a consensus not to include any of her awards; there is currently an ongoing RfC on this page on the exact nature of sourcing for awards.

As one of the editors involved in discussion here, and one of the ones mentioned by Attkisson specifically, I would encourage Sharyl to comment here, on the talk page, rather than take potshots at editors off-wiki. Discussion is, in fact, ongoing here, nothing has been decided, and to claim so is misleading and a disservice to everyone. Toa Nidhiki05 22:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you link to archived versions of her website. She could (not saying she would) try to doxx you and others who go to her article from Wikipedia, in particular given her unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that Wikipedia editors are working on behalf of Big Pharma. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that's concerning prospect. She's specifically mentioned me on Twitter and specifically accused me of libel here. Wouldn't even have to be her, could be a Twitter follower or something. Thanks for the idea. Toa Nidhiki05 17:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Sharyl Attkisson vaccine reporting

Should the coverage of Sharyl Attkisson's vaccine reporting include the following 2 changes, mainly per WP:NPOV? petrarchan47คุก 00:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

1. Section title change from Anti-vaccine reporting to Vaccine reporting

2. Addition of Attkisson's comment to Vaccine reporting section (something akin to):

In a 2014 interview with The Daily Beast, Attkisson said "the government has acknowledged there’s a link, they simply say it’s not a causal link".

The Daily Beast

2. a) Suggested expansion to add clarity and verification per WP:V with sources and the following additional text (in bold) 18:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

In a 2014 interview with The Daily Beast, Attkisson said "the government has acknowledged there’s a link, they simply say it’s not a causal link". Attkisson was referring to a statement from CDC senior epidemiologist William Thompson that "he and his CDC colleagues omitted data that linked MMR vaccine to autism in a 2004 study".1, 2

The Daily Beast

Additional source #1:

• original report referred to by Daily Beast

Additional source #2:

• Thompson statement referred to by Attkisson

Excerpt: "I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism."

For context, here is a larger excerpt from the source material, and Wikipedia's Sharyl Attkisson Vaccine reporting section with suggested addition in bold:

Extended content

Section on Attkisson's vaccine reporting from The Daily Beast: Attkisson says she is very much in favor of vaccinating kids, but that peer-reviewed studies have suggested the possibility of a "small subset of children" who suffer from difficult-to-detect immune deficiencies that might make their brains vulnerable to certain vaccines, much like some children are allergic to polio vaccines. But she says Big Pharma has actively discouraged scientific research into possible linkages, and that pharmaceutical advertisers similarly persuaded CBS and other broadcasters not to run stories questioning the risk of vaccines for certain children. Never mind that a CBS News veteran, who asked not to be named, says Attkisson’s vaccine-autism reports were eventually killed not because of advertiser pressure, but because they weren’t adequately supported by scientific evidence. "The fact is, the government has acknowledged there’s a link," Attkisson says, citing the recent admission by a senior Central for Disease Control epidemiologist that he and his colleagues improperly omitted from a 2004 study the data that tended to support such a link. "They simply say it’s not a causal link." Suggested Vaccine reporting section at Sharyl Attkisson addition in bold material sourced to Daily Beast italicized: In her reporting, Attkisson has published stories linking vaccines with autism; this contradicts the scientific community who reject such a link. In a 2014 interview with The Daily Beast, Attkisson said "the government has acknowledged there’s a link, they simply say it’s not a causal link". Attkisson was referring to a statement from CDC senior epidemiologist William Thompson claiming that "he and his CDC colleagues omitted data that linked MMR vaccine to autism in a 2004 study" Seth Mnookin, Professor of Science Writing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, described Attkisson as "one of the least responsible mainstream journalists covering vaccines and autism. Again and again, she’s parroted anti-vaccine rhetoric long past the point that it’s been decisively disproved." Anna Kata, an analyst at McMaster University, has accused Attkisson of using problematic rhetorical tactics to "imply that because there is no conclusive answer to certain problems, vaccines remain a plausible culprit."[verification needed] Attkisson has said that she favors vaccinating children but that research suggests that "small subset of children" have immune deficiencies that might make their brains vulnerable to vaccines. She has said that pharmaceutical companies have discouraged research into a possible vaccine-autism link, and that they pressured CBS News not to run stories about it.

Survey

• Yes to changes as filer. WP:BLPSTYLE -- "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement."

1. Change section title to Vaccine reporting per WP:POVNAMING and WP:BLPBALANCE. Also, there exists no support in the article or in WP:RS for the claim Attkisson's reporting is "anti-vaccine"; this is a judgement made by editors. Note that Attkisson states she is pro-vaccine in the second paragraph.

2. Add UPDATED VERSION 2.a to include archived sources and Thomspson quotation which is the basis for her statement/reporting -- Attkisson quotation gives insight into her own motives for her vaccine reporting per WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NPOV, WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE. Presently, space given to her critics far outweighs any material that is neutral or cited to the journalist in question. Two of the three paragraphs in the excerpted Daily Beast interview were used for Attkisson's bio; exclusion of the third, containing her comment, is cherry-picking and violates WP:NPOV.

Examples of her reporting are not included in the BLP, but from what I can ascertain, there is nothing shoddy or imbalanced about it. Her reporting hasn't been retracted, nor have experts she has interviewed made any claims about being misrepresented.

• 2008 CBS report Vaccine Case: An Exception Or A Precedent?

• 2010 CBS report Family to Receive $1.5M+ in First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award

• Vaccine Debate

• Addendum to Vaccine Debate: [Sworn affidavit full sworn Affidavit and curriculum vitae for Dr. Andrew Zimmerman] the world-renowned pro-vaccine pediatric neurologist specializing in autism petrarchan47คุก 00:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• No to all of this - Attkisson has been widely criticized for her anti-vaccine reporting; it is the subject of the section, hence the title. There is arguably even more content that could be included here about her reporting - it's that widespread. That Attkisson considers herself pro-vaccine is irrelevant; reliable sources disagree. Additionally, adding Attkisson's conspiracy theory comment about the government admitting a link was rejected in an earlier discussion, as Wikipedia is not required to publish incorrect, confusing, and misleading things. These were rightly rejected and should not be included per WP:FRINGE. Toa Nidhiki05 00:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• Not as presented Yes with the added clarification and the sources Petrar included above as well as this statement by a senior scientist with the CDC.^{20:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)} Support - there are several instances in this article where the material needs revision in order to adhere strictly to BLP and NPOV. To begin, the lead is misleading. The lead states: Attkisson has published stories suggesting a possible link between vaccines and autism, a theory rejected by the scientific community. Attkisson is not the only journalist who has reported on vaccine studies, obviously written/conducted by researchers/scientists/doctors. Such a statement is noncompliant with NPOV and is highly misleading - not that the scientific community has not rejected the theory - they have. What I'm referring to is the fact that she and other journalists have published stories about a possible link, and studies are still ongoing - isn't that the very nature of science? Are we to assume that any journalist who publishes an article about a controversial subject is anti-something? Following are articles wherein Attkisson denies being "anti-vaccine": In Politico ^{Footnote 38} she states: “I’m not here to fight doctors," Attkisson said. "I’m just saying that factually, I’m not here to advocate for one side or the other. I’m just saying factually, there are many peer-reviewed published studies that do make an association, and the government itself has acknowledged a link." Are we supposed to deny or pretend that those studies never existed? On her own website, she published a public denial of being anti-vaccine. Another cited source is Salon, seriously? Salon had to retract two articles about vaccines. If we're going to claim Attkisson is anti-vac, do we also add the same claim to Time for the reporting of basically the same information written by Claudia Wallis? Of course not - that's what journalists do - they report. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It's disingenuous (at best) to say that the government has acknowledge a link between vaccines and autism. The government has reported that in rare cases a vaccine has lead to encephalitis and that some cases of encephalitis have resulted in autism. That's it. That's the "link". In short, there's a link between anything that might cause encephalitis and autism. Attkisson reporting this as an actual government admitted "link" is irresponsible at best. I think a more accurate assessment would be: "pandering to sensationalism". Rklawton (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, Rklawton. I found the link I intended to ask for and mistakenly said to "her statement", forgetting to add "to the source she cited in her statement". It appears to be the CDC] article which clearly states that vaccines do not cause autism and that there is no link between the two, so I struck my iVote. Attkisson appears to have been quoting the doctor from an interview she had with him. I do want to add that I still believe this BLP needs to be written from a NPOV based on what I said about journalists snooping around. She should not be labeled anti-vac because she continues to investigate when issues arise. I remember well the case involving RJ Reynolds so skeptism is not such a bad thing. I'm done here. Enjoy the weekend! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Update (see my corrected iVote)- I think the link Petrarchan is referring to is this one. Now that Attkisson's comment is verifiable per the statement of a CDC senior scientist who stated publicly: I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed. It certainly justifies Attkisson's reporting in my view. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Provide the link to her statement please. With regards to the science, I did a brief check on a recent article in this journal - didn't find it in the archives of Bealls, so you might want to read the article to understand why the issue is still ongoing among inquisitive journalists who keep snooping around in the manner journalists are supposed to behave. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Her denial is irrelevant. Many people deny things about themselves that are, in fact, true. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. denies he is anti-vaccine, instead calling himself a "vaccine safety" advocate. But reliable sources call him anti-vaccine, because he is, and that is the case here.
• It is undeniable that Attkisson has published articles suggesting a link between vaccines and autism - one that is rejected by the scientific community. In fact, the statement could go even further and note she has faced scrutiny for this. Her reporting on vaccines has been described by reliable sources as inaccurate, and her major claims have been rejected by reliable sources. The article you cited is riddled with debunked arguments and conspiracy theories - there is talk of the "vaccine industry", a "pervasive disinformation propaganda campaign", and government cover-ups. Her claims about Zimmerman were debunked by Snopes, and she even claims there are studies that prove a link between autism and the MMR shot - the granddaddy of vaccine conspiracy theories. That article doesn't prove your point - it refutes it. Toa Nidhiki05 02:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the science, I'm just merely pointing out that it is still ongoing and that's why journalists keep writing about it. That doesn't make them anti anything. They are journalists. If there's a policy I've missed that says we don't have to adhere to NPOV or BLP for journalists we don't agree with, please point me to that policy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You might want to re-read WP:FRINGE, The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Some more examples of her being regarded as anti-vaccine:

1. "an unwavering supporter of Wakefield"
2. "factually, there are many peer-reviewed published studies that do make an association, and the government itself has acknowledged a link."
3. "already notorious among other journalists for her sympathetic reporting on vaccine skepticism"
4. "vaccine skeptic Sharyl Attkisson"

Our own Signpost reported on Attkisson and her writings:

They monitor and edit Wikipedia pages in an effort to downplay research that demonstrates associations between vaccines and autism, and to disparage those who investigate the links.

• This is without even looking at her own work, which aggressively argues in favor of a vaccine-autism link. It is not an NPOV to say she has reported that there's a link, and frankly it might be worth saying she has advocated for such a link's existence. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• No. This smacks of WP:FALSEBALANCE. NPOV means that we dispassionately and accurately describe topics and individuals according to how the preponderance of mainstream reliable sources describe them. It doesn't mean that we put our finger on the scales to play down aspects that might be shocking or offensive to readers, or that we describe every subject the way they want to be described, or that we emphasize obscure or debunked aspects just for 'balance' purposes. The rationales being given for these proposed changes are not policy-based arguments - if you want to change how the article describes her, you need to focus on the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I have now added some clarity with archived sources. Simply put, my intention is to allow the subject to explain her reporting in her own words (as the Daily Beast did). I am not arguing that her critics be silenced, but at the same time we can't silence her. She was reporting on a statement from a CDC official. We have allowed ample room for her critics and there is no justification to disallow two sentences for her rebuttal, so to speak. petrarchan47คุก 18:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Mixed response: Overall, I thoroughly agree with Aquillion. She has minority viewpoint that is unsubstantiated by science, so it absolutely should not be given equal weight to that of experts. That said, a brief quote from her about her viewpoint should be included, just to establish for readers what she actually asserts. Then reactions to her stance will have proper context. I already see that in the third paragraph, but perhaps a statement or two in the beginning would suffice.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, I have no problem with the anti-vax heading, since (despite her assertions to the contrary) she has an anti-vax position. If a person is seen eating ribs, that person can't insist they are vegan. Again, her denials of that fact can be included in the article, but any reader will clearly see that's a false denial based on the coverage of her stances.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• Extremely obvious No. She is anti-vax, as the sources say. The usual "neutral" reporting would be not just interviewing the anti-vax crackpots but also an equal number of real, pro-science experts. Actually responsible, competent reporting would be interviewing mainly those, with a minimum quota of crackpots. And we should not quote her fringe claims without refuting them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• No to both changes. Our job is to report things accurately, not to provide false equivalency. Attkisson's views on the subject are already clear in the section, and "anti-vaccine reporting" is an accurate summary of what Attkisson has done.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes to 1, No to 2. I agree with the consensus on #2, and the pertinent guideline is WP:FRINGE. We simply don't give this level of credence to fringe theories. As for #1, the sources offered simply do not say that Attkisson is anti-vaccine. It doesn't matter than she's parroted anti-vaccine talking points, promoted conspiracy theories, or exacerbated vaccine hesitancy. Reliable sources say that she supports vaccination, and unless/until they expressly say she's anti-vaccine, neither can we expressly say she's anti-vaccine. R2 (bleep) 18:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• No. We should correctly characterize the material as "anti-vax", following the style established by the reliable secondary sources rather than Attkisson's denial. The Snopes piece should be included along with David Gorski's article which agrees with the Snopes conclusion.[18] Attkisson must have known what would happen when she mischaracterized the Zimmerman situation, fanning the anti-vax flames. Binksternet (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Please note that in this RfC we are discussing Thompson, not Zimmerman. I would encourage you to find a reliable source supporting Snopes' claims. Gorski is hardly impartial, and if his blog stands alone in supporting Snopes, that should tell you something. By the way, how did Attkisson mischaracterize the 'Zimmerman situation'? petrarchan47คุก 22:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Fixing ping Binksternet petrarchan47คุก 22:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Petra, you can't keep shifting the goalposts: first you said that Snopes was unreliable, then you said that Snopes was not corroborated, now you say that Snopes is only corroborated by one source. Toa Nidhiki05 22:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm saying you only have one source you're considering corroboration. I have clearly stated that it's a blog and should never have been added. It has since been removed as a violation of BLP, as you're likely aware. To add the claim that Attkisson's report was riddled with mischaracterizations needs at least three RS (not blogs) or it can't be included per policy. petrarchan47คุก 20:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Nice goalpost shifting. First it was that snopes isn’t reliable, then it was that snopes alone isn’t sufficient, now it’s that the two sources aren’t sufficient. This is clearly verging on ridiculous and tendentious editing, but here’s another source. Toa Nidhiki05 20:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• No Way and consider extending the topic ban the proposer is under for pseudoscientific advocacy on GMOs to vaccine-related topics. Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, not an antivaxxer encyclopedia. jps (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I need to ask that you provide a source for your version of the reasoning behind my t-ban, and if you cannot verify this claim, strike it immediately. jps see also WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED petrarchan47คุก 20:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I am the administrator who imposed that topic ban. I think that ජපස's comment is unhelpful. This talk page would not be the place to raise any user conduct problem. Raising the topic ban – which is strictly a matter of user conduct – during this straw poll was divisive and confrontational. Please deal with the matter at hand in your comments. AGK ■ 20:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Would that Wikipedia actually deal with issues relating to content being skewed because of WP:ADVOCACY, but instead we play games pretending that user conduct and content are somehow easily compartmentalized. Well, this is not arbcom. I stand by my evaluation of what I think is occurring here and in general. If you think that this is not what is going on, you are free to explain how this is not the case. jps (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Obvious No to both, per Shibbolethink and Aquillion. --Calton | Talk 16:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)::
• No to all, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• No to all. Attkisson reports solely on antivax perspectives, and to suggest that she is doing "Vaccine reporting" is misleading and POV as FALSEBALANCE. The proposed additions to the text are FRINGE and serve no apparent purpose except to push an antivax POV: the section discusses her reporting and neither of these quotes has anything to do with the reporting that Attkisson does. Ca2james (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

This is Sharyl. I know the my true positions matter not here -- but I am not and have never expressed "anti-vaccine" views (and am neither "pro-vaccine"). I have covered a story much as any other government and/or pharmaceutical industry scandal. You can say it all you wish but it is still false and libelous. The vaccine discussion which attempts to litigate a controversy in a one-sided fashion on my biography page, omits all attempts at balance such as: the many times I have reported that vaccines have saved many lives; my web page that links, before anything else, to government vaccine sources and the CDC recommended schedule; the fact that I have included many varied views on vaccines in my reporting; that my vaccine autism reporting has been cited positively in the New England Journal of Medicine, a peer-reviewed journal; my vaccine and medical reporting has received national recognition from independent awards groups; and more. In fact, though it's too complex to summarize succinctly, my general conclusions about vaccines and autism based on scientists who have proven trustworthy, government sources, vaccine industry insiders and published studies is fairly close to the expressed view of many expressed "pro vaccine" experts including: CDC head of vaccine safety--Dr. Frank DeStefano; the former head of the National Institutes of Health--Dr. Bernadine Healy; and Johns Hopkins former government expert witness Dr. Andrew Zimmerman among many others; regarding vulnerable subsets of children. You refer to these views as "fringe" but obviously do not understand them or believe that CDC and Johns Hopkins are, themselves, "fringe," which doesn't make sense. Instead, of representing my views and reporting fairly, my bio has been co-opted by zealots or propagandists to try to shape opinion and controversialize a topic. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.233.57 (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The article quoting DeStefano did not quote him saying anything pro-vaccine, but, as I said in a now-archived thread, "quote-mines him when he is talking not about scientific results but about theoretical possibilities." So, antivaxxers saying anti-vax things and pro-vaxxers seeming to say anti-vax things does not a serious article make. It's like the dishonest tactics creationists use when they seem to quote biologists. And Healy was a conspiracy theorist promoting the non-existent autism link. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Dr. DeStefano is the head of immunization safety for CDC. I know it's the practice of the propagandists on this page to call anyone "anti-vaccine' if they report on or discuss legitimate vaccine science and safety issues, but it's a reach even for this page to claim the head of CDC immunization safety is anti-vaccine. And Dr. Healy was never of course a "conspiracy theorist"-- she was head of NIH. Both Healy and DeStefano are pro vaccine (generally) but agree that there can be issues in subsets of children including autism being triggered. Many scientists agree with this and many studies support it. The propagandists, like you, simply call anyone who engages in rational discussion of the science "conspiracy theorists" and "anti-vaccine." But you are actually hurting the credibility of the cause you are so eager to promote through your nonsensical rhetoric. Check yourself. Very interesting, also, that the "neutral" Wikipedia editors take it upon themselves to claim that people are not who they say they are (such as RFK and Attkisson) and do not feel the way they say they feel (anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine), as if the Wikipedia editors are self-appointed, omniscient editing gods and mind readers in a position to supposedly believe the word of the discredited likes of Snopes and propagandist blogs and vaccine industry shills and sources-- over the actual people themselves. When in dispute these items do not belong on a biographical page. But at least the world can now come to this page and see exactly what's going on without the spin. What a disgrace to Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.128.80.136 (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

As expected from a pseudoscience proponent, you distorted what I said. I never said anything about DeStefano being anti-vax. I said Attkisson quote-mined him, the same way creationists do. That means waiting until he says something one can take out of context to make it seem as if he agrees with the wrong ideas that one wants to spread - in this case, the ones which stop people from protecting their kids and make them instead buy useless stuff from Wakefield and others. Then quote that one sentence and ignore everything pro-vaccine he might have said. Result: you interview both sides and still get a text that sounds as if you had interviewed only one side.

And "conspiracy theorist" and "head of NIH" are not mutually exclusive. Why should they? One could say the craziest stuff and still become, say, US President. Just a random example of a remote theoretical possibility.

The best evidence of Attkisson being anti-vax is her use of the pharma shill gambit outside Wikipedia. Serious journalists never do that, only people who cannot imagine anyone disagreeing with them unless they are being paid for it. But all that is beside the point. We have good sources. That is enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thompson story was debunked

Snopes article. Toa Nidhiki05 18:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Snopes is not a reliable source, please stop with this nonsense. petrarchan47คุก 18:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Snopes is a reliable source and this has been decided by the community. Toa Nidhiki05 18:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Snopes has repeatedly been found reliable on RSN. There's one caveat - since it often debunks WP:FRINGE things, you can't use "Snopes debunked this!" as an excuse to cover something that would otherwise be entirely omitted under WP:FRINGE - but that doesn't apply here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That Thompson made a statement, covered by Atkisson's reporting, is not "fringe", it's a simple fact. When it comes to Snopes, they have been caught making false statements about Attkisson and should therefore not be used as a source on this bio. petrarchan47คุก 20:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Snopes did not make false statements; that Mrs. Attkisson disagreed with their criticism of her work is not unusual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toa Nidhiki05 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Rather than argue it here, take it to RSN, or better yet, BLPN. The Snopes article was a retrospective of events. Attkisson reported only what the CDC senior scientist stated. Should she have believed Snopes or the CDC Senior Scientist. This article is a BLP about a journalist, not a debate over the science. Please stay focused on the issue at hand. If a BLP is going to be criticized for faulty reporting, let's at least try to keep things in perpespective, including the timing of the report and who provided the information. It is nothing like what we've been including in articles based on anonymous reports that are unverifiable. In this situation, the information is verifiable although later debunked which is not Attkisson's fault. She did her job as an investigative journalist at the time. Timing is relevant. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't seen your suggestion, although BLPN is probably the best option, I have already opened a section at RS/N here. petrarchan47คุก 21:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Dude, there have been 12 entries on Snopes already. Toa Nidhiki05 21:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't understand the basis of Petrarchan47's position. I have seen no evidence of the Snopes source being discredited or otherwise unreliable. R2 (bleep) 23:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

OMG haha No evidence of Snopes being discredited. Where do we begin if that's the extent of Wikipedia editors knowledge? http://theohiostar.com/2019/03/10/snopes-gets-key-facts-wrong-on-ocasio-cortez-campaign-finance-scandal/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#c3d7103227f8 https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/06/snopes-facebook-google-fact-check/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/29/the-unreliable-facts-of-a-fact-checking-site/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.128.80.136 (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Your sources are all right-wing extremist, from the spit-polished nonsense at Forbes to the barking mad Moonie Times. That means they're all unreliable; see WP:RS. And you especially might want to reconsider claiming anything based on an article in the Daily Caller, which was founded by a white nationalist. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:8A0:A453:63FA:B703 (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That Forbes link is essentially self-published content. starship.paint (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

More unreliable sources with totally unavailing arguments. R2 (bleep) 15:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The first source (a Daily Caller story, groups Snopes with Snopes with CNN, ABC News, NBC News, the Washington Post, Business Insider and Market Watch as having got a story wrong. Essentially they present alternative facts to what mainstream sources publish. Without getting into which facts are real, current policy sides with mainstream media over these sources. TFD (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Citing the "Ohio Star" as if it were a reliable source is particularly rich, considering this. --Calton | Talk 17:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Snopes stays? Attkisson rebuttal is required per WP:BLPPUBLIC

Per WP:BLPPUBLIC "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported" I have added the following to the Snopes paragraph in the "anti vaccine reporting" in this edit. [It seems to already been removed within minutes. It's up to you, editors, to abide by policy and uphold NPOV, or to blatantly choose not to. I'm done here.]

Attkisson responded to criticism of the episode and her reporting in a January 2019 post claiming that Snopes "fabricated claims that were never made, [and] debunks the fabricated claims". She observes that ultimately they agree with the "essence" of her report and with Zimmerman's claim, with Snopess concluding "Zimmerman, a scientist with serious credentials who was once a government expert on vaccines, believes that narrow circumstances might exist in which the combination of pre-existing mitochondrial dysfunction and vaccination could trigger ASD."

I have also taken the cherry picked claims by Snopes out of WP's voice, and properly attributed the quotation to RFK Jr. As well I added link to report in question.

This is policy, and I should not find myself alone in trying to uphold it. I am also puzzled by the fact that no one has challenged the addition of a random blogger in this edit to bolster the Snopes claims with his opinion. This is a violation of WP:BLP and I expect editors not to sit by silently per WP:BLPREMOVE: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:

• is unsourced or poorly sourced;
• is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research);
• relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP petrarchan47คุก 21:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Editors, the entirety of my edit, including adding Sharyl's defense and another quotation from the Snopes piece above, was just removed with "no one agrees with you". Is this true? what is the justification for not allowing Sharyl's defense and my other changes? Thank you. petrarchan47คุก 21:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Petra, you do not know what you are talking about. Wikipedia is not obligated to publish fringe conspiracy theories or pseudoscience. WP:BLPPUBLIC clearly refers to personal scandals - like affairs, divorces, criminal accusations etc. In fact, the examples it gives are affairs and divorces. It does not apply to someone spreading inaccurate information or pseudosicence: we arne't obligated to air Alex Jones's refutations on the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory, for example. You are cherry-picking policy to try and ram through your proposed changes and it's beginning to be disruptive. You are blatantly violating WP:BRD and consensus being developed by discussion by trying to ram this stuff through. Maybe you should question more about why you are alone on this: perhaps it is because you are in the wrong here.

As for your other changes: David Gorski is not a "random blogger". He is a doctor and professor - in other words and his views are well-documented and generally is authoritative as an expert on medical issues. Binksternet proposed his inclusion and I accepted it. Considering your previous contesting of Snopes as a source - one that RS/N seems to have roundly rejected - I would question your claims against this source. I would highly advise Petrarchan47 to revert their disruptive revisions per WP:BRD. It is BRD, not BRRRRRRRRRD. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Additionally: ජපස noted that Petrarchan47 is indefinitely topic banned from GMOs discussions due to his advocacy of pseudoscience. His edits here display a similar pattern and I would highly suggest Petrarchan stop disrupting this page by trying to force through edits against consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

ජපස was mistaken. petrarchan47คุก 08:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think your edit provides a false balance between Snopes and Attkisson. The normal rebuttal goes along these links: "John does was charged with six murders and has pleaded not guilty." TFD (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

While there's room to discuss the wording, the consensus at BLP/N in the past is that we include some mention of a subject's denial of allegations where they have specifically done so. - Bilby (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Toa and TFD. Rebuttals by BLP subjects are only appropriate for allegations and incidents. It does not apply to reliable sources' descriptions of fringe theories. If it did, WP:FRINGE would be effectively eviscerated. BLPs do not get some automatic right to rebut everything they disagree with on their Wikipedia page. R2 (bleep) 22:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

She's responding to direct accusations that she mischaracterised claims. As a BLP, the subject's denial of this should be included. - Bilby (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

BLPs do not get an automatic veto or rebuttal. If Donald Trump wrote an op-Ed saying he had the best inauguration crowd ever and Wikipedia is wrong, are we obligated to include that? Of course not. Toa Nidhiki05 22:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Whenever this is raised at BLP/N,if we publish accusations against a subject of a BLP, and that subject has specifically responded to those accusations, we should note that response. We don't need to spend a lot of time on it,but something saying that they disagree is fair and neutral. - Bilby (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's policy. WP:WELLKNOWN: If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That’s literally the exact same policy Petra cited, and it’s just as inaccurate as when she said it. Attkisson is not being accused of an affair or a crime or a divorce. Her reporting is being criticized and that is not covered. We are not obligated to print conspiracy theories or FRINGE claims. Toa Nidhiki05 00:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

We are accusing a journalist of misrepresenting a source. She has specifically denied doing so. Therefore, we need to make some acknowledgement of her denial, especially considering the amount of weight we've given this. - Bilby (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

We are accusing a journalist of misrepresenting a source

"We" are doing no such thing. Reliable sources are. --Calton | Talk 01:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It is in the article, she has denied it, and we just need to add "Attkinsson has denied mischaracterizing Zimmerman's statements in the report." We don't need to dedicate much space to it - just acknowledge that she did so.- Bilby (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if WP:CIR may apply here because the reasoning for denying inclusion of a BLP's denial is off the charts. Something doesn't seem quite right. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You literally misquoted policy but saying the people who disagree with you are incompetent? Are you serious? Toa Nidhiki05 02:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• It’s clear to me that we’re not going resolve the dispute about Attkisson’s rebuttal among the current participants, especially now that competence has been questioned. R2 (bleep) 03:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Why not try an RFC to bring in new editors with new points of view on the issue? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Cullen, there is an RfC still ongoing above this discussion, and if I'm not mistaken, there's a connection. We've got an admin here, Bilby, trying to explain that BLP policy says we include a person's denial when there are unsubtantiated/uncorroborated allegations made against them, so I'm finding it difficult to believe editors are refusing to include it. This goes beyond an RfC and becomes a BLP violation, don't you think? Perhaps it should go to BLPN if you're unsure it's a vio. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP isn't some kind of trump card that overrides RfCs or other means of building consensus. R2 (bleep) 04:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, actually it does - BLP clearly states: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR). When considering strict adherence to NPOV, it clearly states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. There are policy vios in this article, among the worst being WP:BLPCOI. I suggest you strike whatever you may have said that may be considered noncompliant as it may reflect badly on your editing if this ends up at a noticeboard. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not interested in engaging in a policy debate with you, I don't appreciate the personalization and threats, and I certainly am not going to strike anything in response to them. The content dispute has been resolved, so please drop it. R2 (bleep) 19:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Also: it’s not an allegation, and it’s unit unsubstantiated or uncorroborated. Atsme’s comment doesn’t make any sense. Toa Nidhiki05 06:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Technically yes, BLP overrides local consensus. - Bilby (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

That assumes WP:BLPPUBLIC applies to standard criticism from reliable sources instead of comments on things like affairs, divorces, criminal allegations, or personal scandals. You still haven’t answered my question, by the way - is Alex Jones entitled to a platform here to rebut the scientific and historical consensus on vaccines and autism, the Sandy Hook truthers, and 9/11 conspiracy theories? Because that is what your interpretation demands. Hell, it could demand a line by line critique by Attkisson of this entire page be included because “she has a right to denial”. Toa Nidhiki05 12:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Alex Jones has nothing to do with the issue, and this is a straw man. WP:BLPPUBLIC applies to our coverage of allegations - the specific text is:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

It makes no mention of the types of allegations that it should apply to. - Bilby (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It’s not a straw man. I’m asking how your interpretation would apply in that circumstance and you either won’t or can’t answer it. From what I can tell, your interpretation would demand he be allowed to deny criticism of his support 9/11 conspiracy theories or the Sandy Hook shooting. Am I wrong there?

It actually does, though - it gives the examples of a “messy divorce” and an affair. Aka, personal scandals - not legitimate critiques of professional work, and not advocacy of presudoscience or FRINGE theories. Toa Nidhiki05 13:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It also makes no mention of any right or expectation of rebuttal that I can see: that "right" has been invented out of whole cloth. Any rebuttal is the job of reliable sources, not Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 13:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Those are examples, but that doesn't mean they are the only allegations which are relevant. The "rebuttal" is in the "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported". As to the straw man, the example of Allan Jones is discussing responses to criticism. That has not been the issue with this article. The issue here is her response to the single allegation that she mischaraterized a source in a story that she aired. - Bilby (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Two admins, and I agree with Bilby. Rklawton (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've raised it on WP:BLPN. It seemed like a sensible next step. - Bilby (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The Snopes article should be added back in. ♟♙ (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrator assistance request

El_C, I am on the losing end of the consensus at WP:BLPN#Sharyl Attkisson. Could you please add the phrase at the end of the paragraph about Zimmerman: Attkinsson has denied mischaracterizing Zimmerman's statements in her report. Cite to this source. R2 (bleep) 19:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Snopes and Gorski BLP/N

Weigh in at WP:BLPN petrarchan47คุก 08:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You have got to be ducking kidding me. Toa Nidhiki05 10:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Zimmerman has rejected Attkisson’s claims. This must be included per WP:BLPPUBLIC

Per the earlier discussion, Attkisson’s response has been included. However, there is no response listed Zimmerman, who has denied Attkisson’s claims. Per WP:BLPPUBLIC, this must be immediately added as he has a right to a rebuttal. I propose the following wording:

Attkinsson has, denied mischaracterizing Zimmerman's statements in her report, but Zimmerman has said he was misrepresented.

Toa Nidhiki05 11:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Zimmerman doesn't mention Attkisson. - Bilby (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No other reporter focused on his affidavit at the time. This is very clearly a response to Attkisson as it distances him away from anti-vaccines views. Not including this leaves the false impression he agrees with how he was represented, which he clearly does not - and per WP:BLPPUBLIC, this is not optional. It must be included. He has a right to rebuttal. Toa Nidhiki05 11:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

He refers to "some media reports", but makes no mention as to whether or not Attkisson was one of them. - Bilby (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

My proposed text does not say that. Regardless, it must be included per BLPPUBLIC and that is not optional. Toa Nidhiki05 12:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Your proposed text says that Zimmerman has claimed he was misrepresented by Attkisson, however Zimmerman makes no mention of Attkisson. He may have intended this to be in regard to her, but it he doesn't make this clear. - Bilby (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Then propose a different wording, but this must be included. Toa Nidhiki05 12:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Given that he doesn't mention Attkisson at all, it is difficult to insert this into something specifically about Attkisson. We already make a very strong statement that she misrepresents Zimmerman, even though people like Gorski have claimed that she didn't, so I'm not sure how much more can say. It would fit well into an article about media coverage of vaccine-autism claims, or in an article about Zimmerman if we had one. - Bilby (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Bilby. If Zimmerman had specifically said Attkisson's report was wrong, we'd put it in, but he didn't. It's Original Research to say "well, we know that there weren't any other reports (even though he specifically says multiple reports!), so he must be talking about this one". --GRuban (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose this change. The current text doesn't suggest Zimmerman did anything wrong, so there's nothing to rebut. R2 (bleep) 16:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

That being said, I appreciate Toa bringing this to our attention. The fact that Attkisson's primary witness, so to speak, complained after the fact that Attkisson had mischaracterized his sworn statement reflects very poorly on Attkisson's reporting skills and judgment. Granted, Zimmerman declined an interview request. However Attkisson appears to rely exclusively on anti-vaccine advocates and apparently did not consult a single medical expert. This seems inexcusable to me. It's why I described the piece earlier as "advocacy journalism at best." R2 (bleep) 17:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not she mischaracterised Zimmerman depends on who you ask - Gorski, who is clearly not a fan, argues that she did not. The issue is complex and messy. - Bilby (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

With respect, this is false and damaging. Dr. Zimmerman made no such "rejection" and I (Attkisson) made no "claims" in my report at all; I simply reported the facts in Dr. Zimmerman's sworn affidavit and also posted his affidavit, which clearly shows no misinterpretation (people can see for themselves). I quoted him word for word. No "claims" on my part and no mischaracterization. Dr. Zimmerman was upset that other media mischaracterized my report and his affidavit after the fact. You can keep making false interpretations in your own mind, but it doesn't reflect well upon you (pretending to know what people mean and are thinking; inferring conclusions from things that are never said, etc.) As for the continual false accusation that I never include opposing views etc.: anyone who bothers to actually look at my reporting can see that I always ask for opposing views, even when no interview is given, I still include opposing information in my reporting, I have repeatedly stated that vaccines have saved many lives, I link to the CDC vaccination schedule and information among my vaccine reporting, I have interviewed Dr. Offit more than once and let him give his views (as you may know when he falsely libeled me after one story, the Orange County Register retracted his comments), I have interviewed CDC officials repeatedly. Many pro-vaccine scientists share the view that vaccines can and do cause autism in a vulnerable subset of children (Dr. Zimmerman, CDC's Dr. Frank DeStefano, former head of National Institutes of Health Dr. Bernadine Healy, and many more) so the poorly-informed statements on this page to the contrary are simply not true. That having been said, I understand you can do as you wish regardless of the facts. Obviously many people here wish to use my biographical page to controversialize and litigate the vaccine-autism issue.

Also (still Sharyl here), with all due respect, how can even the vaccine industry proponents on this page support this false, unattributed opinion on my page: "In a January 2019 episode of her television show Full Measure, Attkisson mischaracterized statements made in 2007 by a medical expert, Andrew Zimmerman, regarding a hypothetical relationship between vaccines and autism." Stating that I, as a journalist, mischaracterize anyone in my reporting is a very serious false accusation and potentially cuts at the heart of my reputation as a journalist. The statement is clearly an editor's biased opinion, but it is stated as if a proven fact, not an opinion. If anything, even the vaccine industry proponents should agree it should read more like: "SOME UNNAMED (or name them) CRITICS CLAIM THAT In a January 2019 episode of her television show Full Measure, Attkisson mischaracterized statements made in 2007 by a medical expert, Andrew Zimmerman, regarding a hypothetical relationship between vaccines and autism." Additionally, in the interest of neutrality, why all the commentary against my reporting on vaccines autism from known critics and vaccine industry supporters-- but none of the commentary (in the interest of neutrality) from the vast numbers who complimented the reporting for its accuracy, why no mention of the fact that my vaccine reporting has been cited in the New England Journal of Medicine, why leave out that it has received national recognition from independent journalism awards? Thank you for your consideration and best wishes to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.57.46 (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

my vaccine reporting has been cited in the New England Journal of Medicine Link please? R2 (bleep) 06:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I found a site that published the NEJM article wherein it there's mention of Attkisson interviewing Healy on CBS Evening News, and in that article is a link to the CBS article. And in the NEJM cited References is CBS News The “open question” on vaccines and autism. May 2008. (Accessed July 18, 2008, at http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/12/couricandco/entry4090144.shtml.) ^Atsme _Talk 📧 06:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned on BLPN, there's a strong possibility that the Age of Autism site has violated the NEJM copyright on the article they copied, and it should not be linked on Wikipedia per WP:COPYLINK

As for the question at hand, that Attkisson's program/story was mentioned in correspondence in the NEJM doesn't mean that it was cited there. Citing has a particular meaning in academic publishing, which is roughly that the knowledge in the cited (original) work is being used in the citing (new) work. It is more accurate to say that Attkisson's show was mentioned in correspondences in NEJM, which also differentiates these opinion pieces from peer-reviewed works. Ca2james (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm still hoping we can identify the NEJM article Attkisson mentioned. I'm not having any luck. R2 (bleep) 04:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

For clarity:

1. R2 - I've already provided the link but here it is again. I also provided a link directly to the references, but you can look for yourself under at that link. It clearly cites the CBS-Attkisson report, Footnote 4, under Letters which is Poling's letter. All of which I provided above. Poling sued and won his case.
2. Ca2james - there is not a "strong possibility that the Age of Autism has violated the NEJM copyright". This is not your first unwarranted concern about copyvio regarding info I have provided, and it would prove far more helpful to this discussion if you did the research prior to expressing unneccessary concern. See Reprints, and the sidebar of the journal which provides for sharing the article link. NEMJ also offers Rights Link, and the text included in the Age of Autism article is in the public domain as a statement by Jon Poling, MD about his daughter's case. Other copyvio free material is information published by the government such as this linked .pdf file that was included in the reference footnotes of the site you allege may have committed a copyvio. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry Atsme, but I'm confused. I was looking for an NEJM source that cited Attkisson, as she described in her comment. Unless I've missed something, this NEJM source doesn't cite Attkisson. And the Age of Autism source you mentioned isn't published by NEJM. Please tell me what I'm missing. R2 (bleep) 22:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

...my vaccine reporting has been cited in the New England Journal of Medicine - it was cited in the Journal but not "by" the Journal, I don't think, unless they went through Poling's letter and cited it. In that letter published in the Journal, footnote 4 cites this piece by Attkisson. I'm thinking that's what she meant when she said her reporting "has been cited in the New England Journal of Medicine." It is a factual statement. You have to open the Letters section. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the phrasing "has been cited in" is misleading as it implies that the work was used in an article peer-reviewed by the NEJM which is not the case; the program and interview were only mentioned in a Correspondence opinion. Using "has been cited in" appears to give more legitimacy to the program in question and its subject than has been received. That said, I don't think anyone is thinking to include anything that says her program was mentioned in the NEJM? Ca2james (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of copyvio or not, I object to any link to Age of Autism as it is an anti-vaccine conspiracy website that promotes pseudoscience. Toa Nidhiki05 13:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Toa, is that site listed on our banned sources? The reason I mentioned it is because an editor was having trouble finding the links to NEJM and CBS, and they happen to be in that article in one spot. I'm not here to argue the science. I'm simply trying to get the article right. For some reason, there's a mistaken belief that just because a secondary source includes something in an article, it's automatically ok to include it in the pedia. Not so - while we are responsible for WP:V, good editors should exercise at least a semblance of responsible corroboration to ensure the cited source has done their homework, especially when only 1 or 2 sources are making exceptional claims. That's why we have WP:EXCEPTIONAL. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I am not accusing you of engaging in a Copyvio or of knowingly posting something against policy. I'm saying the the Age of Autism article, which apparently reproduces the NEJM correspondence without acknowledging that they have permission from the copyright holder (NEJM's publisher) to do so, is likely violating NEJM publisher's copyright. Nothing you've linked to says otherwise, and nothing there says the correspondence is in the public domain; they all just say that the correspondence can be reprinted with permission and give mechanisms for doing so.
Since there are no statements on the Age of Autism article saying that the NEJM correspondence is reproduced with permission, we conservatively assume that it has not been reproduced with permission, which in turn implies that they have violated the rights of the copyright holder. And WP:COPYLINK says we should not link to sites which have violated another's copyright. I hope this clears things up. Ca2james (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. As best as I can tell, this source is not a copy-paste or a re-print of any anything published by the NEJM. R2 (bleep) 23:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you might be right - I thought I remembered reading what appeared to be text of the NEJM correspondence, but looking at it again I have no idea where I got that idea. Apologies for the confusion. Ca2james (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Answer to Questions and final Missing Awards notes etc. With Thanks!

This is Sharyl. Thank you to all who have tried to address issues and make this biography reflect accurate facts and be neutral. I will be signing off this project for the time being, as I have to spend time on other work.

A few final notes:

It doesn't seem to me that other journalists' bios have the departure from their previous job (in this case 5 years ago) at the top of their bio. It's not particularly objectionable, it just seems to deviate from the format for other journalists.

I do "write" but my primary occupation is not "writer," it has been "journalist" for about 40 years and "investigative journalist" for about 15 years. My degree was in Broadcast Journalism in the Journalism college.

I did not go to "Riverdale" High School (typo): it's "Riverview."

Personal life update: I am now a 5th Degree "Master" level black belt in TaeKwonDo.

Career note update: I am a contributor to Real Clear Politics and The Hill.

My name is misspelled on occasion on the bio page.

Dr. Zimmerman was absolutely not talking about my reporting when he said his views were misrepresented; he was talking about other media outlets misrepresenting my reporting and his views and intentions. He was widely disparaged and falsely characterized by these media reports and tweets. There was a lot of inaccurate and false spin about my story after it aired, which is very typical-- and was upsetting to him.

The following are still missing from my bio or have been deleted, though comparable awards in different years are included:

2003 Emmy Award Nomination for Investigating Dangers of certain prescription drugs and vaccines; and conflicts of interest in medical industry.  (Awarded in 2003 for 2002 work) http://cdn.emmyonline.org/news_24th_nominations.pdf

2008 Finalist for Gerald Loeb business awards for “Earmarks”  (Awarded in 2008 for 2007 work) https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/media-relations/2008/loeb-finalists-2008

2009 RTNDA-Edward R. Murrow Award for Overall Excellence (CBS team award) (Awarded in 2009 for 2008 work) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-wins-murrow-awards/

2010 Investigative Reporter and Editors Finalist Award for "Investigating TARP." https://ire.org/awards/ire-awards/winners/2009-ire-awards-winners/   2010 Loeb finalist for Television Breaking News for “Follow the Money: Bailout Investigation." https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100528005901/en/2010-Gerald-Loeb-Award-Finalists-News-Services

2013 Daytime Emmy Award as part of CBS Sunday Morning team Outstanding Morning Program for "Washington Lobbying: K-Street Behind Closed Doors.” http://emmyonline.com/day_40th_nominations   2016 Finalist Gerald Loeb business awards for “Taxpayer Beware” https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160519005496/en/2016-Gerald-Loeb-Award-Finalists-Announced-UCLA

I was invited to be a News and Documentary Emmy Award presenter in 2013 https://www.emmys.com/news/awards-news/national-academy-announces-news-documentary-emmy-award-winners

Additional note for your consideration: You are the ones who argued that minor or less recognized and less prestigious awards do not belong on a bio, so by your standard, this award that nobody has heard of shouldn't be listed -- but obviously it remains because certain Wikipedia editors are trying to falsely imply I am conservative or my reporting is somehow political: "In 2012, CBS News accepted an Investigative Reporting Award given to Attkisson's reporting on ATF's Fast and Furious gunwalker controversy from Accuracy in Media, a conservative news media watchdog group." Your call, of course on whether it is appropriate given the standard you've set. I don't mind either way, it just implies a bias on your part (in my opinion).

For anyone who is interested, please refer to this article regarding other problems or mischaracterizations on the biographical page: https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/06/wikipedia-weaponization-a-dissection-of-bias/

Thank you and best wishes to all of you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.57.46 (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Zimmerman was absolutely not talking about my reporting when he said his views were misrepresented; he was talking about other media outlets misrepresenting my reporting and his views and intentions. He was widely disparaged and falsely characterized by these media reports and tweets. There was a lot of inaccurate and false spin about my story after it aired, which is very typical-- and was upsetting to him. Links, please? R2 (bleep) 17:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to find these sources, Sharyl! This is exactly what I requested of other editors in previous edits so I have no issue with adding any of these. Given the page is protected right now, we will need someone to add the text but we can write it here and have them add it.

I will say, however, that I reject any claims I am biased against conservatives. I am, in fact, a conservative as noted on my talk page (specifically a libertarian-leaning classical liberal) and am a veteran in the resistance of the unjust effort nearly a decade ago to delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism. My objection to minor awards is specifically grouping them with mainstream journalism awards and that some of the awards might not be notable in general - some, not all. Conservative awards might be notable, as might liberal ones, but they aren’t in the same hemisphere as legitimate journalistic honors. Toa Nidhiki05 17:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

So, at age 10 you were defending WPConservatism? This doesn't seem likely. petrarchan47คุก 19:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m 24. The WP:CONSERVATISM wars were 2011-2012 or so, and I have receipts. I was probably second only to Lionelt (the founder) in terms of activity on the project and in defense of the project. I have the second most edits on the talk page and the most added text by a substantial margin. I was 16 or 17 then. But I appreciate your completely unnecessary response. Toa Nidhiki05 20:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

In my view, it was unnecessary to mention your political leanings since in no way does that counter claims your editing here has not been NPOV compliant, it's a distraction from the main point. If, for instance, one was biased against the BLP subject, they could edit in ways that don't align with their own position, but paint the subject in a bad light, if the latter was their primary goal. petrarchan47คุก 22:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's irrelevant because she said editors were specifically trying to remove the conservative awards because they think conservative awards are bad - and I'm one of the people who vocally opposed including them in the same section. She's also specifically attacked so-called agenda editors. I'm trying to demonstrate to Sharyl that this isn't a political vendetta, but also that I have seen and experienced people with a political vendetta - and this isn't it. Your comment was unnecessary and frankly insulting. I did not direct the comment at you, and I did not need to explain it to you. Toa Nidhiki05 23:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The page protection is set to expire tomorrow, so I'm inclined to wait rather than requesting admin assistance. R2 (bleep) 18:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Emmy and Murrow awards obviously go in the article (together with the actual title of the piece receiving the nomination or award, not just a summary of the piece). However, being an award presenter is just WP:PUFFERY here and should not be included. Being invited to speak or present somewhere is not an honour comparable to being nominated for (or winning!) a major award like an Emmy or Murrow. Ca2james (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, actually it's recognition in her career/job, not puffery. You might want to read WP:PUFFERY again. If she became a presenter and it's verifiable in a RS, we include it. What we don't include is the puffery text, like something along the line of..."Attkisson was chosen to be the presenter at yada yada because of her outstanding investigative journalism over the years that is unsurpassed by another other in her field." That is puffery 🦚 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 June 2019 Suggestion

Improving a citation from a WP:BAREURL to a {{cite web}} format.

From:

<ref>[https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/06/wikipedias-pharma-industry-agenda-editors-at-it-again/sharylattkisson.com]</ref>

to:

<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/06/wikipedias-pharma-industry-agenda-editors-at-it-again/ |title=Wikipedia’s Pharma Industry Agenda Editors–at it again. |first=Sharyl |last=Attkisson |website=sharylattkisson.com |date=2019-06-17 |accessdate=2019-06-28}}</ref>

Peaceray (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 00:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE

I noticed this edit [19] by Toa Nidhiki05 which I agree with. However, since the lead now is mostly cited, I think it's better to add refs to this too, otherwise it just looks uncited to the general reader. Controversial articles tend to go "cite the lead as well". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Added four citations to the lede and reworded slightly to be clearer that she has been criticized for this. Toa Nidhiki05 12:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A section should be removed

Attkisson has said that she favors vaccinating children but that research suggests that "small subset of children" have immune deficiencies that might make their brains vulnerable to vaccines.[1] She has said that pharmaceutical companies have discouraged research into a possible vaccine-autism link, and that they pressured CBS News not to run stories about it.[49]

This section is highly misleading and should be removed, or at the very least trimmed to something like this:

Attkisson has said that she favors vaccinating children but that a "small subset of children" have immune deficiencies that might make their brains vulnerable to vaccines.

The primary reasons this are that there is no evidence that Big Pharma has pressured CBS to not run stories about vaccines aside from Attkisson’s claim (and she is not a reliable source on this issue), and an anonymous source from CBS in the Daily Beast piece rejected that claim. This should either be removed entirely or the anonymous source should be noted. Additionally, the part about “research suggesting” a link is also clearly incorrect. I fear the current wording might confuse readers into thinking there is a link, when there is not. Toa Nidhiki05 12:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That content should remain because it was mentioned by an independent reliable source (The Daily Beast), and it's significant because it fits a broader pattern related of conspiracy theorizing--consistent with other aspects of Attkisson's biography, as well as her behavior on this talk page. However, it should be balanced with the following from the same Daily Beast source: Never mind that a CBS News veteran, who asked not to be named, says Attkisson’s vaccine-autism reports were eventually killed not because of advertiser pressure, but because they weren’t adequately supported by scientific evidence. R2 (bleep) 17:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That’s fair. My primary concern was that the reader might assume her claim was factual without that balance. Toa Nidhiki05 17:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

An addition today sourced to the Daily Beast gives space to an "unnamed source" to call into question Sharyl's claim about why CBS declined to air her vaccine reporting.

While the following was added as "balancing material"[20],

She has said that pharmaceutical companies have discouraged research into a possible vaccine-autism link, and that they pressured CBS News not to run stories about it, although an unnamed "CBS News veteran" told The Daily Beast that CBS declined to air Attkisson's reporting on the subject because of a lack of scientific evidence, not because of commercial pressure.

Inclusion of some distillation of this, from the same article, has been disallowed:

"The fact is, the government has acknowledged there’s a link," Attkisson says, citing the recent admission by a senior Central for Disease Control epidemiologist that he and his colleagues improperly omitted from a 2004 study the data that tended to support such a link. "They simply say it’s not a causal link."

Do editors see this as balanced and fair? petrarchan47คุก 21:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Why did you start a new section? The discussion is literally in the thread above. Toa Nidhiki05 21:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I combined the sections. R2 (bleep) 21:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand your objection, Petrarchan47. Are you saying we disallowed something from the Daily Beast source, so we must disallow everything from that source? R2 (bleep) 21:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Refactor proposal

The organization of this article could stand some improvement. I propose we get rid of the Career + chronological sectioning scheme and replace it with "Early career," "CBS News," "Post-CBS career" (with "Anti-vaccine reporting" subsection), "Computer hacking claims" (though this could arguably fit as a subsection of "CBS News"), and "Awards." All top level, as Attkisson is only known for her career; anything not career-related can go into "Personal life." R2 (bleep) 21:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You've got my support. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)