Talk:Vaxxed

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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

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

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2: 60 days

Film: American Start‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Medicine Start‑class Low‑importance

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

Skepticism Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Vaxxed II a 2019 sequel to Vaxxed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, it is not clear why it is labelled 'propaganda'. There is no formally accepted definition of propaganda that I'm aware of that distinguishes between regular documentaries with a purpose (for example 'Seaspiracy', which obviously contains calls to action) and this documentary. So either all documentaries which seek to encourage action should also be labelled propaganda or none of them should be.