Talk:Vaxxed

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is not sufficient to simply point to 'reliable sources' where an apparently subjective judgement is being made. At least, the sources should explain what they mean by 'propaganda' but I have a strong feeling that it is being used as a slur to discredit the film and not technically. Therefore, it is not encyclopedic to describe this film as propaganda and it should be flagged as such, explained or changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DovicKnoble (talk • contribs) 11:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

References

• Vaxxed is indeed propaganda, according to multiple reliable sources. We do not require people to explain the exact definition of propaganda when identifying something as such, because it's a word in common usage. And yes, this does meet the dictionary definition: it exists to promote a quasi-religious idea. In this case the wholly preposterous idea that vaccines cause autism (whereas in fact there isn't even a correlation, let alone a causal link). It doesn't help that it was produced by Andrew Wakefield, a disgraced former doctor who was disqualified for conducting unapproved invasive medical tests on vulnerable children in order to publish a fraudulent paper supporting a conclusion in which he had direct and undeclared financial interests. Vaxxed is based on the false premise that he is a "Brave Maverick" who is innocent and wronged. As one reviewer noted, Wakefield doesn't so much have a dog ion the fight, he is the dog. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

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

This article strikes me as actual propaganda

When the opening sentence of an article about this documentary includes the description "pseudoscience propaganda film," the authors have shown their hand.
I'm a physician, and watched this film after an "interesting" discussion with my child's pediatrician regarding vaccines. To say the least, it brings up some questions that need to be answered. To call it pseudoscience or propaganda reveals that the authors haven't actually seen the film. In fact, that's probably most evident by the fact that the whole documentary revolves around one scientific publication, and that publication is not cited a single time. What gives?
And on the talk page, the tone taken by some of the editors towards those seeking some balance is inappropriate, and reminds me of the "cool" kids at high school taking pains to exercise that coolness on the others. I understand the ability to obtain approbation from making edits and changes to an article is alluring, but perhaps on articles where there is a strong emotional bent to one side versus the others--such as "I've got to save the kids from the rabid anti-vaxxers!!", it just doesn't work.
The article as written is not useful for basic information about the documentary, much less for an unbiased examination of the work, because it immediately strikes the reader as being very much like the propaganda it alleges of the documentary. The agenda and tone of edits made to articles like these needs to be changed if Wikipedia is going to provide any useful information about them.