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

	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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating 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.

News item

National Post, 29-Jul-2016: http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/movies/former-doctor-andrew-wakefield-rises-from-the-ashes-of-his-career-with-vaxxed-a-vendetta-against-vaccines Guy (Help!) 23:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible BLP issue

content is well supported; "concern" and tagging were based on a "quick read" of the NYT which is a very reliable source. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead refers to Andrew Wakefield as a "discredited anti-vaccine activist." Do we have a reliable for source for that? Specifically I am concerned with the use of the word "discredited" which is a very strong adjective. A quick look in the sources cited closest to the statement didn't show anything using that language. I did see an op-ed piece from the The Age that is blistering in its criticism of Wakefield (it was an enjoyable read). But I don't think an op-ed piece can be cited when using such a very strong negative descriptor of someone and presenting it as fact. It's quite possible I just missed it somewhere. But this article is already pretty savage in its treatment of the film and its proponents. We need to be sure all the eyes are dotted and tees crossed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His medical license was revoked, and his research has been declared to be fraudulent. The Andrew Wakefield article has five citations for the lead, which also describes his work as "discredited" and "fraudulent".--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word "fraud" in various forms I saw... repeatedly. There is no doubt in my mind the guy is a quack. But if the word "discredited" was used in reference to him, outside of an op-ed piece, I missed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary or useful to go trolling through the dozens of linked sources to try to find an instance (or absence) of one particular word – "discredited" – when it is being used appropriately in context, very straightforwardly in accordance with its dictionary definition. Moreover, most readers will probably see it as a milder term than other descriptors widely used and accepted (e.g. fraud or fraudulent).

While I'm sensitive to the importance of WP:BLP, it does not say (or mean) that the only words that we can ever use to describe someone are the exact words copied from our sources. We are allowed to make sensible, competent, and restrained use of general knowledge of the English language as long as we respect the sense and intent of our sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? If you asked a hundred doctors and medical scientists to name a discredited researcher, I would be astounded if any of them named anyone else. Discredited, fraud and anti-vaccine are all abundantly supported. It's also highly relevant to this article since a substantial chunk of the movie is given over to an uncritical review of Wakefield's fraudulent work. As IndieWire said, "Wakefield doesn’t just have a dog in this fight; he is the dog". Guy (Help!) 10:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is meticulously sourced. The first paragraph of the first source provided - the New York Times, says: "a film "by a discredited former doctor" and goes in the second paragraph to say: "The film, “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” is directed and co-written by Andrew Wakefield, an "anti-vaccination activist"

Do not criticize the content into you carefully read the sources provided do not tag bomb and complain based on a "quick look". I am closing this.20:00, 5 September 2016 (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.

Reception

The Reception section is very one sided. It currently presents 8 negative reviews and 0 positive reviews. On Rotten Tomatoes, 33% of verified film critics gave this film a positive review. I would expect the ratio of postive reviews here to be closer to 33% than to 0%. Furthermore, some of the negative reviews are by non-notable people and hardly notable media. Byates5637 (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes is about movies; this is an encyclopedia and we are concerned with more than just whether it is good entertainment or not. Hence the range of commentary from people in the movie industry as well as experts on the subject matter. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no range of commentary - it was all 100% negative. You very clearly have an agenda you are pushing here and your recent edits served no purpose other than to further that agenda. Byates5637 (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Reception section in this article is very poor not only in content but also in format. Wikipedia is not an aggregator of reviews and there is no reason to list 9 separate reviews in a section longer than the rest of the article itself. I'd suggest you take a look at how this section is handled in other documentary articles. It is very common to cite rotten tomatoes scores and then give a quick synopsis of both the good and the bad as per critics. See Bowling For Columbine etc. Any attempt to trim this section down and made more balanced should be encouraged. Are you going to continue to stonewall me any time I try to improve it? Byates5637 (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note above. This article concerns a movie advocating pseudoscience, and you will find that it is indeed treated differently. I did not remove the review by the SFC guy that you added. I agree that the quotes are kind of weird; am not fond of that at all. Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of my edits have any anything to do with science, pseudo science, or even the content of the film. I am simply trying to make the article more balanced. There is no reason for the article to be written the way it currently is. You clearly have an agenda and you are trying to hide behind some hardly applicable esoteric policies to prevent me from making even the smallest of NPOV improvements to this article. Why? Byates5637 (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to "balance" an article is a violation of WP:NPOV in general, and in the context of pseudoscience topics, a violation of the WP:PSCI portion of NPOV, and will get you a topic ban under the DS, of which you have been notified. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do 'fair and balanced', you really ought to read those links provided Byates5637. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Discredited"

User:Byates5637 You have removed the word "discredited" twice:

(diff 15:09, 12 January 2017
diff 00:30, 13 January 2017

each time citing NPOV. WP:NPOV does not mean "without criticism" - it means that the article gives WEIGHT per reliable sources and accurately summarizes reliable sources. If you check the sources you will see that "discredited" is very well sourced there. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you reverted again diff 00:50, 13 January 2017 and have not replied here. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean for a human to be discredited? It could mean anything, and therefore it means nothing. Saying a specific theory, piece of research, or line of thinking has been discredit has meaning. But saying a person is "discredited" is vague and meangingless. Who decides a human is discredited? If you stretch an answer to my first question and assign some objective meaning to discrediting a human, then who is the decider of when that human is discredited? Is there some objective standard? Or is it subjective? Why is this descriptor even needed in the context of the sentence? The latter part of the sentence clearly explains that a significant portion of this person's medical research in this field has been discredited. It's almost a tautology to essentially say "The discredited person has been discredited", with the only nuance being the points I raised above. It's clearly not needed in the article. Byates5637 (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]