Talk:Andrew Wakefield

Celebrity doctor

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.

---

guy, about this revert, please have a look at the subject article, and let me know if you still disagree. Best ref is the 2011 NYT mag ref already used in the article, if you demand explicit support for the word "celebrity" as well as notion. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't call him a celebrity doctor, and he isn't one, he's a non-celebrity quack. Guy (Help!) 01:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

three bad arguments in a row. that you are willing to write such bad arguments shows this is a waste of my time. am done with this. Jytdog (talk)

I have to say: maybe a senior editor or somebody should look at this 'celebrity doctor' thing. It seems that Jytdog has created an article s/he calls 'celebrity doctor' and has then sort of bestowed this title on a random list of individuals. To me, that is original research - the whole caboodle. It's like a magazine feature, complete with made-up definitions of what constitutes a 'celebrity doctor'. How come a bunch of guys have their biographies polished up with the honor of 'celebrity doctor', given out by random wikipedia editors: nameless folk using criteria of their own devising. This isn't like 'Japanese dentists', or 'Olympic gold medalists' - capable of sourcing and resolution. It's a subjective essay, initially by an individual, who, for some reason, reckons that the world needs a list of 'celebrity doctors'. Makes no sense to me. Dallas66 (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Given WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, along with the fact that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, that entire article does seem problematic. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That is an unworthy comment. Celebrity doctors are people like Oz or Christian Jessen. They are celebrities as doctors. Wakefield is a "celebrity" only in the minds of anti-vax cranks, to most people he is a disgraced quack. He's not even a doctor: he has been struck off and has no license to practise medicine anywhere in the world. I don't object tot he existence of the article, but I do not think it applies here. I can't find any reference other than your writing, for Wakefield being a celebrity doctor. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wakefield was a licensed doctor up until 2010. per the source provided above, "Wakefield was a high-profile but controversial figure in gastroenterology research at the Royal Free Hospital in London when, in 1998,..." So already high profile when he published The Paper and after that he had 12 years of actual "celebrity doctor"hood.

His (former) medical credentials are one of the key reasons anti-vaxxers still follow him - again from the source provided (bolding added): "Andrew Wakefield has become one of the most reviled doctors of his generation....In his presentation, Wakefield sounded impatient but righteous. He used enough scientific terms — “ataxic,” “histopathological review” and “vaccine excipients” — that those parents who did not feel cowed might have been flattered by his assumption of their scientific fluency......Some part of Wakefield’s cult status is surely because of his personal charisma, and he spoke with great rhetorical flair. ....To parents who have run up against unsatisfying answers from the scientific community, Wakefield offers a combination of celebrity and empathy that leaves strong impressions. "

This is the definition of "celebrity doctor". The statements he is making are far more reprehensible than Oz' (and Oz' are really bad) but they are in the same bucket - trading on their medical credentials, relying on their charisma, to "ply their trade in the media". Same bucket. And there is enough in this NYT piece to provide direct support for the label "celebrity doctor." But I am not going to push this, in this article. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You have simply made up the category of 'celebrity doctor' and, by a process of original research, and scratching your head, feel you want to bestow it on who you choose. I find that a real problem, and may need to broaden this debate among editors. In general, there's an issue. In this case, it's an absurdity. Notoriety is not the same as celebrity. Should the late Fred Phelps be accorded the accolade of 'celebrity pastor' on account of his high profile work with Westborough Baptist Church?Dallas66 (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree. By your criteria, why is Josef Mengele not included on your list of "celebrity doctors"? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Godwin's law validated again; this conversation is officially ridiculous. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 17 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.

propaganda film

Vaxxed should not be objectively qualified as a propaganda film. If some reliable sources have called it that, then it may be notable to include that in the context of quotes from that source. In any contentious topic you will find a variety of descriptive labels applied from both sides. Byates5637 (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

So here too! Please see WP:GEVAL. As you have already been told, WP does not do "fair and balanced". Please do read WP:NPOV. The DS apply to this article as well, btw. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not even use the word's "fair and balanced" Did you even read what I wrote? Byates5637 (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You are trying to do the same WP:GEVAL stuff here that you were doing there. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop trying to edit war with me.

I added refs! Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I was about to add similar refs, but Jytdog beat me to it. NPOV means reflecting the reliable sources, which in this case, refer to the film as propaganda. —PermStrump(talk) 01:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You can find find a reliable source for nearly any documentary referring to it as propaganda. Surely you know this. It's an opinion from the source and should be stated as such. There are plenty of reliable sources that do not call it a propaganda film. Byates5637 (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

here you removed well-sourced content. Not good. Am sure that will be reverted soon. This is a propaganda movie for an anti-vax POV. This is what the refs dealing with what it is, say. There are more than what have been cited here and it is inaccurate to make it seem like only the partisan Daily Kos named it as such, which is how you left it. Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not remove content, I removed your reversion of my edit and unrelated sources. Lets look at the sources you added:

1. Indiewire: Does not contain the word "propaganda"
2. aftenposton: Not in english language. Please translate and quote the parts you believe relevant to objectively categorizing this as a propaganda film
3. Forbes: Opinion blog by a non notable author.
4. Scienceblogs: Is this even notable?

Byates5637 (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Indiewire contains the word "agitprop" which is a form of propaganda. David Gorski (the source you call "scienceblogs" is well-known authority on fraudulent pseudoscience. Per her bio at Forbes, Kavin Senapathy is also well established exposer of fraud. If you search for the word propaganda it is right there even in the untranslated version, and if you do not know how to use google translate you are beyond help. WP:CIR Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• article in Variety also calls it "agitprop"
• article in Toronto Star calls it propaganda
• article in slate calls it propaganda
• blog at here at PLoS by science journalist Beth Skwarecki calls it propaganda
• cnn notes that critics call it propaganda
• review in village voice says, in bold font at the start: Vaxxed, the new “documentary” about the alleged connection between vaccines and autism, is directed by Andrew Wakefield, the disgraced doctor responsible for duping untold thousands of parents into believing vaccinations could give their children autism. This may not be news to anyone who’s followed the controversy surrounding the film’s abrupt removal from the 2016 Tribeca Film Festival schedule, but it needs to be stated up front, and before the end credits roll, just in case you’re unclear who’s behind this.

so yeah, propaganda; you also find related terms like "manipulation" used in many reviews. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence

"is a British former gastroenterologist and medical researcher who was struck off in the UK" - I suspect "struck off" is a UK-specific term. Can it be replaced by something more meaningful for non-UK readers? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)