Talk:Vaxxed

Time, gentlemen, please

[1] - Time's "science cop" debunks the CDC whistleblower meme. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

[2] - De Niro on Today Show. Dear Conspiracy Theorists, it wasn't the Jews, Big-Pharma, The Media, The Govt or Big Corps that convinced De Niro to drop the film. As he admits it was the other indie film-makers. Another conspiracy theory debunked... (BTW an ed is determined I'm an astroturfer, has anyone seen my cheque from big-pharma? I haven't yet.) Gongwool (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

[3] "I wouldn't take acting lessons from an immunologist, the way I wouldn't take vaccination advice from an actor." News - Vaccination supporters slam De Niro over anti-vax comments. Northern Star NSW Aust. Gongwool (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

this is a film article-right?

Numerous references quote the filmakers as saying that this is not an anti-vaccine film. WHY does this FACT, about a FILM, keep getting deleted?TeeVeeed (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a film, but it is a highly political film that has been described by almost every reputable source as a propaganda piece designed to promote pseudo-scientific medical quackery by a known and exposed fraud. In other words we need to be very careful to observe the guidelines in WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI in order to prevent this article from in any way being used as a promotional vehicle for the aforementioned fringe theories. That said, you are correct. The clear and unequivocal denial by the film's creators that the film is a propaganda piece should not be removed or watered down. It should be preserved as a direct quote with appropriate citation. The mountain of well sourced contradicting evidence and quotes are more than adequate to refute the claims of the films producers per WP:PROFRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that is why I am trying to keep hands-off on this article, because it is being treated as-if it is a hot-potato. Just for the record, every ref, and mention in the article, which is from BEFORE 2016, (dealing-with the film, and there are plenty of good anti-anti-vaxx refs), is WP:OR. If we were to apply original research, and WP:SYNTH to this article, it would look different. Since the idea is to ultimately serve the readers, I do not oppose having a response section to the article, but I think some of it has over-reached, and that the article is NPOV, in-favor of the pro-vaxx side in the vaccine arguments.

I know this is not a forum, but I would like to know where someone could check to see if their vax-reaction was reported or not. VAERS does not really help. (elderly family member vaccinated and became disabled with permanent pneumonia within days) also, family member contracted measles from vaccine (documented and verified), and one contracted shingles after being exposed to child who contacted chicken-pox from vaccination. Apparently, some people have a stronger immune-reaction to vaccines is what my doctor said.TeeVeeed (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree. The anti-vaccination movement is pseudo-scientific quackery and thoroughly fringe. Guidelines (see the links in my above comment) make it clear that when mentioning Fringe Theories or creating articles that deal with them, they are not to be given equal weight as the accepted mainstream science. And that any mention of a fringe belief or theory must be countered with a clear statement to the effect that it is in fact a fringe belief with an accompanying explanation of the mainstream science or view on the subject. This is one of the rare situations where an article is supposed to be weighted in a given direction in order to prevent Wikipedia being used to promote crazy beliefs. I wish I could say that this was not a problem, but as anyone who spends any time of the Fringe Theories Noticeboard could confirm, it is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• @TeeVeeed: The makers have a history of publishing fraudulent work, as established by independent legal tribunals. We do not take their word for anything. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Good point that they do have a history of being discredited. And refs to that in this article, about the film, should, and can, and IS-mostly--referenced in-context with speaking-about the film. I think that we can be editorially correct and provide the critical responses. But for instance if we say that the filmakers cannot be trusted when they are quoted as saying that this is NOT an anti-vaccine propaganda film, that really stretches it too far imo. WP:SYNTH and WP:OR especially being involved, and this I guess is just another grey-zone where refs and cites that are normally good for a category film article cross-paths with fringe, and medical articles. A for-instance is, in the Real Housewives/reality type articles, we don't make a point to tell the reader that reality shows are scripted and fake, we just stick-to what is broadcast and let the reader decide. In documentaries, especially a contentious one like this, the response to the film should be noted, but there is WP:UNDUE here imo. Do we find anti-reality articles that say that Bravo's Real Housewives are "propaganda" to sell crap and fake-eyelashes to use for refs? I just think that this article says less about what the film is about and more about what critics say, and that there is probably a way better way to do this article. Every statement that is in WP does not have to be whitewashed for user's protection, and this is just too muchTeeVeeed (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)spelling fixTeeVeeed (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

reality TV shows are not trying to convince people a) not to have their kids vaccinated or b) to direct their deep and difficult pain and confusion about why their kid isn't what they had hoped, into a bizarre conspiracy theory that wastes everyones time and helps no one. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

And you are actually wrong there. One of the agendas on The Real Housewives of New Jersey is alternative treatments for a child who is diagnosed with autism. The product-placement for the oxygen-tank "therapy", was particularly disturbing to me since there is a real risk of blindness with use, and it was all portrayed as a light and breezy helpful treatment with no worries. They also support Jennie McCarthy's causes and ideas without debating the issues.TeeVeeed (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

They are also promoting their potion as a remedy for autism and market it as such on-the-air and online, just so you know.TeeVeeed (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2016

In the "Narrative" section I would remove the words "So-called" in the very first sentence. The second paragraph with comments from the Houston Press and Dr. Phillip LaRussa are more suited to be called "Reception". Wikipedia articles are not opinion pieces. Nycguy100 (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Why? The phrase "so-called "CDC whistleblower" narrative" accurately describes the #CDCwhistleblower BS. See also Snopes. We'd need consensus for this change specifically. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Because it is redundant and unencyclopedic for one reason. ""CDC whistleblower" narrative", serves the article perfectly.TeeVeeed (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Except that he's not a CDC whistleblower. He's a researcher who left a programme before its conclusion and who had some misconceptions about an artifact in the data. The source data is available to qualified researchers and has been for a long time, and the "whistleblowing" has been investigated and found to be meritless. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

OK-so CDC whistleblower is in quotes, and followed by the word "narrative". I still agree that "so-called" is not needed here. WP:ALLEGED mentions "so-called" here, along-with scare-quotes. I think that using both, and narrative which is actually very appropriate, is overkillTeeVeeed (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2016

In the "Narrative" section I would remove the words "So-called" in the very first sentence and simply leave it as "The film features the "CDC whistleblower" narrative that is based on anti-vaccination activist" The second paragraph with comments from the Houston Press and Dr. Phillip LaRussa are more suited to be called "Reception". Wikipedia articles are not opinion pieces. Nycguy100 (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I deleted "so-called". The second part of your request I agree-with, but it would require re-writing which I would probably support, but I do not want to do without consensus.TeeVeeed (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

And I restored it, for the reason stated above. Your edits seem to be altogether too sympathetic to the anti-vaccine cause. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

JFTR, my efforts are sympathetic to the WP cause. I'm trying to grasp this fringe-problem where apparently WP articles have been used in the past to legitimize fringe topics and/or falsehoods, but I'm frankly having a hard time with it since this particular article seems UNDUE in wanting-to dispute everything about this film. The bad reviews and controversy should be included, I'd just like to see this article formatted more like a film article.TeeVeeed (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The fringe idea here is the MMR-autism hoax. That has been characterised as one of the most damaging medical hoaxes in history. One leading perpetrator of the hoax is Andrew Wakefield. Another is Brian Hooker, who wrote the (now retracted) paper making the so-called "CDC whistleblower" claim. It was not retracted because it is anti-vaccine (though it is), but because it was incompetent. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Directed, and featuring Wakefield and Wakefield's discredited ideas, represented by Wakefield at film fests, omitting fair-coverage where ideas in the film are disputed, imo, the film is pure propaganda, an example of propaganda, and I agree as an editor that WP should not be put in a position to support Wakefield's agenda. The fact is that you cannot prove a negative, and that is not our job here either. Reliable science has said that they have looked, and have not found evidence that vaccines cause autism. Saying that vaccines do not cause autism is not semantically or scientifically correct. This kind-of thing is what causes problems for readers. This is why NPOV is the way to go. I think the article deserves a FRINGE banner/template at the top, and whatever measures are needed to protect the article from being used to promote FRINGE topics, but being shady about it just reinforces the idea that something is being hidden or censored by WP. We should be able to present the facts, avoid promoting FRINGE, and cover the topic without looking-like vaccine-bots.TeeVeeed (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

gorski/Orac

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/06/david-gorskis-financial-pharma-ties-what-he-didnt-tell-you.html

Alleged financial ties to vaccine. I really don't like his statement that anyone who says they want safe vaccines is anti-vaccine. This is irresponsible and it frankly SCARES me since this guy is allegedly working-on bringing drugs to market and receives funding from vaccine industry. OK-the source for this is biased, but I think that he is too, and maybe he should not be used in the article, especially since he did not see the film?TeeVeeed (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how fatuous that claim is? Age of Autism is a less reliable source than Natural News - and that's going some. The "we are in favour nof safe vaccines" meme is an anti-vaccine trope, and well documented as such. It is analogous to "some of my best friends are black". Nobody has ever used this who was not part of the anti-vaccine movement. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow TeeVeeed, that ageofautism's a high level academic RS - NOT - you've used to support that conspiracy theory. Gongwool (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

UM-yeah, I know they are biased. But there are facts there that say that Gorski/Orac 's lab was funded by vaccine makers. His OWN statements where he says that calling for safe vaccines makes someone "anti-vaccine"--are very disturbing, considering that he is in a position to influence vaccine safety. TeeVeeed (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Coming from such an unrel source = "b*llocks" Gongwool (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Except that Gorski admits his COI. Yeah they laid into him and highly biased for their agenda, but some people can see the forest through the trees without taking either side as correct, instead just looking-for facts.TeeVeeed (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

What COI? He has no role in vaccine development or sale. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

And, just so you guys know that I am not on-the-side of age of autisms agenda, it happened to be a top search result when I was trying to check Gorskis' credentials-(as a film reviewer haha jk)TeeVeeed (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Gorski is an expert on oncology, not on movies he hasn't watched, and his blog is not reliable for BLP claims. Stepping it back to a claim about Gorski's opinion, lacking secondary attention, is weak gruel - not even considering its been put in the lede. I'm taking it out. Rhoark (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Gorski is a well known, notable and highly prolific debunker of pseudoscientific claims. Considering that it is a well-documented fact that Wakefield is a scientific fraud, it's highly dishonest to suggest this is some kind of BLP violation. This is a textbook example of WP:DUE: The documentary consists of populist claims, not MEDRS ones, making Gorski's debunking perfectly suitable for inclusion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark please read David Gorski or rather the sources there. And are you actually questioning if Wakefield is a scientific fraud? If you are, please see Andrew Wakefield or rather the sources there. This is very, very solid PSCI territory; not ambiguous, not fuzzy. No BLP violation if that is what is concerning you. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no doubt about Wakefield's misdeeds. There are reliable sources cited for that - but Gorski's blog is not one of them. It is not reliable for the claims being made. WP:BUTITSTRUE is not a waiver for WP:V. That Gorski is well known for saying the sorts of things that he's saying does not mitigate the problem at all, rather highlighting that this is a primary source giving a quote in line with their biases. It is not appropriate to use without contextualization from a secondary source. Rhoark (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Gorski has been found to be a reliable source in almost every single case in which his reliability has been questioned. So... You're wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to talk about other cases, find a thread talking about other cases. Gorski is a partisan, not an expert, when it comes to this claim, and the source would still be unusable if he were an expert. Per WP:BLOGS, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Doesn't matter if its true. There are other, workable sources in the article, so don't make this your hill to die on. Rhoark (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Gorski is not the source for Wakefield being a scientific fraud. Various documents and sources covering Wakefield's license being pulled are the source for that. Given that it's a well-established and easily verifiable fact, Gorski repeating it doesn't make him a source for the claim. Furthermore, the thread you asked for is right here on this very page. Everything you've argued is based on a very biased interpretation of policy, and your POV is not more important than factual accuracy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you dispute that Gorski is the source for the phrase "a known scientific fraud"? It doesn't matter if another source says it also. All the sources that are used have to be reliable for the ways they are used. And what has my POV to do with anything? Do you suppose to even know what it is? I directed you to other threads if you want to argue someone else's points. Rhoark (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The phrase is not given in wikivoice. It's quoted directly from Gorski, attributed to Gorski, and Gorski's opinion on this is notable. You need to read WP:BLP and MOS:FILM more closely. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I don't think this particular comment is WP:WELLKNOWN. Oh, sure, a lot of similar comments are, but what makes this Gorski person so special that you have to have his particular blog's comment, let alone at the top of the article? I mean, I might get tempted to write something equally unflattering myself on a blog somewhere about this or some other film - why not quote me? I feel like you're pushing beyond the bounds of BLP, which Wikipedia takes very seriously, just in order to have a comment that is going to be less convincing to the average reader than most of the ones you already have further down in the text. Wnt (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I mean, I might get tempted to write something equally unflattering myself on a blog somewhere about this or some other film - why not quote me? Because you're not a well known, highly reputable debunker of pseudoscience with an impeccable pedigree and an impressive resume.

I feel like you're pushing beyond the bounds of BLP, which Wikipedia takes very seriously, just in order to have a comment that is going to be less convincing to the average reader than most of the ones you already have further down in the text. How does a 7 word summation by a noted, respected expert not qualify for the lead? It's a brief, succinct summary of the film. The film is a work of propaganda, and it is made by a known scientific fraud. I mean, the only notable thing about this film is the fact that it's a propaganda film by a known scientific fraud. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The facts of the matter are reasonably well attested, so the question is why they should be supplemented by this particular phrasing from this particular source. Is it just to twist the knife? Is every source so precious that not one can be lost? Your high opinion of the author notwithstanding, there are guidelines on what constitutes a good source and this blog does not meet them. Rhoark (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a succinct summary of all the criticisms, the nature of which are the only source of notability this film has. (Okay, well, the coverage it got in the press is the source of its notability, but that coverage stems from its nature as an anti-vax film by Wakefield. It's not notable due to its popularity, success or coverage by film critics.) If you want to find something similar to replace it with in the lead, be my guest. I don't much care which notable source says something like "this is an anti-vax film by a guy who lost his medical license," so long as it's said. My only interest is in making sure the lead accurately summarizes the article, and that no anti-skeptic/anti-science/anti-vaccine POV is being pushed on the article. Let me ask you a question; given the emotional rhetoric you're using, why does this matter? Do you think this film has scientific merit?

P.S. As I've pointed out before, Gorski's blog gets challenged constantly. It almost always results in a consensus that it's a reliable source, and consensus trumps policy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You want to know my interest? Wikipedia, much like the scientific process itself, is built on some epistemological ground rules about what constitutes a valid source of knowledge. Regardless of his general qualifications, when it comes to this movie Gorski is speaking from prejudice in the most literal sense; he formed his judgement before watching it. The case against the movie is already made with other sources. Insisting on an additional source, not because of its quality, but because it reaches conclusions that you like, undermines confidence both in vaccines and in Wikipedia's trustworthiness. My primary aim is to prompt introspection that will make you a better advocate for science in the long term. Rhoark (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I looked at this and to me it looks like a blog. I don't see a ScienceBlogs editor being fired if Gorski publishes something wrong. BLP is pretty strict about some stuff, and quoting a self-published primary source to call someone a scientific fraud is pretty high on the list. It doesn't matter if it's true - it's just not a good enough source. Which brings me to the point - why bother to quote what might be discounted as an anti-anti-vaxxer's rhetoric when you have lots of better-known publishers with a more neutral perspective saying pretty much the same thing? Wnt (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Problematic edit

(restored after deletion by TeeVeed)

I reverted a series of edits by TeeVeed which left the mention of David Gorski thus:

with blogger David Gorski-writing as, "Orac", who did not see the film, says that people who say they want safe-vaccines are anti-vaccine, labels Vaxxed as [...]

References

Gorski is not a "blogger", he is a professor of surgical oncology and a specialist in debunking anti-vaccination and other fraudulent alternative-to-medicine claims. I do now think we have better sources, and I would not cite his "Orac" blog, I would only ever cite Gorski at Science Based Medicine. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

He has a blog there. He is a blogger, his byline is Orac. TeeVeeed (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Click on 'Orac' link and see 'David Goski' in black-and-white. No conspiracy there either. Gongwool (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

who said there was a conspiracy?TeeVeeed (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw your changes, and I'm not sure what your point is about Gorski being a blogger, writing under a pseudonym, in a blog where he is the editor? Trying to preserve these facts in NPOV, not just delete them-(why)? The fact and ref that he did not see the film that he is reviewing for an article about the film should be incl. if he is-shouldn't it? TeeVeeed (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Also-ty for making me feel like a troll for NORMAL editing. You guys can have this article, because if it were up to me, it would be a do-over, but you guys are being ridiculous about over-ruling normal MOS polices on every little thing.Like deleting, "so called" when the phrase is already disparaged TWICE-you had to rv it back to three times the refuting, just too too much.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

We have tried to tell you a bunch of times that pseudoscience topics are not "normal", and the edits you have been making are exactly the same as pseudoscience advocates make. If you are going to work in this area you really should read WP:PSCI which is policy and WP:FRINGE which is an essay explaining how the community deals with PSCI. You are making this personal but it isn't; you have just stumbled into territory in Wikipedia that you are not familiar wtih. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that and I am trying to apply FRINGE as a top-priority, but I also think that Gorski is not the best ref for this article. There are some much better reviews from people who have seen the film. Also-he is a blogger. Is that embarrassing somehow? Is that why we want apparently to hide that fact?TeeVeeed (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Where in this source does Gorski say he didn't see the movie? It is not "embarassing" to name Gorski as a blogger but it comes across as an effort to discredit him. Like I said, this is the same exact kind of edit that PSCI-advocates make, trying to depict him as just some pimply teenager spouting on a blog. Gorski is probably the leading authority on quackery. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It says it on the blog. Also in the ref and quote that was deleted. ALL of the information from Gorski used in this article is from his blog, in his role as a blogger. YOU are the one giving meaning to the words blog, pseudonym, etc. that simply is not there. By the way Jytdog , is there evidence that Gorski is accepted on WP as a source using MED criteria? Even-if he has been vetted as a reliable source, for this article I don't think he belongs in the lede. And maybe not in the article at all since there is a plethora of rs that are less contentious.TeeVeeed (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

We use Gorski all the time on PSCI topics. See here. I wish you would stop arguing so fiercely about stuff in this part of Wikipedia that you are clearly not familiar with. Also, please provide the quote from this source that says he didn't see it; I've read that a couple of times and didn't see it, but maybe I missed it.

UM. It is also at the top of THIS section, but here, . And I wanted to see where Gorski was challenged/or accepted as a RS for MED topics, if possible, and also, I still do not think that he is appropriate for this article specifically, since he did not see the movie.

References

--TeeVeeed (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

And thanks for that Jytdog, you just linked me to a TP that says that Gorski's science blog is NOT a rs! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MastCell/Archive_3 WTF.TeeVeeed (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC) TeeVeeed (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I already told you above that advocates for PSCI - who often end up topic banned under the discretionary sanctions that are are in place on this topic - hate Gorksi, and yes that site gets challenged sometimes. The link I sent provided boatloads of examples where Gorksi is actually used in WP. You cherry-picked a dif where it is challenged. That is really telling. With that decision - which really departs from how we think about anything in Wikipedia (cherrypicking is universally derided) you are moving out of the category of "person who wandered into this topic" and stepping clearly into the category of "PSCI advocate." I reverted the content you added because the source actually in the article didn't support the content. You are now citing a source that wasn't used there. That you are ducking and spinning around the issue that you added content not supported by the source that was in the article, is also a sign that you are not working here in a way that is, as you said, "normal". You are heading directly for AE. You can do as you like, of course, but this path you are creating, step by step as you make these decisions about how to work here, leads to sanctions. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@TeeVeeed: That page does not say that Gorski's blog is not an RS. That page shows one editor expressing the view that comments on Gorski's blog are not RSs. There are two major, fundamental differences between what you said it is and what it actually is. Even if you were correct, crowing about it rather than calmly pointing it out does quite a bit to undermine your credibility. Finally, if Gorski is a blogger, then I am a scientist, a cop, a green beret, a mechanic, lawyer, judge, salesman, blogger, pundit, journalist, an author and a novelist, a painter, illustrator, martial artist, garbage collector, electrician, carpenter, mason, celebrity, musician, roadie, male escort and prostitute, drug addict, therapist, relationship counselor doctor, firefighter, nanny and porn star. And about a hundred other things.

Simply having a blog does not make Gorski a blogger. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

When your blog called science blogs is being referenced, for something you said on your blog, using your blog-name, yes that makes one a blogger blogging on a blog. So is scienceblogs supposed to be some kind-of ironic hipster anti-blog blog? Maybe I am being a little literal and autistic myself here because you guys are making this impossible to understand with all of your twisted implications and threats as-well. I don't even know what the PSCI is! maybe I am one but I don't know what that is, but I do know when a topic is being guarded too heavily by editors with agendas. I may just keep trolling this topic just because you are being so unreasonable.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging that. I will assume that you know that PSCI = "pseudoscience", as above you said that you read PSCI and FRINGE. The pseudoscience here, is the notion that vaccines cause autism, as are all the conspiracy theories around that. I will not be responding to you further per WP:SHUN; you are not serious and don't know what you are talking about. I'll say this once more: PSCI topics are the subject of an arbcom decision and this is not a field to flail around in. You really really should change course. You are not heeding any of the warnings I and others have given you. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

First, no-one has threatened you. Nor has anyone made any 'twisted implications'. Your assertions to the contrary, however, could be construed as a personal attack. Both Jytdog and I are trying to offer you good advice, as experienced editors in good standing: the way you are editing here and in the article is highly problematic and will not turn out well for you. If you will stop arguing long enough to heed our advice, we can help you get useful edits made and avoid problems. If, however, you insist upon making such specious arguments as you did above, you're only going to end up getting censured repeatedly until you're either blocked permanently from editing or have grown sick of dealing with it and moved on. Believe it or not, we're trying to help you avoid that. WP always needs more editors. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, we have agendas. All content should be in line with empirically established fact (e.g. the fact that there is no evidence vaccines cause autism). This is absolutely in line with policy. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Right, now that calm is restored, there is still a problem with a citation that says Gorski, David when the author is writing as Orac. You wouldn't cite something by Robert Galbraith as being written by J. K. Rowling even though it's easy to find out that they are the same. So perhaps a non-contentious solution is to leave the quotation and context alone, but change the citation to Gorski, David (writing as "Orac")... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Shhnots maybe 'Gorski, David (writing as "Orac")' is OK if controversy persists. Or as is the case many other articles on WP it seems acceptable just as is. Gongwool (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure "Orac" is a pen name. To my knowledge, he's never used it to obfuscate his identity for any reason. Rather, I think it's just a user name, in which case it's not something we would want to attribute his writings to. I could be wrong, though. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

On his WP page it says: " [David] Gorski, under the pen name "Orac”, began writing a blog entitled Respectful Insolence at Blogspot. In 2006, Respectful Insolence was moved to the ScienceBlogs website.[24][25]" Gongwool (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay then. That seems to suggest he was obfuscating his identity at first, and later kept the name to keep the association. In that case, attribute it to "Gorski, David (writing as 'Orac')" or to "Orac (David Gorski)". MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It was never about obfuscating his identity. It was about WP:OR, and the fact that myself, personally never hearing-of Gorski before, clicked the ref, and the article ref'd had the byline, Orac. WP should not make assumptions that readers have done the original research, or know the backgrounds on what we are stating. I attempted to clear things up for other readers and make the article more encyclopedic.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You say it was never about obfuscating his identity, then immediately admit you've never heard of him before. Now, you've already stated that you intend to continue "trolling" those who edit here in disagreement with you, and that's what this looks like. So I'd advise you to be very careful about what you say here, following that admission. There's nothing about what was written that contains "...assumption that readers have done the original research...", a phrase which barely makes any sense. Sorry if I sound harsh, I'm just being straight up with you. If you re-phrase yourself, you might make yourself clearer. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's not assume that readers know that Orac is Gorski. The WP:OR that I am referring-to is that. Sorry that you don't understand.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary? Gorski is identified at Orac at Gorski's page, which is linked right there. There's no assumption that the reader knows anything. The discussion above is clearly identified as being about the citation, not about the attribution in the article. Furthermore, given your admission to trolling skeptical editors here, any edit warring you do is going to end badly for you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, you have a very wrong interpretation of WP:OR if you think it applies to what a potential reader already knows about a subject. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

STOP with the threats please again. You are repeatedly reverting a change that YOU authorized.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2016

There needs to be a content warning about slanted opinion.

69.178.148.170 (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the article needs a banner too. Here is one that kind-of fits, but please see other options further down the page. The POV bias one looks appropriate as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fringe_theoriesTeeVeeed (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the film presents a slanted (read: dangerously wrong) opinion, but the article covers this off pretty well and the reader is unlikely to be misled (unlike Robert De Niro, sadly). Guy (Help!) 11:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions ?

Since I received an alert on my TP about the discretionary sanctions imposed on this topic, I wanted to follow-up on that. So as not to be misunderstood, I agree that the sanctions belong here, but I am wondering if placing the alert at the top of this page is something that requires admin status? TeeVeeed (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

So after being threatened/noted-as "warned", in this request for Admin sanctions against myself,

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TeeVeeed

I am now listed there. If we are discussing editor behavior, I have some problems with being purposely frustrated here. (see above, in mountain of text, more than once). Also, the editor asking for sanctions against myself, claims that consensus is firmly against my edits and suggestions, which is false, and neglects to consider archive 1 of this talk page where another good faith editor was dispatched and blocked from editing "fringe" topics. I have also mentioned that it is confusing to me that one editor/admin uses two different sigs/names, which is confusing and for myself, gives all the effects of a sock. (one person, looks like two agreeing on something).

• I have requested help on the Gorski issue on the reliable source noticeboard.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gorski_again_for_article_Vaxxed

The whole argument about the Gorski quote(s), and refs would then be moot. If not, see above, I thought I was applying consensus and instead-of being rv/delete, why didn't the editor just edit exactly how they wanted it phrased?

• I still think there should be a banner explaining how this is considered WP:FRINGE, or something to show readers and editors , besides the sanctions banner, that this is not an ordinary film article. There are problems that have been ongoing with this issue since archive 1.

• I believe that consensus says that disparaging the so-called "CDC Whistleblowers" narrative" two times, with quotes, and use-of narrative, was sufficient, and that "so-called" was not needed. And even considering sanctions here, it is a bold edit request that was answered that does not need to be argued as it was.

• I really don't think that I deserve to have severe sanctions applied to myself since this is an unusual topic/article as-far as FRINGE is applied, and I have taken the guidance and information about that into account, and I am trying to apply that guidance with this article while also trying to keep readers and other editors in mind to try and make this article less contentious. As a WP user, I came to this article expecting a film article and found way more than that, and other editors, (again see this page archive 1) have had the same problem, and readers are confused as I was as well TeeVeeed (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"I came to this article expecting a film article" shows that you are too narrow-minded in your expectations. Film articles do not have to be the way you expect them to be. If the film in question is a propaganda film containing obvious untruths or distortions and half-truths, like Vaxxed, the article should say that. From the top of my head: Please read Jud Süß (1940 film) as an example for that. (Of course, I am not comparing anyone to a Nazi here. But some people will claim that I am anyway because they need every attack angle they can get.)

Regarding Gorski: The man is an expert on the subject and thus a reliable source, which is not invalidated by his blogging. Trying to diss reliable sources on flimsy grounds like this is a well-known behaviour pattern in pseudoscience advocates. It is not surprising that you are viewed with suspicion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: TeeVeeed got hit with a topic ban last night, so don't expect a response. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, well... thanks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)