This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Isn't saying she "has been identified in the medical literature as using problematic rhetorical tactics" stating opinion as fact? (The opinion being that what she is doing is problematic) Wouldn't it be more neutral to say she was accused? "Identified" makes it sound like the accusation is a fact rather than the opinion of the article author. I tried to fix this [1] but was reverted whithout explanation (the edit summery of the revert just said "rv she was identified") Tornado chaser (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The vaccine against pertussis produce only sort term protection. The proof of this is that now vaccinated adult are getting Whooping cough. If the mother has been vaccinated she doesn’t have the full set of antibodies to pass through the placenta to the unborn child and so the child can get Full-Blownpertussis requiring hospital treatment. So what was once just another one of those childhood disease that almost ever child experience has become a feared disease due to the lack of this perinatal protection. Pertussis is one of those bacteria that do not provide life-long protection after the initial infection (if one gets it at all due to perinatal antibodies). Yet, frequent exposure to this bacteria keeps reinforcing the immune system, so adults did not suffer from Whooping cough before the introduction of pertussis vaccines and neonates which had some natural immunity, making it no more than a bad cold. One can not miss the primary sign – the coughing sounds like Whooping – hence the 'common name' given to pertussis (if medic wants to argue - I am older enough to remember those times and modern times, where children now have to be taken to hospital !). So to answer the OP's question – Of course it should be simply be accused rather than identified. Because here on WP we hold a NPOV and nothing has shown that she put any child at risk. So identified doesn’t pass. Aspro (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read #Vaccines that discussion was about a different sentence so I don't understand why you refer to it here, I do not have access to the full text of the source, but if a RS states an opinion, Wikipedia can quote that RS, but still cannot state it's opinion as fact, the source may well have identified her rhetoric as problematic, but this is the source's opinion, and should be stated as such by Wikipedia. On my talk page you say Atkisson is no expert on vaccines, I never said any such thing, only that calling someone's rhetoric "problematic" is an opinion and should not be stated as fact.
Aspro, I agree with you as far as article wording is concerned, but why do you attempt to support your argument by questioning the effectiveness of the pertussis vaccine? Whether or not it is neutral to say "identified" rather than "accused" does not have anything to do with weather the pertussis vaccine is safe or effective, and this sounds more like an off-topic rant than anything else. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BLP
Is the header "False reporting on vaccines and autism" appropriate per BLP? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's an appropriate header unless we have secondary RS that mirrors that language. I do think we need to clarify that the vaccine-autism link is a fringe notion (per WP:FRINGE) in the header. I'm pinging Tryptofish who has experience with WP:FRINGE and can help us word this content appropriately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: I should ping JzG since he came up with the header "False reporting on vaccines and autism". Tornado chaser (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'm going only by what I have read on the page. Of course the vaccine-autism thing is bunk and was long-ago shown to be so, and of course it's appropriate for us to treat it as a fringe topic. That much is easy. But the question as I see it is simply how much we should try to shoehorn into a section header. I think JzG knows a thing or two about WP:RGW, and I would hope that he will agree with me that if we go too far in hitting the readers over the head with the fact that it's fringe, we would be falling needlessly into the RGW trap. For that reason, I just changed the header to "Vaccines", although anyone should feel free to revert me, with an explanation. It seems to me that the text of that section gets the NPOV right. So if we tell the readers that this is where they can read about her reporting on vaccines, that's all the readers need until they actually read the section. What we don't need is a section header that amounts to an editorial. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your version is fine. My problem was with a section heading "Reporting on vaccines and autism" - which she was not doing, she was repeating discredited anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. That's not reporting. Nobody is reporting on vaccines and autism because the two are not linked. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think that your analysis there is a very good one. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no possible doubt that her reporting is false. In fact, it's been called anti-vaccine propaganda. BLP only mandates accuracy, not deference to lies. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Citing Attkisson's own reports
I have been told by @Tornado chaser: that my addition of reports by Attkisson was all invalid because they were just "referencing someone's website for info on something controversial she said"; the edit can be found here. This post is in no way meant to attack TC who has been civil and understanding; I merely don't want to use up his time to fill up his talk page with questions and hope that others have input on the matter. All of the sources I added were interviews she had done which she either published on her own website or for her talk show, Full Measure. My intention with the sources was to show what her reporting on vaccines actually was; as there were many sources by others but not any reports by Attkisson herself, I believed this to be a necessary addition.
I started off citing her article in The Hill; within said article, she includes several interviews she conducted with Dr. Bernadine Healy and Dr. Frank DeStefano, both of whom have worked with federal health agencies in the US. I understand how these sources may be problematic if 'she' was making the claims 'herself' but these individuals make the claims in the interviews with her; for example, Dr. Bernadine Healy flatly says that she believed the medical officials working for the US federal government were being "too quick to dismiss the hypothesis" that vaccination could cause autism in a subset of children, as I stated in the section.
Also, I don't understand why the Full Measure article the Twitter post by UMass Medical, or Dr Zimmerman's affidavit which was published on Attkisson's website were deleted. From what I understand, Attkisson is associated with it but she doesn't have full control of the show, meaning that there is a team working on the show and editors it; is using a report by Anderson Cooper on his own show invalid on his Wiki page? When it comes to the UMass Twitter post, I added it because it shows Dr. Zimmerman clarifying his 2007 affidavit which was fully published on her website.Somenolife (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits introduced, for example, a video cited to Children's Health Defense, an Orwellian-titled antivaccination group run by RFK, and sought to establish a false balance between antivaxxers who promote the MMR-autism hoax and the scientific community which has, by now, comprehensively disproved it. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Somenolife: While the title of an organization is utterly irrelevant, Children's Health Defense is not a reliable source and your edits did appear to create a false balance. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tornado chaser:@JzG: Again, my only intention was to cite her work; I did not remove any of the criticism of it. I don't see how I am creating a false balance by adding statements that others made when she interviewed them or cited their statements; none of the links I posted have anything to do with claims on MMR or Wakefield, for that matter. None of this explains to me why any of this reporting, even if flawed, shouldn't be cited at all.Somenolife (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since the sources establish that her "work" in this area is unreliable, I think we are done here. Guy (Help!) 01:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we cite reporting we know is flawed? Adding unreliable sources can create a false balance even without removing criticism. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tornado chaser: Because it reflects what she has original reported on and who has said what to her. I think to hide the fact that these individuals have made such statements to her damages the ability to refute these claims. The only thing that can be considered flawed would be that these people's statements are incorrect; why would we not show the source of the claim when refuting it? @JzG: Regardless of what you think, Dr Bernadine Healy and Dr Zimmerman made her statements through their own will and no amount of scare quotes will change that.Somenolife (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Somenolife: I disagree, I think your edits gave WP:UNDUE weight to the anti-vax point of view. You say Regardless of what you think, Dr Bernadine Healy and Dr Zimmerman made her statements through their own will and no amount of scare quotes will change that but I must be missing something, because I don't see where JzG used scare quotes. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tornado chaser: JzG put quotes around "work", which to me, implies that she is somehow making up or misrepresenting information but both Zimmeran's affidavit and Healy's statement are available in full from the links provided. On whether I am giving undue weight to such claims, all I can say is that I posted what was said in her reports by the people she interviewed; if you or someone can rephrase it so that it is more balanced, be my guest but do not include it at all seems deeply problematic and certainly unfair. Journalist Seymour Hersh, for example, has made a number of controversial claims through anonymous sources, no less, but all of his work is included as a primary reference; I don't see this case as anything different.Somenolife (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NOT putting quotes around work would imply that JzG thinks that it's in some way legitimate journalism, so quotation marks are perfectly appropriate.
not include it at all seems deeply problematic and certainly unfair. See previous statement about the unreliability. --Calton | Talk 04:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Calton:And as I stated previously, no one's thoughts on the validity of her journalism pertaining to this topic can change the fact that the above-mentioned doctor's made these statements; as these individuals made their statements to her and she reported them, they are relevant to her page. If, somehow the way I summarized said reports has caused a problem, then I would invite you to change it but nothing I can write can change the fact that the claims made in her reports are being made by these individuals and not her.Somenolife (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Somenolife: No one is saying these people didn't make these statements, what we are saying is that including them is WP:UNDUE. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tornado chaser: But I don't see how that is possible. The section is about her reporting on vaccines and these are reports by her that include statements either made by health officials directly to her or were recorded in court affidavits. As of this post, that section header has once again been changed to "anti-vaccine reporting" despite her statements that she supports vaccination, something she says in several of her reports I cited; what is being argued here isn't whether vaccines can ever cause autism but rather about her reporting of vaccination and autism, the validity of her reporting, and, with the current section header, if that reporting is against vaccination as a practice. By not adding the statements she has been given and that she reported on, it makes her seem like she may have been making everything up especially since there is currently only criticism of her work without any of her work cited. When it comes to the current section header accusing her of being anti-vaccination, regardless of what you think about her distinction of her beliefs about vaccination and those against vaccination as a principle, it only matters if a court could think that such a distinction is valid enough to consider it slander. I do think that this is possible BLP violation and should be treated as such.Somenolife (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do not give articler subjects the last word, we do not report their statements in a vacuum. Everything Attkisson says about vaccines is attested by reliable sources to be dangerously wrong, and we're not going to leave the reader in any doubt about that. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought that the section header "anti-vaccine reporting" violated BLP, but I raised the issue at BLPN[2] to be sure. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was a great way to waste more time and make you look more like an antivax sympathiser. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Really? taking a BLP claim that I'm unsure of to BLPN makes me antivax? I think not. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because it's already been addressed before on this talk page and giving undue deference to querulous complaints from people who don't like spades being called spades is a waste of everyone;'s time and a further mark on the scorecard of antivax-sympathetic actions by you. It should be apparent to you by now that you should avoid articles on antivaxers like the plagues they promote. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think this wording had been discussed before, and WP:SPADE is an essay on user conduct that dosen't override BLP policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bored now. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: Except nothing I posted gave Attkisson "the last word", she made none of those statements which are all in works by her. You can not deny that these officials made these statements to her or in affidavits. I don't see how including these statements "leaves the reader in doubt"; as an example, it can be recorded that "Dr. X said to Attkisson that they believed there needed to be more studies" and then you could counter such a claim with someone who has done studies and found no link; you seem to be so confident of yourself so why not do so rather than accusing TC of being some kind sympathizer to antivax propaganda.Somenolife (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Somenolife: The issue is that citing an unreliable source at all can give something WP:UNDUE weight, please read and understand WP:UNDUE, this took me a long time to understand, but is an important policy to know. P.S. the one thing I agree with you on is that JzG should stop making accusations. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tornado chaser: I did go back to reread WP:UNDUE but I am still confused how citing these articles violates said rule here. I understand how I could violate this rule by inserting her articles into a page about the safety of vaccination, accused links to disorders like autism, etc since they would certainly be in the minority, one that doesn't have work backing it. But this section is about her reporting on the issue, and she is an investigative reporter, awarded for her other stories, that happens to be reporting on this issue. I don't see how stating what she has reported somehow gives an unfair "balance" to these views since, as required by WP:UNDUE, the majority view on links between vaccinations and autism. The problem I see is that this a section about her work which only cites those who criticize her work, like Dr Paul Offit, without citing any or her actual work. As this is a section devoted to discussing her work, I don't see how this makes any sense whatsoever. I also don't see how her work is can be considered unreliable when it comes to a section about her reporting on this issue.Somenolife (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sinclair media
An IP removed the description of Sinclair Media as "conservative" without explanation, so I reverted[3], leaving a notice about unexplained content removal on the IP's talk page. The IP made the edit again[4], this time I thought the IP made a valid point in the edit summery so I did not revert, but JzG did[5], using the edit summary It's significant that she broadcaSTS ON WINGNUT CABLE I reverted JzG, pointing out that conservative ≠ wingnut[6], but was reverted by Calton[7].
I want to know what others think about whether to describe Sinclair as "conservative" in this article, I know Sinclair is known for being conservative, but I have seen plenty of mentions of Fox news that don't start with "the conservative media company..." so I am not sure about this. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, far-right hyper-partisan would be a better description of Sinclair. It's way to the right of Fox. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be OK with calling them "far right" or "right wing" IF we have sufficient neutral sources that describe them this way, but since we don't usually state a news outlet's political leanings when we mention a news outlet, we should only mention Sinclair's bias here if sources show that they are more blatantly biased than things like Fox and CNN. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My question is how do we determine when to mention that a media company is conservative/liberal. We don't say "the left leaning news source CNN" or "the right wing news organization Fox" so why "the conservative media company Sinclair"? I am not entirely against this, but we should have some consistant way to decide whether to list a news outlet's political bias. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It provides context. If you have a problem with that sort of wording, go to a noticeboard and make your argument there. --Calton | Talk 13:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
_173.JPG)
