Talk:MMR vaccine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MMR vaccine. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Autism claims" vs. "Autism scientific fraud"[edit]

After re-reading Wikipedia's policy regarding keeping a neutral point of view, I believe that the article should not use the headline "Autism scientific fraud" as it violates this policy. The previous headline of "Autism claims" was much more in line with a neutral point of view. The policy states that Wikipedia articles should "describe disputes, but not engage in them." and "Avoid stating opinions as facts." I believe that the "fraud" headline both states an opinion as a fact, and engages in the vaccination dispute. I'd be interested to see what other members of the community think. – Majora4 (leave a message) 04:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

All reliable sources say that this was a fraud. Only the anti-vaxxers call it a controversy or a claim. A "claim" is something unproven that is stated in good faith. This wasn't. Definition of Claim: an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt. This is not disputed or in doubt. It is disproven as a fraud as of 2011. On Wikipedia fringe theories get no weight when determining neutral point of view. We can and should cover this idea because it is notable, but we cannot "buy into it", not even a little bit. Jehochman Talk 11:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
To me, this section is wider than the fraud issue. Plainly there are a bunch of people out there who make claims that MMR causes autism, and one would assume most are not and never have been involved in fraud. The whole debate about this vaccine's safety cannot always be compressed to Wakefield's malfeasance, which is fully covered under MMR controversy. To me, this article is about the vaccine. In this context, 'fraud' is inappropriate in this section heading. Dallas66 (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
There was a fraud, and the sequelae are various people and media repeating the false statements of Wakefiend. It's important to be clear that this is not a controversy or a debate. Not a drop of truth to the idea that this vaccine is harmful. No reliable source says that there's any doubt. I would agree with "fraud and conspiracy theories". Jehochman Talk 20:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
While I do agree that Dr. Wakefield's original article should be considered fraud, I don't think there's sufficient reason to say that there isn't a controversy or a debate. There's a large portion of the populace who 100% believe that the MMR vaccine causes autism (and many have extended these beliefs to all vaccines as well). Although I personally don't think these beliefs hold any merit, I think there's a sufficient number of people who believe it such that we can't really justify treating it as a "fringe theory." The belief is even popular enough to warrant its own article, so that counts for something, right? – Majora4 (leave a message) 20:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
We actually do need to treat the MMR Vaccine Fraud/Controversy as a "fringe theory," just because a lot of people believe it does not make it anymore scientifically valid. Take Global Climate Change as an example, lots of people don't believe it is occurring, that doesn't mean there belief it is not a fringe position from a scientific point of view. In order to comply with NPOV and Fringe we should state in the heading this is based on fraud. Very few people who believe this theory have committed the fraud it's true, however it all started because of a fraudulent paper/press conference.--VVikingTalkEdits 13:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I have amended the heading and the text. The previous impression was of a sober and careful article about the vaccine, but then going off into an angry outburst about Andrew Wakefield: all of which is covered elsewhere. I guess current events arouse more passion, but that's something to guard against IMO Dallas66 (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MMR vaccine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)