Talk:Vaxxed/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notable Reference

The following statement is continuously being deleted:

"Mike Adams director of the Natural News Forensic Food Lab wrote: "VAXXED: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe" has already made history by being the first medical documentary in history that the entire mainstream media attacked without even seeing it. — Mike Adams (director)[12]"

Why? Because Mike Adams isn't notable. Here is a comment for the constant reverting (edit war): "Notable? Haven't heard of the Natural News Forensic Food Lab."

I never heard of 'Penny Lane' before. Why is her quote allowed to be on the page and not Mike Adams? I will tell you, there is only 1 point of view allowed on this page and that is of the anti-vax group.

This article as I have stated before, should either present information from BOTH sides, or NO sides. You want to discuss vaccines on this page. Fine, but also include articles and information from the other side. Conzar (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of things wrong with the quote you keep adding. First of all, you have two names wrong - it's Mike AdamS (with an S) and its the "Natural News Forensic Food Lab", not NATIONAL. But more importantly, Mike Adams is a blogger and conspiracy theorist and is not a reliable source for anything. There's no evidence his food lab really exists beyond as a marketing tool for his website. And finally, why would the director of a food lab have a notable opinion about a documentary about vaccines? Mike Adams is not a physician or scientist, he just plays one in YouTube videos. Please find reliable sources if you want to add material to the article. -- Krelnik (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Its your opinion that Mike Adams is not a credible source. Mike Adams is an outspoken consumer health advocate, award-winning investigative journalist, internet activist and science lab director. Seems very relevant to this film to me. I think what you are really looking for, is main stream media and pro-vaccination sources.Conzar (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Conzar: Please read MOS:FILM#Critical response. Also note that Natural News is not considered a reliable source by WP standards. Therefore, opinion pieces published by it's owner would not be considered reliable, either. To quote from the (well-sourced) WP page about him:

The site's founder, Michael Allen "Mike" Adams is an AIDS denialist, a 9/11 truther, a birther, and has endorsed conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Adams was the subject of controversy after posting a blog entry implying a call for violence against proponents of GMO foods, and then allegedly creating another website with a list of names of alleged supporters. The journal Vaccine accused Adams of spreading "irresponsible health information" through Natural News. He has also been accused of using "pseudoscience to sell his lies". Adams has described vaccines as “medical child abuse”.

To summarize, if Mike Adams ever said that the sky was blue, we'd still need to find reliable sources for the color of the sky before we could include that here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants:Please substantiate your claims about Mike Adams.Conzar (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources for that entire section are on Natural News. I copied it verbatim, only removing the references to avoid cite errors. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Just go see the movie Walter1610 (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything to suggest that this movie invalidates the mountain of criticisms of Natural News and Mike Adams which are out there. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Why would anyone waste the 90 minutes or whatever it is just to hear the usual litany of emotive appeals refuted by detailed and patient scientific analysis? Sure, there are some people who will simply never believe that their child's autism was not caused by a vaccine. There are even more people who believe in a conspiracy to poison the world's population by spraying chemicals from aircraft, and enormously more who refuse to accept that the Earth is billions of years old. All of these people have the same narrative: impassioned defence of their beliefs, excuses for the lack of supporting evidence, claimed conspiracies to account for the evidence that contradicts them. Initially it's interesting, but it rapidly becomes extremely dull. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hit Piece

The author of this page clearly is trying to discredit the movie providing very subjective opinions on the topic.

"The film was directed by discredited former physician and anti-vaccine activist". This sentence clearly proves the point that the author is biased.

The author references material that may or may not be in the film as clearly he has NOT seen it yet as its unreleased. Conzar (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The film discredits itself perfectly adequately without any assistance. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy, have you seen this movie. Can you please substantiate your claims?Conzar (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is about the movie. At this point, posting information and rebuttals about the contents of the movie are simply unsubstantiated since no one here has actually viewed the movie. Its my opinion that several editors are trying to frame this movie in a negative light and are having the audacity of accusing me of abusing the system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conzar (talk • contribs) 10:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I am impressed that an individual with so little editing experience is so knowledgeable at identifying sockpuppet accounts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if it's a "takes one to know one" scenario? Guy (Help!) 12:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:Be nice. The sentence quoted by Conzar does not "clearly proves the point that the author is biased". Wakefield is discredited (by the UK GMC), and is a former physician, and is an anti-vaccine activist: see the Andrew Wakefield article. Conzar is free to suggest an edit without edit-warring. May I suggest that JzG could appear less subjective if they moderated their comments. May I also suggest Conzar tries to be very careful with spelling - your original edit (since reverted) contained a number of errors. There is pre-release material about the film and a substantive trailer on the film's website, a link to which I have added to External Links. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The tone of this article is clearly biased and 1 sided. Nothing in this article seems to present both sides of the argument like http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/mar/30/vaxxed-andrew-wakefield-tribeca-robert-de-niro-free-speech.

"A substantial body of subsequent research has established that there is no link between vaccines and autism." This sentence alone is NOT appropriate. This article is about a movie. What relevance does this sentence have other than to distract the topic. If you want to discuss and debate vaccines, this wiki page isn't for that. This wiki page should only be about the movie.

• WP:UNDUE Just gonna leave this here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting read. So is this article about vaccination or about a movie? It seems that your incapable of distinguishing the two.Conzar (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It's about a movie made by a notorious, discredited former scientist. Also, you might want to calm down with the personal attacks. Finally: it's "you're", not "your". MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I went and saw the movie . The author is incorrect please have someone competent write it. Walter1610 (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It's logically impossible for this movie to change the fact that it was made by a notorious, discredited former scientist. Watching it wouldn't change anything I said. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this not the definition of close mindedness? How can you claim that information in the movie won't discredit anything you have already written? How do you know you didn't get something wrong if you haven't seen the movie?Conzar (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Now you see that is an interesting comment. Wakefield claimed that vaccines cause autism. The scientific community found this claim questionable due to lack of plausible mechanism, but nonetheless spent many years and hundreds of millions of dollars of scarce research budgets checking the claim, because if true it would be important. A mountain of research all came up negative. One small group of people flatly refuses to accept this body of research, and yet somehow it is everybody else who is closed-minded. Funny how that goes, isn't it? Guy (Help!) 08:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

agreed, its funny how one bad study can set off a bunch of people yelling ""CONSPIRACY"! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

CNN

Another source: [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Language

Language=English

Really? From what I've seen of it, doublespeak comes closer... Guy (Help!) 17:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not helpful, Guy/JzG. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It was a little funny though. I swear, WP needs more humor on the talk pages. But those pesky rules kinda interfere with that. Still, rules are rules, so Guy, listen up. That was naughty. You don't get a time out this time, but next time you lose your cookie privileges! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Like I GAF. I have coeliac disease, no doubt caused by vaccines. Cookies are deadly. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Note to self, if ever needed, can threaten Guy with cookies. And possibly further vaccines. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh no... I got a vaccine.. I'LL GET CANCER! Seriously, if everything fringe science claims is dangerous is, the population should be at only 2 billion. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Contentious text

Conzar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) inserted the following:

Philippe Diaz, Cinema Libre’s CEO said, "the festival’s directors cited pressure from sponsors as the key reason for cutting it from the lineup. One of the event’s major donors is the Alfred P Sloan Foundation, which, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, has donated money to the development of an Aids vaccine."

References

I removed it due to the specious appeal to conspiracy (Sloan Foundation donated towards research into an AIDS vaccine, therefore BIG PHARMA). The Guardian piece is long on false appeals to freedom of speech and short on constitutional awareness. Wakefield's First Amendment rights are not in any way affected by a commercial festival deciding not to give him a platform, and this much is obvious (though Wakefield, who is as English as I am, could be forgiven for not understanding this). Guy (Help!) 22:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is the conspiracy here? There are 2 claims to why the film was dropped. The producers are presenting one side and the mass media is presenting another side. By dropping the producers side, you are in fact, suppressing information that you are unable to prove to be false. This is why I have reverted the edit.Conzar (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

There are two conspiracy theories in play, actually. One is the supposed "big pharma" conspiracy to shut the film down, the other is the conspiracy theory the film itself promotes, namely the refuted "CDC whistleblower" meme. That one is sufficiently well known that Snopes debunks it, which leaves no excuse for a purported "documentary" covering it as if it were fact. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen the movie? No. So stating that its based on something debunked by Snopes (not a reliable nor credible source) is not sufficient evidence. Even stating, no excuse. Who are you exactly? You haven't seen the movie yet you are already judging it without knowing what's inside. You are clearly biased and are unable to objectively review this wiki page.Conzar (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree Wakefield has no 1st Amendment issue to argue from the UK, and enough of BigPharma consp theories. But of interest the article does infer Wakefield manipulated De Niro,

"As to how the film was programmed in the first place, Diaz said Wakefield nudged De Niro, who has a child with autism, to let the festival programmers know he had submitted Vaxxed for consideration. “De Niro loves the film, I was told,” said Diaz. “For De Niro, I think it was an important film to show at his festival.”"

Is there other RS which contradict or support this manipulation of De Niro by Dr Fraudster? Gongwool (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There are problematic BLP issues there. Its a third party alleging nefarious intent on the part of Wakefield and the way its worded doesnt reflect well on De Niro either. I would want more sources going into more detail before including anything along those lines. It would also be a bit unfair on Wakefield anyway, any film-maker trying to get their film seen will look for people who have an interest in the subject matter and try to get their support. Given his reputation (Its a bit petty to call him Dr Fraudster) directly jumping to 'manipulation' is a natural leap, however its not necessarily an accurate one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Try the Gorski article for similar findings/opinion @Only in death does duty end, and please don't call me petty. Gongwool (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

What big Pharma Conspiracy Theory? Were there any Big Tobacco Conspiracy theories? You know, before the scientist were allowed to blow the whistle? Oh right, Tobacco is different right? How about the Sugar industry? No valid conspiracy theories there either right? You are unable to critically think and analyse information. Big Pharma is a billions of dollars industry. Meaning, they have the money just like tobacco to do the same things that big tobacco did. This isn't conspiracy, this is applying the same tactics used by big tobacco into modern day just with a different industry which is at risk just like the Tobacco industry was at risk years ago.

You constantly say there is a conspiracy theory here however, "Since 1986, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has been compensating children and adults who are victims of vaccine injury including but not limited to: injuries, learning disabilities, severe/permanent disabilities, AUTISM, and death. They have been compensating for AUTISM cases resulting from vaccine injury. If vaccines don't cause autism, why is it being proven in court rulings, and why are they paying these cases out if they don't? Because vaccines DO harm, they DO injure, and they DO kill, and......they DO cause autism."

So explain to me how the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) exists if vaccines are safe? Is the general public defrauding the government by claiming vaccine injury? If so, why would the government allow this? Or is it more logical to show that the government setup this program because vaccines DO INJURE the public. "By 2010, the U.S. Court of Claims had awarded nearly $3 billion dollars to vaccine victims for their catastrophic vaccine injuries, although two out of three applicants have been denied compensation."

$3 billion dollars and that is by 2010!Conzar (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Its very funny that you make the claim that the film director manipulated De Niro without any evidence. Now that is truly a conspiracy theory.Conzar (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so Wakefield was talking to him about the price of tea in China, and the subsequent listing of the film was just coincidence? Colour me unconvinced. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Bloody hell, Don't accuse me of distortion, all I'm doing is quoting the cite back that you, Conzar, introduced: ie "Diaz said Wakefield nudged De Niro, who has a child with autism, to let the festival programmers know he had submitted Vaxxed for consideration". Sounds like a synonym of 'manipulation' to me. Go away Conzar. Gongwool (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Conzar

I have requested a topic ban of Conzar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to tendentious editing and promotion of fringe views. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I look forward to the Arbitration ruling that JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the one that is biased and is attempting to make the topic about vaccination when the topic should be about the movie.Conzar (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Given your negligible editing history outside this topic, versus my ten years of editing and enforcement of policy, I regret to inform you that you may be disappointed. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You regret to inform me. Why do you regret? If you regret, than that means you feel that you may have done something wrong. You most likely know that your edits on this page are biased. This is why you regret.Conzar (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Conzar: Take some advice: Stop making this personal. There are multiple editors disagreeing with you here. You keep trying to 'turn the tables' on Guy, but that's not helping you one bit. All you are doing is digging yourself deeper. At this rate, by the time the AE filing concludes, you may find yourself subject to worse sanctions than a topic ban. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Conzar, any native English speaker with a reasonable standard of literacy should be able to explain the meaning of the phrase "I regret to inform you that you may be disappointed". It nothing like your convoluted interpretation. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Docufiction label in the lead

Is this accurate? I haven't seen the movie, and it may indeed be docufiction, but my impression from reading about it is more of a Propaganda film done in a documentary style. I don't doubt that the film tells or implies some falsehoods (such as the entire friggan premise), but this seems like the sort of technicality a POV pusher could latch onto. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Tis hard to find a label for this one considering its attempting to rehash old debunked med science. It's certainly not a Documentary, but maybe Propaganda sounds too harsh. Maybe it's "a propaganda or docufiction film done in a documentary style". Tis just my suggestion on talk-page, please don't try to correct my talk on a technicality as Conzar did prev. Gongwool (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Easy: Crockumentary :-) Guy (Help!) 00:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've tried a form of words to incorporate documentary, docufiction, and propaganda with some justification, and I'm happy for it to be improved, but please don't simply revert it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I support trying to find a form of words, but that wasn't it as it gave WP:PARITY to the claims of a struck-off doctor promoting two separate cases of research fraud, and the entire reality-based community. We should try to wordsmith it here I think. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

- "antivaccine propaganda and conspiracy-laden quackfest of a documentary" is what Gorski called it. Could be a suitable reference? http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/03/25/mystery-solved-it-was-robert-de-niro-who-got-andrew-wakefields-antivaccine-film-selected-by-the-tribeca-film-festival/ Gongwool (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd be fine with quoting a description of the film, and Gorski is a good enough source for me. (Please ignore that evil laughter you can hear as you read this comment.)

However in the interest of neutrality, if we used Shhhnotsoloud's suggested wording and removed the word 'docufiction', we could cite that to the Gorski source. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• I forgot to write an edit summary in my last edit, but if I hadn't forgotten, it would have been "How about this?" MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you MjolnirPants Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hollywood Reporter

No punches pulled in this review. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Well at least it wasn't directed by Oliver Stone. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Autism Media Channel

As we note, Wakefield is a director. In other words, this is a self-published film. Autism Media Channel is not a studio, it's Wakefield's production company, and as such we do not "balance" the substantial real-world consensus that the film is anti-vaccine with a statement form the "studio" (i.e. Wakefield) that it somehow is not. That would be like citing Klan Media Productions to dispute the characterisation of a film by David Duke as racist. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Satire: I'm Spartacus

Some satire to lighten the mood. Natural News (yes, I know) www.naturalnews.com/053719_David_Gorski_Wikipedia_VAXXED_documentary.html says that "Wikipedia's incredibly biased entry on VAXXED was written by none other than pro-vaccine shill Dr. David Gorski." So, we're all Spartacus then :-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I have a glitch with Google whenever I do a search under "news" for vaccine topics in that Mr Adams comedy news-blog NatralNuws doesn't show up. So if we're Gorski here on WP, which editor here is Wakefield? And which ed is De Niro? I originally thought I was Bill and Melinda Gates, but then realised different after reading Adams triple fact checked editorial about the WP Vaxxed article. Gongwool (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll be DeNiro, as long as I'm allowed to change my mind about vaccines and autism. However, I have to admit, my Travis Bickle impersonation is spotty, at best. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to be DeNiro, please explain to me how actors think that acting creds simultaneously confer medical creds -- and why he thinks it's okay to announce to the world that 10 years' worth of meticulous data, conclusively disproving any link between MMR vaccine and autism is somehow wrong -- just because he says so. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

That's why I said I'd have to change my mind in order to take the DeNiro role. But I can try... Ahem, I'm channeling the spirits of wilting glares, a New York accent, great dramas and crappy comedies... Okay. Because I'm Bobby, motherfucker and if you question me again I'll rip your head right off your neck and.... Ah, crap, I can't keep it up. (just a tip: when you cut it a comment in response to an earlier one, don't indent subsequent replies, the indenting helps let us see when a thread has forked off, like this one.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't hear the word "no" very often, do you? :-) DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I hear it. Only it's more like "No, please no no!" MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

What's even funnier is he does accuse a particular Wikipedia user of being Gorski, but he picks (out of the air, I suppose) MastCell (talk · contribs) who, although they sometimes touch on fringe topics like homeopathy and Deepak Chopra, has never once edited this page, and actually hasn't edited much recently at all (only 650+ edits in the last 365 days, see stats here). --Krelnik (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The next newer vaccination related page I edit, I'm going to use personal pronouns whenever I reference Gorski. I suggest we all do the same, and wait for the inevitable "GORSKI SOCKPUPPET ARMY!!!11!1!1!1oneoneone" headline. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:39, 26 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)

Absolutely (and a bit belatedly) agree. One must never confuse denialism with legitimate debate -- especially here. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:02, 5 May 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)

JzG, the fraud hasn't been "established by independent legal tribunals," but by the GMC. The only time a legal tribunal ruled on anything touching this situation was when a High Court reversed Wakefield's co-author's de-licencing by the GMC. The High Court criticised "a number of" wrong conclusions by the disciplinary panel and its "inadequate and superficial reasoning." Wakefield claims he did not have the money to hire lawyers. (note I am not saying he is not or is a fraud; I don't know)JustinReilly (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Time, gentlemen, please

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

[3] - 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)

[4] "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)

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)

What were the misconceptions he had? Who investigated the whistleblowing?JustinReilly (talk) 13:45, 24 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)

I really don't think "so-called" is needed. Really overkill if "CDC Whistleblower" is already in quotes. I also don't think "CDC Whistleblower" should be in scare quotes.JustinReilly (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The guy was not a whistleblower, so writing in wikivoice that he was is not acceptable. The phrase isn't in scare quotes, it's in quotes because that's the phrase used in the film. It's prefaced with 'so-called' to make it clear that the claim that Thompson is a CDC whistleblower is false, not just quoted. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:58, 25 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 do believe you have just completely butchered the concept of methodological epistemology. What you're saying is akin to saying that I have to watch Loose Change in order to know it's full of truther bullshit. You're not only wrong, your suggestion is ridiculous. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to watch Loose Change to have an opinion about it, but you certainly need to watch the film if you want to write a reliable secondary source that is suitable for us to cite negative claims in a BLP about it. As it happens, I am slightly open-minded about "truther" claims, because before 9/11 I expected the towers would fall over and smash a huge swath of New York City like dominoes when the terrorists finally succeeded. So I would not rule out the possibility, however unlikely, that a self-destruct mechanism was secretly worked into the tower architecture in order to limit the damage if their toppling became imminent. And so it also bothers me that you would accept self-published primary sight-unseen criticism of that film. My point is we are not here to declare what's "impossible", only to echo outside sentiments from suitable sources. Wnt (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

First off: I've worked in engineering and construction on and off for twenty years, and I've seen dozens of controlled demolitions. The twin towers do not fit that bill at all. So don't bother trying to convince me otherwise, neither your nor any other truther has the knowledge necessary to do so, no matter how hard you believe. Second: The claim that Wakefield is a scientific fraud is a well-known, uncontroversial fact, and we don't need BLP level sourcing to state well-known, uncontroversial facts. Third, as has been pointed out at RSN: Gorski never gives his opinion (and so is not quoted for it) of the film as an artistic expression, only of the claims presented therein. Your arguments (both of you) are straight up wikilawyering to cover your own attempts to whitewash the subject. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Does having a "slightly" open mind make me a "truther"? I mean, I also have an open mind toward the conventional explanation for the collapse. I think you're adopting an unhealthy "for us or against us" mentality here even in the little things. Wnt (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If you are too exasperated by Wikipedia's rules and norms, I'm sure RationalWiki would welcome your contributions. Otherwise, assuming the case for Gorski has been laid out in full, there is no more reason to suffer this anti-scientific dogmatism any further. I am removing the quote, and per WP:BURDEN and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE you should bring new and better justifications before you consider restoring it. Rhoark (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring is not acceptable. Do not remove sourced content under discussion until a consensus to remove it has been reached. That's assuming you can override the previous consensus to keep it in, outlined on this page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, so I restored it, and improved its format. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Your restoration is a bright line violation, and I'm doing the courtesy of allowing you to self-revert before I request enforcement. Rhoark (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

??? "Bright line"? Seriously? What type of bright line are you even referring to? Take a look at the WP:Discretionary sanctions notification at the top of the page and the section below. If anyone's in danger, it would be those defending a discredited fringe POV. The mainstream POV must get the due weight it deserves. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:01, 23 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)

Why would we want "more neutral perspective" on a very controversial topic? NPOV refers to neutral editors, not neutral content. We document the controversy, and therefore we also use what RS say, giving due weight to the mainstream viewpoint. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

That is a severe misreading of WP:5P2. Rhoark (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a reading of WP:5P2 that doesn't skip over the link to WP:DUE. Gorski's views are widespread, well supported and factual. A contrary view (that this is an honest documentary by a reputable director) is not widespread, not well supported and not factual. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a moment where the strong formulation of "verifiability not truth" would be useful. Your stress on "factual" basically means you believe one side and not the other. There are a lot of articles about contested topics where we as individuals think that, often correctly. But writing an encyclopedia, it's not our job to force the issue when it is not clear to everyone, nor to go to extremes to beat the dead horse on our own behalf when it is. The question is only whether the views are supported, and supported in this case well enough for BLP. If you can find a secondary source that repeats Gorski's quote, or even paraphrases it clearly, then that is a decent BLP source. If you can't find any such source, then how do you know the view is well supported? Oh sure, there are many sources below saying similar things, but not the exact same thing, and if the secondary sources of the world aren't doting on Gorski's quote, why should we? I'm not saying you can't cite him, just that you can't use that cite to back a quote with a really clear negative allegation, because that's what the policy happens to be. There are countless factual claims and scientific explanations that you're more than welcome to source to Gorski, just not this one particular kind of thing. I was never even a fan of WP:BLP, but this seems like a no-brainer application of the policy and there's already been one editor hit with a topic ban because of the confusion that arises when people say this policy is super important and then don't follow it. Wnt (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Pause and reflect

@MjolnirPants: and @BullRangifer: it strikes me that you are not hearing me and understanding the content and policy positions that I am presenting. Please review the outline of the article and the way Gorski is used within it. You will find that the fact Wakefield has been discredited is present in the lede, sourced to the Wall Street Journal and Stat News. It is further sourced in the body to The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. That there is no link between vaccines and autism is sourced to three high-quality peer-reviewed metaanalyses. The opinion that the movie Vaxxed is propaganda is sourced in the lede to Indiewire, Aftenposten, and Forbes. The content of the film is debunked by The Guardian and Houston Press. There are additional negative opinions from CNN, Medical Daily, Variety, and Hollywood Reporter. Nowhere in the article can there be found an opinion supportive of Wakefield or the movie. I have not suggested that such an opinion be sought or added. I have not suggested that the certainty of the many reliable sources be toned down or disguised.

What I have pointed out is that Gorski's blog "Respectful Insolence" is not a reliably published source. It is hosted at ScienceBlogs, which does not exert editorial control over content. What Gorski writes there is self-published. David Gorski is a medical doctor and celebrated oncologist, making his self published writings on medical topics usable as an expert source. Generally self-published experts are to be avoided in medical topics, but could be used to debunk fringe material per WP:PARITY; however, by WP:BLOGS, self published experts can not in any case be used for claims about living third parties. Saying that Wakefield is a "scientific fraud" is a claim about a living third party. Consensus cannot override Gorski's inadmissibility for this claim. This remains the case even if other sources say it too. The fact that reliable sources make the claim highlight the needlessness of citing Gorski.

As a lesser matter, claims for which Gorski is admissible still deserve very limited weight relative to reliably published sources already in the article. Being opposed to pseudoscience is not by itself a sufficient indicator for weight. The highest profile secondary attention I could find towards Gorksi's blogging activity was Huffpost in 2008 calling him "a frequent ranter about the evils of pseudo-science".[5] In short he's small beans and apart from his peer-reviewed works, not known for the staid, sober, and evidence-based science communication that's needed in pseudoscience topics. Considering the claims of propaganda and fraud are already covered, using Gorski adds nothing to the article except for the man's name. Its use against policy gives solid confirmation to every pro-fringe editor's suspicions of bad faith. The case against anti-vaxxers is stronger without Gorski. Rhoark (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Well said! Wnt (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I know this may come as a shock to you, but not everyone who disagrees with you misunderstands you. I know exactly what you're claiming, and I keep pointing out what's wrong with it. In addition to me and Bullranger, Gongwool, Ad Orientem, JzGuy, Jytdog, Hob Gadling and Shhhnotsoloud have all explicitly or implicitly endorsed the inclusion and refuted arguments against including it. That's consensus, and consensus rules on wikipedia. Besides which, the purpose of BLP is to avoid making WP a platform for libelous claims, and this is not a libelous claim. Were Wakefield to sue WP in England (the court system which provides him the best chance of winning, as the burden of proof is on the defendant in libel claims there), it would be trivial for WP's lawyers to prove that Gorski actually said that, as the claim in WP is that Gorski said that. Were Wakefield to sue Gorski, it would again be trivial for Gorski's lawyers to prove that Wakefield was stripped of his license for committing fraud. In other words, there's no liability. Past that, there are WP's usual concerns of accuracey, balance and verifiability, all of which this claim meets.

So once again; no-one misunderstands you, it's just that no-one agrees with you. (Except the self-admitted truther cheering you on.) And your description of Gorski is at odds with the general consensus here on WP, and the general consensus among scientists and experts. Your might want to cover up, because your bias is showing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, but a result of cooperative and policy-based discussion. So long as you have not satisfied my objections, you have not obtained consensus. Naming a posse that has your back, inventing a POV to assign to me, and casting aspersions does not address the objections. (And a local consensus to violate WP:V would still be invalid.) Legally actionable libel is not a minimal threshold for constituting a BLP violation. I am taking out the offending statement for hopefully the last time, and remind you once again of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Rhoark (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't edit without clear consensus reached. Gorski is being discussed at WP:RS noticeboard, where there is a stroing opinion that Gorski is cited in the area of his expertise, and in such cases wikipedia allows blogs as refs. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity. The fact that you have objections does not override the fact that those objections have been addressed and dismissed by a majority of users involved in this issue. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: Your continuing assertion that for me to say I'm "slightly" open-minded to an explosive scenario, one different from what the truthers normally suggest, suddenly makes me a "truther" is absurd. And using that questionable deduction to dismiss my opinion here is more absurd. Wnt (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: First off; "continuing" means it has happened more than once, so try to be less deceptive in your choice of adjectives in the future. Second; considering the vast amount of research done showing that "being open" to one conspiracy theory predisposes one to believing in others, and your enthusiastic yet minimalist support for excising Gorski from the article, I'd say it's a pretty fair bet that you have some bias here. Third; I haven't dismissed your opinion. I've simply not given it much weight, both because of what I just explained in my second point and because you yourself have had relatively little to say in defense of your position (and even less which isn't addressed by one of my responses to Rhoark). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I said "continuing" because I complained about this before. You are totally on the wrong track if you want to turn this into some kind of ad hominem. To begin with, I'm not pro-Wakefield; I think the idea of vaccines causing autism is well demonstrated to be bullshit. The thing is, it didn't have to be bullshit; there's no a priori reason to suppose vaccines can't be incredibly harmful, which is why they go through rigorous FDA testing for example. For example, put some rabbit acetylcholine receptors in a vaccinia vector or something and you could whip up a real doozy of a "vaccine" if you wanted. So I want the niceties followed here - I want the article to blast this film the right way for the right reasons according to policy, without you getting carried away and telling me that it's a sign of weak-mindedness ever to consider the opposing point of view. This is all a distraction - I hope in the future you will focus on the actual issues and not try to come up with reasons to give other people's opinions less weight. Wnt (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me get this straight... You think it's justifiable to falsely accuse me of continuing to insist on something I actually only mentioned once in passing because you haven't shut up about it? Give me a break. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Your comment above was made subsequent to my previous response. Wnt (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

And was the mention in passing I referred to. If you really want to complain, you should stop doing it here. You're welcome to post a long diatribe to my talk page (I won't promise not to archive it the moment it goes stale, but I'll respond there), but this is getting seriously off topic for an article talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

If you post a diatribe about me and my alleged POV, I reserve the right to respond in the same place. This is indeed off topic - provided that you admit that it counts that I agree with User:Rhoark on this point. While you are at it, you should acknowledge that user:Aparslet also agrees with him,^[6] and that User:MarkBernstein also kept out part of the quote.^[7] And of course User:TeeVeed also expressed this opinion. I don't know why you are so insistent on this tiny bit of decorative text when it is so obviously contrary to our usual sourcing policy. Wnt (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Rather than say "I kept out part of the quote," I'd characterize my most recent edit as "I restored the part of the quote which some other editors were removing under BLP ground, even though that part does not involve a person at all." MarkBernstein (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I never posted a diatribe, stop lying. And in case you haven't noticed; it's been primarily other editors pushing this content in. You're arguing against a clear consensus (proponents of which have proven their willingness to compromise, unlike your side), yet you can't figure out why you're not getting your way? I can't help you, there. That's all on you to figure out. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:18, 26 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)

Just saw this now. I found the archive of TeeVeeed's case; there were dead links to content within it and no visible content except the final ruling. Im assuming this is just how it's done. Am I right?

In any event I think the rulings that he be indefinitely banned from both this article and the topic of vaccines were an overreaction. fwiw, I felt Teeveeed posited many valid questions/points some of which I agreed with. I understand the very reasonable concern that FRINGE topics not be given undue weight, I just feel that this concern has been applied here overzealously.JustinReilly (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

TeeVeeed was hit with sanctions due to the fact that his behavior was disruptive, not due to the specific concerns he had, nor to the edits he proposed. He was edit warring and self-admittedly trolling those who disagreed with him. Also, he wasn't listening when people explained things to him. He was also given multiple chances to alter his behavior, which he declined, as well as advice about how to avoid sanctions, which he ignored. Finally, the archive of TeeVeeed's case does not have any red links in it. Ever link still works. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 2 May 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)

ref to Gorski's blog

In this revert the edit summary was "WP:BLOGS prohibits this use regardless of expertise. Which is false. WP:BLOGS says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Currently Gorski is under review at WP:RSN. Please argue your position there. We cannot have the same discussion in several places. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The relevant passage is 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. Feel free to address that here or RS/N as you see fit. I'm well aware of that discussion there, being a neutral outside party drawn by it and a related AE filing. That discussion is dormant, having reached the uncontested conclusion that Gorski could be reliable for some claims about the scientific consensus on the film's content - a way in which he is not being used in this article. Rhoark (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. Got it. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

MarkBerstein's current compromise, quoting "propaganda film", adequately addresses the BLP sourcing issue in my mind. I don't see why Gorski is so all-fired important, when nobody came up with a secondary source quoting his reaction, that we need to have him in the lead. But that issue is not as strictly defined by policy. Wnt (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes current version adequately addresses WP:BLP. Previously the word "propaganda was in the first sentence without actually citing the source of this description. Therefore Gorsky its OK here, until we find sources which will say something like "it was described as propaganda film by many". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Gongwool has moved Gorski to the bottom of the Reception section (good) and expanded on Gorski's criticism of the movie's content (good) but also reinserted claims about Wakefield (not good). Please redact that section of the quote. Rhoark (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark, your claim that I "also reinserted claims about Wakefield (not good)" is false. The history easy to read. Your fib is undoubtedly intended to discredit me. Due to such false claims on your behalf NEVER contact me again. Since Adams wrote his nonsensical 100% fictional blog on Gorski, there's this hangup on Gorski. Get over it. Bye Gongwool (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gongwool: Here is the edit in question[8]. If you don't want to communicate about edits, don't edit. Rhoark (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You are a Class-A misrepresenter and trouble maker Rhoark. You are misrepresenting out off context my immediate edit after that redacting the word here [9]. So you're trying to cause trouble and start an heated debate making false claims about me. If you can't represent the truth, stop commenting on talk-pages, and stop make any more edits please. Go to hell with your lies, get a life, and leave me alone. You're harassing me by presenting things blatantly out of context and as such WP:HA so will not discuss anything further with you. Gongwool (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gongwool: You're being quite hyperbolic. I have never communicated with or about you until raising this concern - which is that you have reinserted the BLP claim about which there has been so much contention. You yourself recognize to some degree the validity of this concern, since you softened "fraud" to "quack"; however, this was rightly reverted by another editor as not being a viable modification to a direct quote. I am simply asking that you rescope the quote to matters of the movie and science, not Andrew Wakefield. Nothing I have said is a lie, nor should there be any cause for "heated debate". Rhoark (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

So what you are demanding is I revert some-one else's edit to your satisfaction. You reveal that you have control issues that I certainly can't be of help with as I'm not your counselor. Sorry about that, LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!! And don't dare judge me based on your own standards, I don't "recognize to some degree the validity" any of your opinions. I tried to help and you threw it back at me. As I said before, go to hell with your manipulation and your problem with the Gorski cite. Bye bye. Gongwool (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gongwool: Your latest modification still inappropriately contains a self-published claim about a living person, but as it is a much less contentious one I'm willing at this point to WP:IAR to have peace in our time. Some may wonder that I do not seek admin intervention about your obvious incivility since I have filed for far less, but such comically overwrought stylings do not seem actually liable to derail consensus. Nevertheless, it would be courteous of you to apologize. Rhoark (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• in this dif i added a quote from Gorski that was in the LA Times. Resolves the BLP/blog issue raised by Rhoark; we keep Gorski's voice in the article, which seems important to some editors here. A compromise. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• in this series of diffs i reduced ref clutter, raised source quality (removing for example some blogs and the vaxxed website as a source) and also added some more content about Thompson and made some other changes to resolve any possible BLP issues I could see potentially being raised. Jytdog (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This satisfies the BLP issue. I should add though that I still don't get what is so special about Gorski. Wouldn't it look more impressive to have "De Niro, like the anti-vaccination camp, treats the supposed link between the MMR vaccine and autism as an issue still under discussion. In the scientific and medical communities, it's not; extensive studies have established no link, whatsoever." cited directly to the Los Angeles Times? Wnt (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

the statement about the science shouldn't be sourced to the LA Times, no. Current citations 11-13 are MEDRS-compliant. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, you may have a point there. I was reading it as film review, but it is a medical claim also. Wnt (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I like where this is going, so will try to stay out of the way. Rhoark (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You Wakefield information is wrong. Here is what actually happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTxQxkXevkQ

Further, William Thompson has turned over thousands of documents to the US government and is willing to testify under oath. It doesn't matter if the recordings in the movie were spliced, as the originals exist. This may surprise you, but this is why the word "investigation" was created. You take the evidence, which there is a pile of (and congress has it), and you call the witnesses (Dr. Thompson still works at the CDC), and you complete the investigation. You don't assume you know the outcome, as you did here on Wiki, until the investigation is complete. The movie calls for congress to move forward with the investigation, but they are not going to, because of the level of corruption involved at the CDC that would be exposed. Please don't speak authoritatively and predict things, when you do not have all the evidence and the investigation has not started or completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.160.149 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

wow tom hartmann is an anti-vaxer. Who knew. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

He does give airtime to a few quacks and cranks (e.g. Robt. F. Kennedy Jr.), but I think it's unfair to label him an "anti-vaxer". At least in the stuff I've seen, he mostly, where vaccines are concerned, seems to come down on the side of reality. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I can only reinforce what has already been said: This is not a forum or soapbox for airing your anti-CDC conspiracy theories. WP articles must reflect reliable sources. Thompson's biases have been well documented, and the CDC is not the only agency that looked into the issue. After Wakefield’s fraudulent paper, numerous other public and private research groups looked into vaccines and autism, and almost 2 decades later, no one has found any credible evidence at all of a link. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I missed this- what are Thompson's biases and where have they been documented?JustinReilly (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

David Gorsky, a Known Critic of Wakefield is the Expert HERE?!?

Seriously, Wiki uses David Gorsky as the "expert" for this topic, even though he is known by everyone as a critic of Wakefield and pro-vaccine pusher. Yeah, that seems like a good way to get unbiased information. You can see his bias throughout this wiki page. Come on folks, let's at least try to get impartial writers and experts. What a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.160.149 (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

www.naturalnews.com/053706_David_Gorski_autism_drug_Karmanos_Cancer_Center.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.160.149 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

First off, Gorski IS an expert on the subject of the anti-vaccination movement. The only people who question that are members of the movement itself. Second, unless you have some specific proposals for how we can improve this article, then I feel I should remind you that this talk page is not a forum for arguing about the subject of the article. It is for discussing the article itself, and how it can be improved. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I would add the irony of questioning our sources, and citing instead that sanctuary of gibbering crankdom, the very antithesis of WP:RS, Natural News. Also, please sign your posts. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The unsigned comment wasn't arguing the subject of the article, it was contending that a source, Gorsky, is biased. (I am not arguing that he is not an expert on the anti-vaccine movement, though I don't think it is clear that Wakefield is anti-vaccine - as opposed to just pro-vaccine safety - though, yes I acknowledge that plenty of mainstream sources characterize him as anti-vaccine, and that is very relevant for purposes of sourcing a Wikipedia article).JustinReilly (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that David Gorski is editing this article? Since you don't, you probably should just leave it be. And Wakefield is anti-vaccine. Whitewashing that will get you nowhere in Wikipedia where only reliable sources matter, and your opinion probably doesn't. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Justito: though I don't think it is clear that Wakefield is anti-vaccine I'm not sure how you could have any doubt about this. Could you please explain why you think Wakefield might not be anti-vaccine? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Reception

Why are only negative reviews reported? There is plenty of support for this film. This entry is clearly biased from beginning to end. 2602:30A:C05A:E160:40AA:E755:BBB9:5CA6 (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Objective support? I've looked, and the only support I have seen emanates from the antivax crankosphere. If you can cite a reliable source or two that supports it, we will be happy to reflect that support in the article. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I've yet to see a single positive review from any source I would even feel comfortable bringing up at RSN, let alone anything obviously reliable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't checked all of the sources, but surely someone reliable must have made a non-negative comment about it. It is exceedingly rare for even an awful film to not receive praise for some aspect of it, filmography or casting or something. If it exists, it might be worth mentioning for the sake of completeness. On another note, that section looks horrible. It probably should be converted into prose, rather than a list of quotes. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it should be prosaic, but I honestly have been looking for non-negative reviews (I'm the self-appointed checker-of-skeptics-skeptic here), and haven't found anything substantial. What I have found has been buried in negative reviews, and thus wouldn't represent the review fairly to pick out. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the "response" section is not particularly attractive; I'll have a go at re-doing it when time permits, unless someone else gets to it first. And if you can find an objective source offering a favorable review, please call our attention to it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

What Wakefield says in the movie

Hope this is helpful wrt to Wakefield's stance on vaccines. Since I have a cut of the documentary I've provided transcription at minute 124:

Andrew Wakefield: “The notion of vaccinating children, protecting children against serious infectious disease with vaccines that are safe and effective is laudable. You hear about Measles outbreaks in Disneyland and then they try and sell you MMR*. We didn’t see Autism being reported as a consequence of the single vaccine; only of the triple vaccine. So, my feeling is that we need to review vaccination policy across the board, but in the first instance I do believe we can make the problem far less if we separate those vaccines out into their single Measles, Mumps, and Rubeola.”

• He’s referring to the MMR triple vaccine, which is one shot with all three vaccines in it (Measles, Mumps and Rubeola). Scottglosserman (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The movie was his platform for broadcasting his views that vaccines cause autism and the article is already clear about that. We are not going to debate or examine the nuances of his fraud here; there are other articles in Wikipedia that delve into that. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Wakefield isn't totally anti-vax, but promotes the false idea that there is a causative connection between vaccine injuries and autism. People think that autism and brain injury are the same thing. They aren't. One of the unethical actions by Wakefield was his secret patenting of a single vaccine, which he would market after destroying the reputation of the MMR vaccine. He had several dubious agendas at work at the same time. Talk about a conflict of interest! -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)!

Really, BR, let's not give this air. This is not the article for this topic - so WP:NOTFORUM. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Scottglosserman draws attention to an error (not a nuance) in the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article describes Wakefield as an "anti-vaccine activist", which is clearly untrue. Scottglosserman's quote shows that Wakefield is only opposed to the triple vaccine and supports the use of single vaccines. Roberttherambler (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

That's how the Wakefield people have been spinning it, yes; but when Wakefield called for suspension of the MMR vaccine, he did not explain why he thought the single vaccines would be safer, making it very difficult for parents to understand why they might be a better option. So many parents jumped to the conclusion that all vaccines might be unsafe, and didn't vaccinate their kids at all. Wakefield then compounded the problem with further accusations—all since proven wrong—such as his contention that thimerosol-containing vaccines were dangerous.

If his assertion that he is not against vaccines or vaccination were sincere, he would acknowledge that multiple studies over a 20-year period have shown that his hypothesis was wrong (something that even Autism Speaks now admits), and call for everyone, including the parents who followed his erroneous advice, to vaccinate their children. At the very least, he would join the call for unprotected ‘'older’’ kids to be vaccinated; how could he possibly oppose that? Older kids clearly are not going to develop autism, as even he would be forced to acknowledge; but they are at risk of death or permanent harm from measles infection. If Wakefield wishes to show he is acting responsibly, that would be a good first step. Instead, he continues to say, in effect, “Don’t blame me for the results of what I said and did” – and to insist that it isn’t his fault that unvaccinated children are getting sick unnecessarily. So I would oppose changing the "anti-vaccine" descriptor in the article. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

DeNiro comments

this edit removed a properly sourced quote from DeNiro that seems to me to be relevant to the article. Before I revert the deletion, I wanted to check with other editors about this. Or you could revert it with my backing.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't removed for being irrelevant, but for being WP:UNDUE. In short, because DeNiro misrepresented the contents of the movie, keeping the quote could confuse the reader of this article about the contents of the film. Because DeNiro took a position on the validity of the contents with this quote, this quote lends more weight to the (false and -perhaps more importantly, completely unverifiable) claims in the film. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Inclusion of a minority view of this type -- particularly one that specifically contradicts documented facts -- would also require the inclusion of a much more detailed description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Strongly agree with MjolnirPants and DoctorJoeE. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Same here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand WP:UNDUE well enough. DeNiro was central to both the decision to include the film in the festival and the decision to drop it. The article just barely notes what his motivations might have been and the deleted quote clarifies a bit that he was responding to criticism, but was still not convinced. I consider that relevant to understanding the context of the controversy surrounding the film and should not have been excluded from the article.

Are you saying that including the quote somehow adds credibility to the content of the film? I don't see it that way, but if you think it does, I wouldn't be able to overcome that objection. As it stands, the article has achieved nearly complete epistemic closure, so it becomes pretty difficult for a reader to understand why there might be any sort of controversy at all.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no "controversy" regarding vaccines, just as there is no "controversy" regarding whether we landed on the moon. The "We’re Not An Anti-Vaccine Movement We’re Pro-Safe Vaccine"[10] quote is a standard talking point used by antivaxers, much like the way certain other groups say "We are not holocaust deniers". See Antivax 101: Tactics and Tropes of the Antivaccine Movement for a comprehensive list. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly say there is no controversy, only that there's only a controversy among those ignorant of the facts surrounding vaccines. As for "...why there might be any sort of controversy at all." that's simple: This article was never intended to -nor should it- explain why. That has its own article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Anti-vaccine claim

Scottglosserman and I have pointed out the false allegation in the Wikipedia article that Wakefield is an "anti-vaccine activist" but the discussion has been prematurely archived. Was this done to prevent further discussion? Roberttherambler (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

That is never going to fly, and will just become an opportunity to pile on here and SOAPBOX about it. The claim is very well supported in the article. Your beef is with the sources there, not with Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Please show me a source which describes Wakefield as an "anti-vaccine activist". Roberttherambler (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Read the article and check the refs. it is not a difficult thing to do and that is what the citations are for. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You only have to activistically oppose one vaccine to get classified as an anti-vaccine activist. In any case, the NYT article (currently ref number 15) says almost exactly (almost too exactly) what the WP article says. [11]. Is that a reliable enough source?  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"You only have to activistically oppose one vaccine to get classified as an anti-vaccine activist". You are clutching at straws in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. Roberttherambler (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you read any of the sources in the article? or the one jmcgnh mentioned? because if you don't do that, you are just wasting everyone's time. --McSly (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Roberttherambler the content is well sourced. If you have some particular issue with some source please say that. And regular editors here again please don't turn this into a dramafest; please just stay focused on content and sources per the policies and guidelines. DS applies to everyone here. This thread will quickly die if we do that, as there is no valid objection to the content and sourcing for this based on the policies and guidelines; there is no just no where for this to go and if they keep pushing without bringing a valid objection per PAG, they can be TBANed per DS. There is no need for this to become a dramafest. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I have read the NYT article and it does not support the claim that Wakefield is an anti-vaccine activist. The entire Wikipedia article is a disgrace. Both the content and tone are unencyclopedic. It is supposed to be an article about the film but is actually a character assassination of Wakefield. To cap it all, I am now being threatened because I have attempted to improve the article. Roberttherambler (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Read the citations on our Andrew Wakefield article. You aren't "improving the article" unless your changes are supported by citations to reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, Roberttherambler you have to actually engage the sources. 2nd paragraph of the NYT article we cite says clearly: "The film, “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” is directed and co-written by Andrew Wakefield, an anti-vaccination activist and an author of a study — published in the British medical journal The Lancet, in 1998 — that was retracted in 2010. In addition to the retraction of the study, which involved 12 children, Britain’s General Medical Council, citing ethical violations and a failure to disclose financial conflicts of interest, revoked Mr. Wakefield’s medical license." You will not find a board in WP that will find the NYT unreliable, and the content is clearly supported by that source. That is just one of the examples. Please do not continue to misrepresent what the sources actually say; a pattern of this kind of behavior is sanctionable here in WP. This is not just some blog. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@jmcgnh, "You only have to activistically oppose one vaccine to get classified as an anti-vaccine activist." I agree with @Roberttherambler that merely cautioning about issues surrounding one vaccine is not sufficient to make one an anti-vaccine activist if one recommends that children continue to get vaccinated with single M, M and R vaccines until more science is done on the MMR.

Please yourselves. I can see I am wasting my time here. Roberttherambler (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, guys - this article is so biased you're doing Wikipedia a disservice by publishing it. If you want to write yet another screed against Wakefield, then be honest about it, but don't pretend you're being objective or interested in the facts.Monzambano (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources to bring or concrete suggestions about how to use the existing sources better, please offer concrete suggestions. further general comments will just be removed. Jytdog (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Absent a massive preponderance of reliable sources indicating that Wakefield is not an anti-vaccine activist, I think the existing sources combined with the fact that this film even exists proves beyond the shadow of any doubt that such claims are divorced from reality. Wakefield is not only an anti-vaccine activist, he's the prototype and paragon of anti-vaccine activism. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a *massive preponderance* of reliable sources indicating that Wakefield is "not" an anti-vaccine activist, for that descriptor not to be used? I would think that under Wikipedia's policies for Biographies (and other text about) Living Persons that a "tie" (or perhaps less) would be sufficient for the descriptor "anti-vaccine activist" not to be used. I also fail to see why the fact that this film exists makes him an "anti-vaccine activist." It seems to me the film is not anti-vaccine, but rather, pro-vaccine safety and anti-shenanigans.JustinReilly (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's excessive to have three mentions of "anti-vaccination" and "anti-vaccine" in the lede. I think it's most appropriate to remove the mention in the topic sentence. You'd still have two left.JustinReilly (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change.JustinReilly (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

This article is supposed to be about the film, not about Wakefield. The lead currently states: "The film was directed by discredited anti-vaccine activist Andrew Wakefield, who committed scientific fraud under an undisclosed financial conflict of interest, for which his license to practice medicine in the United Kingdom was revoked". I suggest replacing this with "The film was directed by Andrew Wakefield". Readers can read all the criticism of Wakefield by following the link to his page. This change would give the Vaxxed article a less biased appearance. Roberttherambler (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Providing information is the very definition of what an encyclopedia does, and accurate information pertinent to the subject of an article does not impart a bias. In fact, I would say that anyone who sees that and perceives a bias is only doing so because it is they who are biased. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the brief description of Andrew Wakefield is essential context for understanding the subject of this article and the controversy surrounding it. It would be detrimental to the article to remove it. Deli nk (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I suggest "The film was directed by the highly controversial Andrew Wakefield" as sufficient for the lede. The details on Wakefield's controversy is covered in the body. Speaking of which, I really think the section on the "Background" of the director and producer should not be the first section; I think the "Narrative" section should be first and then "Background" on the filmmakers as the flim itself is more central to the film, obviously, than the background of the filmmakers.JustinReilly (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Background information is information that is required or helpful before a solid understanding of the subject can be achieved. The key word in that sentence is "before". Giving contextualizing information after the main description would be confusing. As for Wakefield; he's not really controversial in any sense that matters. There is pretty much universal condemnation of his ethics in the scientific community, and his supporters do not legitimize the claims in this film. By contrast, the fact that he is a known fraud does much to delegitimize the claims in this film, so that much does matter.

I have to admit, your edit suggestions seem like white washing, as you are suggesting we minimize and de-emphasize factors which play a major role in establishing the credibility of the film. I'm assuming that's not your intention for now, which is why I'm mentioning this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to white-wash anything. I don't think the info included in the background section must be read before the narrative section in order for the subject to be understood and i don't think it would be confusing to put it afterward. I think he is controversial in a sense that matters, but you may be right that he is not controversial in a sense that matters under wikipedia guidelines, but I think that would turn mostly on what reliable sources- not necessarily what the medical community alone- say. I don't have time to go looking for reliable sources which might say he's controversial, so Im not going to go forward with this suggestion now.JustinReilly (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Quote from MMR vaccine controversy: "Deer continued his reporting in a Channel 4 Dispatches television documentary, 'MMR: What They Didn't Tell You', broadcast on 18 November 2004. This documentary alleged that Wakefield had applied for patents on a vaccine that was a rival of the MMR vaccine..." Wakefield is being criticised on Wikipedia both for developing a vaccine and for being an anti-vaccine activist. You are trying to have it both ways. Roberttherambler (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is Deer's claim accurate? I've found two patents for Andrew Jeremy Wakefield but neither of them appears to be for a vaccine.[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberttherambler (talk • contribs) 18:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If you do not have a specific suggestion for improving this article, we will begin removing your comments from this page as you make them. WP:TPG is very clear about the valid uses of talk pages, and you are not adhering to those guidelines. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants, I really don't think Roberttherambler's comments should be removed. It seems clear to me that he is implying that the adjective "anti-vaccine" should be removed from the article.JustinReilly (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Roberttherambler, the transfer factor patent says it can also be used as a vaccine. (fwiw, I have heard that he was using "vaccine" there in a way that does not equate to what we normally think of as a vaccine) In any event, it seems to be pretty clear that Wakefield is not anti-vaccine. There are certainly secondary sources that characterize him as such, but I have never heard him ever say vaccines should not be used, only that they should be used and in fact that more should be available to the public (ie single vaccines such as M, M and R in addition to combined vaccines such as the MMR). He, of course, maintains that he is not anti-vaccine. Curious if anyone knows of anything he has said or otherwise produced that I can take a look at that is anti-vaccine? Also, does anyone think that the film is anti-vaccine, aside from MjolnirPants (again, I understand that secondary sources have said it is)? And MjolnirPants and anyone else, why exactly would you say this movie is anti-vaccine (as opposed to pro-vaccine safety)? JustinReilly (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, where we simply report what reliable sources say about the film. The first three citations in the reference list are:

• Robert De Niro Defends Screening of Anti-Vaccine Film at Tribeca Festival --New York Times.
• Why Is an Anti-Vaccine Documentary by a Proven Quack Being Taken Seriously? --New York Magazine
• Controversial Anti-Vaccination Documentary Gets Release From Cinema Libre --Variety

If you have a reliable source (See WP:RS and WP:V) for your claim that the film is not "anti-vaccine (as opposed to pro-vaccine safety)" please post a link to your source here on the article talk page and we will discuss whether this article needs to be modified. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll see your sound of crickets and raise you one two-week-long rendition of the Jeopardy theme music. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

fwiw- I understand your position. There may well not be any such reliable sources. idk. I don't have time to look.JustinReilly (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Classy

It's all about free speech. Unless someone's free speech impacts your ability to make money selling your crockumentary. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/us-film-studio-threatens-to-sue-autism-rights-advocate-412355.html Guy (Help!) 08:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

Possible BLP issue

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

The entire point of the reception section is to reflect how the movie was received - which must be "fair and balanced" to have any use at all. If the "Reception" section for Gone with the Wind was nothing but negative reviews would you make the same argument?Byates5637 (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You may have a point, but you're not helping the consensus process by acting unilaterally.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer to use my edit, which you just reverted, as a starting point, and let the other editors build off it. The current reception section is not wikipedia worthy in format or content. Byates5637 (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess we'll have a chance to take this issue up again when you return. We can discuss here which of your additions and subtractions can be supported by other editors.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

good lord this is as non-NPOV as it gets. Thanks for reverting jmcgnh. The thing about Rotten Tomatoes can stay; i will restore that bit. Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"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)

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

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 discredited 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)

These are not relevant questions in WP. I again call to your attention the discretionary sanctions. Please see the sources, discussion above on this page, and in the archives, and please base future comments on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Without getting into the specifics, I have to say I agree with the instincts of Byates in all this. I think that here and there in this entry and those most related, editors go one step beyond the desired level of dryness. As a general rule, when points are over-emphasized (like saying it was a VERY hot day) it devalues the currency of the language, and tends to diminish the stature of the user. I don't want to leave my present screen to look up Dr Mengele, but I bet it doesn't use a huge number of pejorative adjectives. On the other hand, the fact that there have been reviews not using some specific word doesn't play either. I also doubt whether Scienceblogs is a good source, unless it has a Wiki entry that suggests it is, but I haven't looked. Generally, though, I think less is more, which I think is all Byates is trying to say. He/she isn't a drive-by loon. Bluehotel (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

If Wakefield is mentioned it is necessary to mention he's dodgy, otherwise his support might look like valid, scientific support. The dodgy support for the film is one of the key things about it. NPOV and all that. Alexbrn (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Showings in the UK

Alexbrn may find it boring that the film is being shown in the UK. Some people might actually be interested so why censor the information? Roberttherambler (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Not censored, but for your answer, it is WP:UNDUE. A movie was made and shown. gosh. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

We summarize accepted knowledge rather than merely relay 'information' Lists of showings are not encyclopedic. Also see WP:CGTW#13. Alexbrn (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Saying that a movie was shown somewhere is hardly important enough to merit mention. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It is when there is such a hysterical campaign to suppress it. Roberttherambler (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

And people want to see it: "Tickets sold out in 24 hours when they first went on sale, proving that censorship only heightens our desire to access information".[13] Roberttherambler (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

... he says, linking to an anti-vaxxer's piece. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I've actually seen the film and I found it well worth watching. Have any of you seen it? Roberttherambler (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, good for you. This has however no relevance here as wikipedia is not a place to discuss what we do during our free time. As mentioned by others, the movie was released so people are watching it. I don't see how adding random information about showing would be encyclopedic. --McSly (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Roberttherambler, there is a great essay about how to work on WP:Controversial articles; please read it. There is a section there about raising source quality. Please do not bring refs like the Daily Mail and blogs to this discussion. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Should the article be allowed to balloon up with mentions of where the movie was or was not shown in every country? Obviously not. You might be able to justify a line about various screenings after the premiere being canceled after public outcry, but a movie simply being shown is not in any sense significant in of itself. --tronvillain (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Who has seen the film?

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.

---

As I have seen the film, I am better qualified to write about it than people who have not seen it. It would be helpful if people who edit the article would declare whether or not they have seen the film. Roberttherambler (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not how any of this works. Whether or not someone has seen it is completely irrelevant. --tronvillain (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2017 (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.

Can I help with some non-neutral edits?

How do we edit this page? Seems a bit one-sided? Csessa2017 (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? It is pretty well sourced. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really, we only allow neutral edits on wikipedia. -Roxy the dog. bark 20:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Here we go sorry - there is not a single positive thing said. There is more on Dr. William Thompson who is a CDC whistleblower and made a statement through his lawyer. Can we not add the statement he made through his lawyer - that would be a reliable source? Under the reception section there is nothing neutral - all negative quotes and opinions. Is the author of the page trying to tell me there was not one positive comment? The spin on this page is all about "discredited Dr. wakefield". What about the other authors and peers that reviewed Wakefields work? I would like an opportunity to contribute to this page (with sources). Csessa2017 (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

See the same Rotten Tomatoes reef ce this author used - Mick LeSalle gave the movie 3/4 but the author conveniently left out all positive reviews. Mick LeSalle San Francisco Chronicle. top critic - can we add his comment to the wikipAge? His comment It's a polemic. But it's a passionate advocate for its viewpoint, and that makes for compelling viewing. Csessa2017 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed the section below as it appears to be a duplicate of the above. Please either edit the article or add proposed text here. In both cases, provide a source—just a URL will do. The reliable sources guideline explains what sources are acceptable. The fundamental hurdle preventing "positive" responses is WP:REDFLAG because medical science is extraordinarily successful and only an minuscule proportion of people in an advanced society would do anything other than follow their doctor's advice if facing a serious medical problem. That is a social way of confirming the WP:FRINGE nature of the film. Anyone wanting to "believe" in the film should contemplate the very large number of similar conspiracy theories (see List of conspiracy theories)—they can't all be true so obviously there is a tendency for humans to invent explanations or just-so stories for hard-to-accept situations. There is also the profit factor—it is now possible for entrepreneurs to make a lot of money by publishing contrarian material. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I cannot edit the article? It's says editing is prohibited to prevent vandalism? Csessa2017 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Here in Cannes, Cinema Libre already has secured distribution deals for the film in Italy (Wanted), Germany (Busch Media), Poland (TVN) and China (Gaia Studios). Deals are pending in Japan, Holland, Israel, Syria, Mexico and South Africa. Vaxxed also has played theatrically in Ireland, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand. Csessa2017 (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It has NOT been played theatrically in New Zealand - it was played in a secret location once to a select few, and certainly not in a cinema. Vrrtigo (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Source: hollywoodreporter.com Csessa2017 (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Same source: In 2016, Tribeca Film Festival founder Robert De Niro appeared to walk back his decision to pull Vaxxed when he told Today: “I think the movie is something that people should see. There was a backlash that I haven't fully explored and I will. But I didn't want it to start affecting the festival in ways I couldn't see." Csessa2017 (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC) url: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/controversial-anti-vaccine-doc-vaxxed-gets-secret-cannes-screening-1006018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csessa2017 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle was described by Ariana Eun Cha as giving a "generous" review and said that he "appeared to be moved by the footage and personal stories of the children and their parents."[42] He wrote: The vast majority of people who see this film will not have the scientific knowledge to assess the film’s veracity. But it’s fair to say that the documentary, though characterized as antivaccination, isn’t quite that. The point of view is more nuanced. It’s against the vaccination of children ages 2 and younger. And it’s particularly against the MMR — that is, the giving of three vaccines at once ... it’s a passionate advocate for its viewpoint, and that makes for compelling viewing.... Of course, it’s possible that the children would have developed autism anyway, and that one event didn’t cause the other. But the parents presented here are convinced otherwise.[43]

here I am suggesting to be neutral, remove "was described by Ariana Eun as giving a "generous" review. Please just state what the critic said. There is no need to try to undo or unsay what the critic said by adding the extra comment. He gave the film a 3/4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csessa2017 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

for the Premiere section: In reaction to Cinema Libre's decision to distribute the film, Todd Drezner, the father of an autistic son and creator of a neurodiversity-themed movie that was distributed by Cinema Libre, wrote an open letter to Cinema Libre criticizing Vaxxed and Cinema Libre's decision to distribute it, writing: "By releasing Vaxxed, Cinema Libre is actively harming thousands of autistic people. While we should be discussing ways to best support autistic people and help them lead fulfilling lives, you would instead have us follow a discredited scientist and dishonest filmmaker down a rabbit hole that leads only to long-debunked conspiracy theories. I am profoundly disappointed."[36][37]

this is again more quotations - consider moving to Wikiquotes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csessa2017 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

more opinions in second paragraph: In reviewing the film, Indiewire said that "Wakefield doesn’t just have a dog in this fight; he is the dog".[11] - consider Wikiquotes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csessa2017 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

add Vaxxed website http://vaxxedthemovie.com/ Csessa2017 (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I added content about cannes, the revenue to date, and the further distribution deals. Thanks for bringing the new ref with that info. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Acting on your agenda when editing

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.

---

Wikipedia is not the place to push any one persons views or agenda bias. This is a place for a summary of facts as would pertain to an encyclopedia. Its very obvious there are people at work trying to soften tone of this article because they happen to agree with the movie - that is not what we are here for. Equally, it isnt a place for people to rant about "those anti-vaxxers", though I would say those people are very much fewer. If you find yourself angry about content and are taking it personally, you should not be editing it. This isnt a place for emotions. Take it to a discussion board elsewhere. Vrrtigo (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

There are also people at work trying to harden the tone of this article because they happen to disagree with the movie. Roberttherambler (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2017 (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.

Screenings

Why is it that a screening in Cannes can be reported [14] but screenings in London cannot? [15] Does it depend on who makes the edit? Roberttherambler (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Cannes is a place where distribution deals get made and kind of a big deal. London (while lovely) is just another city where it screened. The heart of WP:NOT is that we don't just indiscriminately include things in WP. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it was an independent screening by the distributor rather than a part of the festival: "Interestingly, the event was not set up by the organizers of the Cannes Film Festival, but by the film's distributor, Cinema Libre Studio." Reporting that "The film was screened at Cannes in 2017" implies that the film was part of the festival, which was presumably the impression the distribution company was attempting to give by having a "secret" screening during the festival. --tronvillain (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

If it was not part of the festival I don't think we ought to imply that it is. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) thx, corrected Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Unreferenced claim

SkepticalRaptor's edit of 4 July 2017 claims that "They're claiming all vaccines cause autism". Who are "they"? No Lancet articles appear in the reflist so what is SkepticalRaptor's claim based on? Roberttherambler (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@SkepticalRaptor:@Roberttherambler: I was wondering the same thing, later in the same paragraph it says it was specifically the MMR vaccine, and this is clearly talking about the MMR vaccine controversy. Some may claim all vaccines cause autism, but this is specifically about wakefield's lancet "study". Tornado chaser (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the issue has been adressed, it has been changed back to "the MMR vaccine". Tornado chaser (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, SkepticalRaptor isn't entirely wrong (I've encountered many people claiming that all vaccines cause autism, mostly those ignorant even of their own preferred conspiracy theories, but still). But the edit was still OR and SYNTH. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Tired of being stalked by this anti-vaxxer. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

What anti-vaxxer? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Snopes as a source

Snopes has been well established to be an RS. See the following discussions:

• Section "Snopes.com"
• Section "Snopes.com again"
• Section "Snopes.com"
• a search for "snopes" in the RSN archives, results of which which show numerous occasions of using snopes.com as a reference for the reliability of other sources.

Furthermore, the addition of obvious WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that accompanied the edit removing the snopes-sourced material is highly troubling. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

An excellent fact checking source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I have replaced snopes with an IOM report, I don't think anyone will question the reliability of this. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a wonderful change. Thank you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2018

The lede currently has no genre indicator - please insert into the lede that it is a "2016 American documentary film". --85.211.212.153 (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

But it isn't a documentary. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It doesn't look like a documentary film. Could you find a proof somewhere that it is? L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean it doesn't "look like" a documentary? What definition of documentary are you using that the film doesn't satisfy?

If you believe the film needs some kind of proof before it can be considered a documentary, then you should be consistent and remove the article from the category of 'documentary' that it currently resides in. Otherwise, please make my edit to the lede. --85.211.212.153 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done: Adding category based off this, this, this, and this source which all call it a documentary.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

WaPo says it "appears to be a slickly produced scientific documentary with lots of charts and data". They don't call it a documentary. Natureium (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• See Docufiction, Pseudo-documentary and Propaganda film which might be more appropriate. Unfortunately, there has never been coined a term to describe so-called documentary films that lie through their teeth to pursue an agenda, but the two genres I mentioned both come closer to the truth than Documentary film does. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

If Vaxxed is a documentary then Game of Thrones is historical. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Guy... Are you saying the DNA genealogy test that said I was descended from Ned Stark is wrong? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2018

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.

---

In accordance with the above consensus that Vaxxed is not a documentary, please delete the [[Category:Pseudoscience documentary films]] from the article. --85.211.212.153 (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Nice try, but no. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry but I'm utterly confused now. Editors are both refusing to add the word "documentary" to the article, and remove it from a "documentary" category. This is utterly contradictory. --85.211.212.153 (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. You see, Docufiction films, Pseudo-documentary films and Propaganda film are all subcategories of documentary films. It's the sort of thing that should be specified in the article, but which doesn't matter one whit to category names. I recommend a good reading WP:POINT before you make your next such edit request. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting Wikipedia, I'm trying to get the article to be consistent. I don't care whether the film is considered a documentary or not, but either it is or it isn't. And you haven't fully explained which it is. You've only listed different things it isn't. --85.211.212.153 (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I have not listed a single thing which it isn't. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

As you appear determined to talk in riddles, I'm going to go and draw in another editor who will hopefully address the question directly. --85.211.212.153 (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I've twice now made the point that this film is better described as one of the genres I listed, and you responded by claiming I'm listing things the film is not. So either you required correction about what I was saying (my presumption, per WP:AGF), or you were indicating agreement with the anti-vaccination stance of this film by suggesting that the genres I listed were obviously inapplicable. The latter would imply some POV pushing on your part, and so I discarded that theory unless and until such time as you make it clear no other explanation is likely.

It's okay if you don't understand something, you know. You can ask for clarification. At a certain point, I might get tired of explaining things and tell you that your confusion is your own problem, but I think you might be surprised at how patient I can be with someone who is trying in good faith to collaborate here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Let me try. 85.211.212.153 is either genuinely confused by the responses he has received or is pretending to be confused in order to justify removing the claim that the film is pseudoscience. I will assume the former and try to explain. A documentary film is a film that claims to be factually accurate and to contain no fictional elements. If it does a reasonable job of doing that, it is simply called a "documentary" or sometimes "factual documentary". An example of this is Citizenfour. If a film claims to be a documentary but obviously isn't, it is called a mock documentarty or mockumentary. An example of this is This Is Spinal Tap. If a film falsely claims to be a documentary but is actually pure fiction, it is called a fake documentary. An example of this is Fargo. If a film claims to be a documentary but presents pseudoscience as if it was legitimate science, it is called a Pseudoscience documentary. Examples of this are Mermaids: The Body Found and Vaxxed. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Then why won't you simply add "pseudoscience documentary" to the opening sentence? --85.211.212.153 (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd be okay with that. Of course, an argument could be made that it's not a commonly understood term. Then someone would come along and link it to Pseudo-documentary or one of the other articles I mentioned and that would start an edit war and a whole new battle. But hell, I'm game. Any objections? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

None here. I am good with whatever the consensus is. Perhaps "pseudoscientific documentary is clearer? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I just felt bold and changed it. Feel free to "fix my screw up" if needed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Christ. I can't believe a simple and sensible edit request took this long and this much wrangling to be actioned. --85.211.212.153 (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Your original request was never done, soo... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Through POV-pushing, sure. Given you all seem to agree on the term 'pseudoscience documentary', and given my original request was about the opening sentence requiring a genre, you could have quite reasonably added it at any time after I brought up the fact the article already lay within that category. Instead you were deliberately vexatious. --85.211.212.153 (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I'm going to stop beating around the bush and be crystal clear about what I think is going on here.

Virtually all the people taking part in this discussion (apart from QueerFilmNerd, who actually had sources to back up their position, shock horror) are doing so because you routinely edit articles on pseudoscience and hoaxes and the like. You have a hatred of people who push anti-scientific thinking, and this has led you to jump to conclusions about anyone who appears to be editing from that perspective.

You immediately objected to my suggestion that the opening sentence have the 'documentary' genre because you assumed I was one of these people, and that this word would accord the film too much legitimacy, even though it clearly is a documentary. Without openly declaring it, you have stuck to a definition of the word 'documentary' that requires everything depicted in it to be verifiably true, which is probably not the case for any documentary that has ever been made, and embarked on this ridiculous discussion about sub-genres and the like.

Am I assuming good faith? Sure, I'm not suggesting you are intending to harm the encyclopaedia. But are you wrong about this? Certainly. --85.211.212.153 (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2018 (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.

Actually he was 'Struck off'

I'm not sure why edit warring is still going on. Edsums are not enough peeps. He didn't have a licence, so it couldn't have been revoked. Simples. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Not that I have a dog in this fight, but Guy was quoting the source. It's distinctly possible that the (American) source described the situation inaccurately, but if so, a better source is the answer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I know he was quoting the source. He was nice enough not to revert me, but I put "struck off" there too. Do you think I should check the source? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd just go find a source that says "struck off". We could replace the use of the times source there with that one, since it'd be pretty clear at that point that the times was just using an American idiom to describe a British process. Truth be told, I couldn't care less which version ends up being used. I'd be happy with "Defrocked," "kicked out," "forced to turn in his badge and gun," or "told he can't play with the big kids anymore," just so long as it's made clear that he's a fraud. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

How about: Kmietowicz, Zosia (24 May 2010). "Wakefield is struck off for the 'serious and wide-ranging findings against him'". BMJ. 340: c2803. doi:10.1136/bmj.c2803. PMID 20498165. In its summation of the case against Dr Wakefield the GMC fitness to practise panel concluded that erasing Dr Wakefield's name from the medical register was 'the only sanction that is appropriate to protect patients and is in the wider public interest, including the maintenance of public trust and confidence in the profession and is proportionate to the serious and wide-ranging findings made against him.' --tronvillain (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping someone would come up with something a bit more infantalizing, like the one in my edit summary a few edits back. But with respect to this discussion, that one would do. I support replacing the times ref with this one (in this case: I'm not sure if the times ref is used elsewhere in the article). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The complete quote appears to be "Accordingly the Panel has determined that Dr Wakefield’s name should be erased from the medical register. The Panel concluded that it is the only sanction that is appropriate to protect patients and is in the wider public interest, including the maintenance of public trust and confidence in the profession and is proportionate to the serious and wide-ranging findings made against him."--tronvillain (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a really a UK vs USA usage issue. The name for the process in the UK is "struck off the medical register" (often just "struck off") Since it happened there, it kind of makes sense to use that language. For those outside the UK who would have no idea what "struck off" means we should use the whole phrase. btw there is a WL Struck off... Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

More of a difference between medical systems than just of usage, given that they started issuing "licenses" in 2009, and Wakefield presumably never had one of those to lose. --tronvillain (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have no objection to any description that is supported by a citation to a reliable source. I strongly object to changing the article to say something that the existing source does not say. Get a better source or leave the article alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Mumsnet , Guardian , Auntie , Independent , BMJ and these appear in my Google search before our own beloved Wikipedia result for Wakers turns up ! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 05:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Wakefield MMR study

The Wikipedia suggests that Wakefield’s study said that the MMR caused autism - does anyone alphabetical a reference for that? Csessa2017 (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Csessa2017: I have never seen alphabetical used as a verb before. If you are asking for a reference here are some references[16][17][18] Tornado chaser (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I meant does anyone have a reference for that, meaning the lancet study does not say “MMR causes autism”.[talk] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csessa2017 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The paper describes MMR as 'the apparent precipitating event' - ie appeared to cause. Dallas66 (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Vaxxed II a 2019 sequel to Vaxxed

https://www.newsweek.com/vaxxed-2-tickets-anti-vaccine-documentary-sequel-secret-blocked-1468899

Now there are reports that Vaxxed II has been released in some states in the USA as of November 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:F53B:4867:CD01:39EF (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt11137248/

Here is a preliminary review to Vaxxed II as of November 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:AC9D:980C:EED9:72F (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Same shit, different bucket. Guy (help!) 18:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/16/vaccines-measles-mumps-polio-hepatitis-b

And here is more on Vaxxed II being mentioned as one of two groups spreading ads on Facebook over vaccines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:7048:73A3:1E:8344 (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Vaxxed is not a pseudoscience documentary because it does not purport to be a scientific work. It is also questionable to label it 'propaganda'

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.

---

Please remove the pseudoscience label from the Vaxxed documentary description. It is not correct to call it pseudoscience as it does not purport to be science. You might disagree with the conclusions or not rate the quality of the journalism but it is incorrect to call it pseudoscience.

Furthermore, it is not clear why it is labelled 'propaganda'. There is no formally accepted definition of propaganda that I'm aware of that distinguishes between regular documentaries with a purpose (for example 'Seaspiracy', which obviously contains calls to action) and this documentary. So either all documentaries which seek to encourage action should also be labelled propaganda or none of them should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DovicKnoble (talk • contribs) 15:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Those terms are used by reliable sources. You are a random person on the internet. Weighing... Reliable sources win, you lose. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• For future reference, the argument "X cannot possibly be fakeY because X doesn't claim to be Y," is an extremely popular argument among those who defend pseudoscience, conspiracy theories and fringe politics, which is extremely easy to see through and stands absolutely no chance of convincing anyone who has even the slightest clue what they're talking about.

It's also completely spurious, because the vast majority of actual scientific work doesn't claim to be science. It's understood that when a paper is published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed journal of science, that it is science. It is further understood that when a popular work that discusses science by using the claims and arguments of science and quoting scientists, it is also science.

By that same token, any paper published in a well-known journal of pseudoscience is pseudoscience, and any popular that discusses pseudoscience by using the claims and arguments of the pseudoscience and quoting pseudoscientists, it is also pseudoscience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

DovicKnoble, it's a propaganda film that promotes pseudoscience. And... that's it, really. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello fellow random people on the internet. The problem is this is clearly not a work of science as it has not sought to arrive at any conclusions using the scientific method nor has it sought to publish them in a scientific (or pseudoscientific) paper, as you mention. Science is the attempt at falsification of hypotheses using observable, quantifiable data. This film is not science. It is clearly a documentary. Documentaries are not and never have been considered science, they are in the category of journalism, which is not science. Of course, documentaries may refer to science but this is not the same as being science. I also still do not understand by what token you have decided that this film can be considered 'propaganda'. Are you using Jacques Ellul's definition of propaganda? Or Edward Bernays'? Please enlighten me. 81.102.44.111 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)DovicKnoble

This was already explained to you above, but once more: that is how reliable sources describe it. End of story. Jeppiz (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)