Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:The lead still needs improvement. It was a 'non legal' GMC court that stated these charges, so we can not say 'proven' . His (AW) college then went to a legal British court (''which examined all the evidence -some of which the GMC did not have available and some of which they ignored'') and a British legal court judged from that: there was no misconduct by his college AND that he was calling the shots. In other words, the clinical examinations were medically justified and AW did not ask for them . The references in this article are reiterations of out of date information from the GMC. For a WP Bio, this should have been updated years ago.--] (]) 22:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
:The lead still needs improvement. It was a 'non legal' GMC court that stated these charges, so we can not say 'proven' . His (AW) college then went to a legal British court (''which examined all the evidence -some of which the GMC did not have available and some of which they ignored'') and a British legal court judged from that: there was no misconduct by his college AND that he was calling the shots. In other words, the clinical examinations were medically justified and AW did not ask for them . The references in this article are reiterations of out of date information from the GMC. For a WP Bio, this should have been updated years ago.--] (]) 22:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
::Per BLP you '''must''' cite refs for these claims even here on Talk. Not optional. Please strike or provide refs. thanks ] (]) 22:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
::Per BLP you '''must''' cite refs for these claims even here on Talk. Not optional. Please strike or provide refs. thanks ] (]) 22:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
:::wtf does a college have to do with this? Aspro, you make no sense at all. -] ] 23:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrew Wakefield article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
A news item involving Andrew Wakefield was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 January 2011.
Misplaced Pages
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Andrew Wakefield.
To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.
Q1: Is the article with its negative material biased? (No.)
A1: No. The article with its negative material is not biased. While the article must include both positive and negative views according to the policies of Misplaced Pages, the balance must accurately reflect the balance in those sources according to their reliability.
There are two relevant policies: biographies of living people and neutral point of view. According to these two policies, both of which are non-negotiable, we must reflect the subject as it is seen by reliable independent sources, but we must do so accurately and in a neutral way.
Q2: Should material critical of Wakefield be in the lead? (Yes.)
A2: Yes. Wakefield is at the heart of one of the most discussed scientific frauds in recent times. This is not Misplaced Pages's judgment, it is the consensus view of reliable independent sources, we reflect those.
Q3: Is the negative material in the article NPOV? (Yes.)
A3: Yes. Including negative material is part of achieving a neutral article. A neutral point of view does not necessarily equate to a sympathetic point of view. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view – both positive and negative – in rough proportion to their prominence.
Q4: Does Misplaced Pages consider the MMR-autism link a fringe theory? (Yes)
A4: Yes. The MMR-autism link is described as refuted in all significant independent sources. It is a fringe view.
Q5: Should studies that show a link between autism and MMR (or vaccines more generally) go into the article? (Only if they meet WP:MEDRS.)
A5: Only if they meet WP:MEDRS. We do not include low quality sources that contradict much higher quality sources. At present there are no studies meeting our sourcing guidelines for medical topics which credibly support the MMR-autism link, and there is an enormous body of research showing that there is no temporal link or association.
Q6: Should another article called "Criticism of Andrew Wakefield" be created? (No.)
A6: No. Another article called "Criticism of Andrew Wakefield" should not be created. This is called a "POV fork" and is discouraged.
Q7: Should evidence of a link between the gut and / or its microbiome and autism be included in the article? (No.)
A7: No. This would be a novel synthesis from primary sources, which is forbidden. Wakefield's work did not address this, and even if there were a proven causal link between the gut or its microbiome and autism, this would be irrelevant to Wakefield's published research and its subsequent refutation and retraction.
Q8: Should all references to material critical of Wakefield be put in a single section in the article? (No.)
A8: No. Sources critical of Wakefield should be integrated normally in the course of presenting the topic and its reception, not shunted into a single criticism section. Such segregation is generally frowned upon as poor writing style on Misplaced Pages.
Q9: Should the article characterize Wakefield's work as fraudulent? (Yes.)
A9: Yes. Wakefield's research has been retracted due to undeclared conflicts of interest and has been criticised in the literature for ethical and methodological issues. It is credibly identified as research fraud, and there is no significant informed dissent from this judgment in the published literature.
Q10: Should the article include favourable commentary from "vaccine skeptical" sources? (No.)
A10: No. The article may only contain material from reliable independent sources, and medical claims must be drawn only from sources that meet our subject-specific sourcing requirements. Sources within the anti-vaccination movement rarely meet our general sourcing reliability guidelines and almost never meet our medical sourcing guidelines. We do not accept agenda-driven claims from poor quality sources to "balance" more reliable sources, however much we might like or dislike the conclusions of either.
Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
guy, about this revert, please have a look at the subject article, and let me know if you still disagree. Best ref is the 2011 NYT mag ref already used in the article, if you demand explicit support for the word "celebrity" as well as notion. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
three bad arguments in a row. that you are willing to write such bad arguments shows this is a waste of my time. am done with this. Jytdog (talk)
I have to say: maybe a senior editor or somebody should look at this 'celebrity doctor' thing. It seems that Jytdog has created an article s/he calls 'celebrity doctor' and has then sort of bestowed this title on a random list of individuals. To me, that is original research - the whole caboodle. It's like a magazine feature, complete with made-up definitions of what constitutes a 'celebrity doctor'. How come a bunch of guys have their biographies polished up with the honor of 'celebrity doctor', given out by random wikipedia editors: nameless folk using criteria of their own devising. This isn't like 'Japanese dentists', or 'Olympic gold medalists' - capable of sourcing and resolution. It's a subjective essay, initially by an individual, who, for some reason, reckons that the world needs a list of 'celebrity doctors'. Makes no sense to me. Dallas66 (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
That is an unworthy comment. Celebrity doctors are people like Oz or Christian Jessen. They are celebrities as doctors. Wakefield is a "celebrity" only in the minds of anti-vax cranks, to most people he is a disgraced quack. He's not even a doctor: he has been struck off and has no license to practise medicine anywhere in the world. I don't object tot he existence of the article, but I do not think it applies here. I can't find any reference other than your writing, for Wakefield being a celebrity doctor. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wakefield was a licensed doctor up until 2010. per the source provided above, "Wakefield was a high-profile but controversial figure in gastroenterology research at the Royal Free Hospital in London when, in 1998,..." So already high profile when he published The Paper and after that he had 12 years of actual "celebrity doctor"hood.
His (former) medical credentials are one of the key reasons anti-vaxxers still follow him - again from the source provided (bolding added): "Andrew Wakefield has become one of the most reviled doctors of his generation....In his presentation, Wakefield sounded impatient but righteous. He used enough scientific terms — “ataxic,” “histopathological review” and “vaccine excipients” — that those parents who did not feel cowed might have been flattered by his assumption of their scientific fluency......Some part of Wakefield’s cult status is surely because of his personal charisma, and he spoke with great rhetorical flair. ....To parents who have run up against unsatisfying answers from the scientific community, Wakefield offers a combination of celebrity and empathy that leaves strong impressions. "
This is the definition of "celebrity doctor". The statements he is making are far more reprehensible than Oz' (and Oz' are really bad) but they are in the same bucket - trading on their medical credentials, relying on their charisma, to "ply their trade in the media". Same bucket. And there is enough in this NYT piece to provide direct support for the label "celebrity doctor." But I am not going to push this, in this article. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
You have simply made up the category of 'celebrity doctor' and, by a process of original research, and scratching your head, feel you want to bestow it on who you choose. I find that a real problem, and may need to broaden this debate among editors. In general, there's an issue. In this case, it's an absurdity. Notoriety is not the same as celebrity. Should the late Fred Phelps be accorded the accolade of 'celebrity pastor' on account of his high profile work with Westborough Baptist Church?Dallas66 (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
propaganda film
Vaxxed should not be objectively qualified as a propaganda film. If some reliable sources have called it that, then it may be notable to include that in the context of quotes from that source. In any contentious topic you will find a variety of descriptive labels applied from both sides. Byates5637 (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I was about to add similar refs, but Jytdog beat me to it. NPOV means reflecting the reliable sources, which in this case, refer to the film as propaganda. —PermStrump(talk)01:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You can find find a reliable source for nearly any documentary referring to it as propaganda. Surely you know this. It's an opinion from the source and should be stated as such. There are plenty of reliable sources that do not call it a propaganda film. Byates5637 (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
here you removed well-sourced content. Not good. Am sure that will be reverted soon. This is a propaganda movie for an anti-vax POV. This is what the refs dealing with what it is, say. There are more than what have been cited here and it is inaccurate to make it seem like only the partisan Daily Kos named it as such, which is how you left it. Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I did not remove content, I removed your reversion of my edit and unrelated sources. Lets look at the sources you added:
Indiewire: Does not contain the word "propaganda"
aftenposton: Not in english language. Please translate and quote the parts you believe relevant to objectively categorizing this as a propaganda film
Indiewire contains the word "agitprop" which is a form of propaganda. David Gorski (the source you call "scienceblogs" is well-known authority on fraudulent pseudoscience. Per her bio at Forbes, Kavin Senapathy is also well established exposer of fraud. If you search for the word propaganda it is right there even in the untranslated version, and if you do not know how to use google translate you are beyond help. WP:CIRJytdog (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
review in village voice says, in bold font at the start: Vaxxed, the new “documentary” about the alleged connection between vaccines and autism, is directed by Andrew Wakefield, the disgraced doctor responsible for duping untold thousands of parents into believing vaccinations could give their children autism. This may not be news to anyone who’s followed the controversy surrounding the film’s abrupt removal from the 2016 Tribeca Film Festival schedule, but it needs to be stated up front, and before the end credits roll, just in case you’re unclear who’s behind this.
"is a British former gastroenterologist and medical researcher who was struck off in the UK" - I suspect "struck off" is a UK-specific term. Can it be replaced by something more meaningful for non-UK readers? --NeilN16:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The lead still needs improvement. It was a 'non legal' GMC court that stated these charges, so we can not say 'proven' . His (AW) college then went to a legal British court (which examined all the evidence -some of which the GMC did not have available and some of which they ignored) and a British legal court judged from that: there was no misconduct by his college AND that he was calling the shots. In other words, the clinical examinations were medically justified and AW did not ask for them . The references in this article are reiterations of out of date information from the GMC. For a WP Bio, this should have been updated years ago.--Aspro (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Per BLP you must cite refs for these claims even here on Talk. Not optional. Please strike or provide refs. thanks Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
