![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Atlanta may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The last edit to this article is over one month old and the last related to a POV issue is much older, so I removed the NPOV flag. FRS 17:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to efforts among a partisan group of people, virtually no articles link to this one anymore. This will change. -- Leifern 23:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The section titled "Aftermath" and the subsection titled "Criticism [isn't criticism in itself a loaded term?] of report delay" (and, to a lesser extent, the article as a whole) can hardly be considered Neutral point of view. In fact, that's as close to a conspiracy theory as it can be without being overtly non-npov. Also, the only reference provided is from Safeminds, which is overtly anti-vaccination. Think about it... 24.201.50.158 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with the tone of the anonymous poster above, but I think there is an issue here. I have looked through the transcripts and I think much of this article needs to be reworked:
Otherwise this does seem to be just an article written to summarize Kennedy's. - KellyLogan 21:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 05:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 05:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The latest reversion of edits violated WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:Harassment, WP:edit warring and WP:Advocacy. This is Wikipedia, not the CDC website. Realskeptic ( talk) 03:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The way the article was before is how it should be per WP:BLP. The article is currently so full of contentious and libelous material against a living person, that it could hardly be taken seriously as an encyclopedia page. The motive for it to be this way is POV pushing of an allegedly consensus viewpoint over what is argued to be a fringe viewpoint held by the person discussed. The argument I've seen for that viewpoint being fringe is clearly lacking, but WP:BLP still applies even to people who hold allegedly fringe viewpoints and even where they carry some degree of relevance to the article being edited. The way the article was edited before was out of fairness to the living person discussed, not out of promotion of a particular viewpoint. Fairness to living persons should take precedence over favoring any particular POV per WP:BLP, but that is not how this article is currently edited. Realskeptic ( talk) 18:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Realskeptic. I've copied out every paragraph from the article which seems to relate to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
At the time, we felt that correcting the piece—and keeping it on the site, in the spirit of transparency—was the best way to operate. But subsequent critics […] further eroded any faith we had in the story's value. We've grown to believe the best reader service is to delete the piece entirely.
Verstraeten 2004
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
I've numbered each sentence so that there's no confusion about what text we're discussing. Please identify the libelous content. Feel free to copy over any additional sentences if I've missed something. I'm not going to do this for you every time, but I'm giving you a last chance to substantiate your claims rather than blustering about policies you clearly haven't read or don't understand. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 20:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm pointing out both libelous and egregiously unbalanced content, since you cited both as reasons for needing to follow WP:BLP:
(2) Factual "errors" made six years before retraction, did not lead to retraction. Must clarify, also must clarify Rolling Stone stood by story and that retraction was criticized by Kennedy and Talbot
(3) Ad hominem attack on people who agree with Kennedy In the anti-vaccination movement does not belong, should be in Deadly Immunity
(7) change significant to "several," not all errors were significant
(8) ethylmercury overstatement caused by Salon.com and Rolling Stone, not Kennedy - subsequently corrected
(9) Although Salon.com later claimed that these errors "went far in undermining Kennedy’s exposé", they said that at the time they chose not to retract the piece in the interest of transparency.
(10) Instead, the magazine corrected Kennedy's article five times due factual errors. Salon.com retracted it in January 2011 because the editors said that criticisms of the article and clear flaws in the science connecting autism and vaccines undermined the value of the article. (rewritten for neutrality, must include Kennedy response and Talbot criticism as well as Rolling Stone opposition to retraction for balance per WP:BLP)
(13) Verstraeten letter 1 year before Kennedy's article, could not have "addressed" it, need to include Kennedy letter to Salon.com to put his point into proper context about early Verstraeten data associating thimerosal with autism
(15) Addressing **FOIA-obtained transcript and private Simpsonwood attendees** - the report did not even cite his article. It did not even address either issue Kennedy took with the meeting.
I suspect this may all be a waste of time, but hoping to be pleasantly surprised... Realskeptic ( talk) 00:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Atlanta may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The last edit to this article is over one month old and the last related to a POV issue is much older, so I removed the NPOV flag. FRS 17:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to efforts among a partisan group of people, virtually no articles link to this one anymore. This will change. -- Leifern 23:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The section titled "Aftermath" and the subsection titled "Criticism [isn't criticism in itself a loaded term?] of report delay" (and, to a lesser extent, the article as a whole) can hardly be considered Neutral point of view. In fact, that's as close to a conspiracy theory as it can be without being overtly non-npov. Also, the only reference provided is from Safeminds, which is overtly anti-vaccination. Think about it... 24.201.50.158 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with the tone of the anonymous poster above, but I think there is an issue here. I have looked through the transcripts and I think much of this article needs to be reworked:
Otherwise this does seem to be just an article written to summarize Kennedy's. - KellyLogan 21:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 05:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 05:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The latest reversion of edits violated WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:Harassment, WP:edit warring and WP:Advocacy. This is Wikipedia, not the CDC website. Realskeptic ( talk) 03:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The way the article was before is how it should be per WP:BLP. The article is currently so full of contentious and libelous material against a living person, that it could hardly be taken seriously as an encyclopedia page. The motive for it to be this way is POV pushing of an allegedly consensus viewpoint over what is argued to be a fringe viewpoint held by the person discussed. The argument I've seen for that viewpoint being fringe is clearly lacking, but WP:BLP still applies even to people who hold allegedly fringe viewpoints and even where they carry some degree of relevance to the article being edited. The way the article was edited before was out of fairness to the living person discussed, not out of promotion of a particular viewpoint. Fairness to living persons should take precedence over favoring any particular POV per WP:BLP, but that is not how this article is currently edited. Realskeptic ( talk) 18:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Realskeptic. I've copied out every paragraph from the article which seems to relate to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
At the time, we felt that correcting the piece—and keeping it on the site, in the spirit of transparency—was the best way to operate. But subsequent critics […] further eroded any faith we had in the story's value. We've grown to believe the best reader service is to delete the piece entirely.
Verstraeten 2004
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
I've numbered each sentence so that there's no confusion about what text we're discussing. Please identify the libelous content. Feel free to copy over any additional sentences if I've missed something. I'm not going to do this for you every time, but I'm giving you a last chance to substantiate your claims rather than blustering about policies you clearly haven't read or don't understand. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 20:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm pointing out both libelous and egregiously unbalanced content, since you cited both as reasons for needing to follow WP:BLP:
(2) Factual "errors" made six years before retraction, did not lead to retraction. Must clarify, also must clarify Rolling Stone stood by story and that retraction was criticized by Kennedy and Talbot
(3) Ad hominem attack on people who agree with Kennedy In the anti-vaccination movement does not belong, should be in Deadly Immunity
(7) change significant to "several," not all errors were significant
(8) ethylmercury overstatement caused by Salon.com and Rolling Stone, not Kennedy - subsequently corrected
(9) Although Salon.com later claimed that these errors "went far in undermining Kennedy’s exposé", they said that at the time they chose not to retract the piece in the interest of transparency.
(10) Instead, the magazine corrected Kennedy's article five times due factual errors. Salon.com retracted it in January 2011 because the editors said that criticisms of the article and clear flaws in the science connecting autism and vaccines undermined the value of the article. (rewritten for neutrality, must include Kennedy response and Talbot criticism as well as Rolling Stone opposition to retraction for balance per WP:BLP)
(13) Verstraeten letter 1 year before Kennedy's article, could not have "addressed" it, need to include Kennedy letter to Salon.com to put his point into proper context about early Verstraeten data associating thimerosal with autism
(15) Addressing **FOIA-obtained transcript and private Simpsonwood attendees** - the report did not even cite his article. It did not even address either issue Kennedy took with the meeting.
I suspect this may all be a waste of time, but hoping to be pleasantly surprised... Realskeptic ( talk) 00:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)