![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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”.
Just go see the movie Walter1610 ( talk) 03:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
"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.
I went and saw the movie . The author is incorrect please have someone competent write it. Walter1610 ( talk) 03:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Another source: [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Really? From what I've seen of it, doublespeak comes closer... Guy ( Help!) 17:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Conzar ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) inserted the following:
References
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.
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)
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,
Is there other RS which contradict or support this manipulation of De Niro by Dr Fraudster? Gongwool ( talk) 07:09, 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)
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)
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)
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)
- "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)
No punches pulled in this review. Guy ( Help!) 21:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
Some satire to lighten the mood. Natural News (yes, I know) www.naturalnews.com/053719_David_Gorski_Wikipedia_VAXXED_documentary.html unreliable fringe source? 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)
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)
[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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaxxed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 overkill TeeVeeed ( talk) 13:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaxxed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Coming from such an unrel source = "b*llocks" Gongwool ( talk) 13:16, 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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
(restored after deletion by TeeVeed)
I reverted a series of edits by TeeVeed which left the mention of David Gorski thus:
References
I can be pretty sure of this without having seen it just based on the trailer, reviews, and a healthy background knowledge of the whole CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory.
Whenever someone feels the need to assert that he's "not antivaccine" and claims he is "pro-safe vaccine," that person is antivaccine—or at least antivaccine-sympathetic
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)
Click on 'Orac' link and see 'David Goski' in black-and-white. No conspiracy there either. Gongwool ( talk) 13:20, 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)
References
I can be pretty sure of this without having seen it just based on the trailer, reviews, and a healthy background knowledge of the whole CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory.
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaxxed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There needs to be a content warning about slanted opinion.
69.178.148.170 ( talk) 21:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 unreliable fringe source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.160.149 ( talk) 16:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
though I don't think it is clear that Wakefield is anti-vaccineI'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)
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)
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.”
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
User:Byates5637 You have removed the word "discredited" twice:
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)
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)
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)
How do we edit this page? Seems a bit one-sided? Csessa2017 ( talk) 19:45, 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Snopes has been well established to be an RS. See the following discussions:
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaxxed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
If Vaxxed is a documentary then Game of Thrones is historical. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
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.
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaxxed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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”.
Just go see the movie Walter1610 ( talk) 03:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
"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.
I went and saw the movie . The author is incorrect please have someone competent write it. Walter1610 ( talk) 03:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Another source: [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Really? From what I've seen of it, doublespeak comes closer... Guy ( Help!) 17:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Conzar ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) inserted the following:
References
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.
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)
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,
Is there other RS which contradict or support this manipulation of De Niro by Dr Fraudster? Gongwool ( talk) 07:09, 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)
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)
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)
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)
- "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)
No punches pulled in this review. Guy ( Help!) 21:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
Some satire to lighten the mood. Natural News (yes, I know) www.naturalnews.com/053719_David_Gorski_Wikipedia_VAXXED_documentary.html unreliable fringe source? 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)
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)
[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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaxxed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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 overkill TeeVeeed ( talk) 13:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaxxed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Coming from such an unrel source = "b*llocks" Gongwool ( talk) 13:16, 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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
(restored after deletion by TeeVeed)
I reverted a series of edits by TeeVeed which left the mention of David Gorski thus:
References
I can be pretty sure of this without having seen it just based on the trailer, reviews, and a healthy background knowledge of the whole CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory.
Whenever someone feels the need to assert that he's "not antivaccine" and claims he is "pro-safe vaccine," that person is antivaccine—or at least antivaccine-sympathetic
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)
Click on 'Orac' link and see 'David Goski' in black-and-white. No conspiracy there either. Gongwool ( talk) 13:20, 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)
References
I can be pretty sure of this without having seen it just based on the trailer, reviews, and a healthy background knowledge of the whole CDC whistleblower conspiracy theory.
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaxxed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There needs to be a content warning about slanted opinion.
69.178.148.170 ( talk) 21:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 unreliable fringe source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.160.149 ( talk) 16:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
though I don't think it is clear that Wakefield is anti-vaccineI'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)
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)
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.”
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
User:Byates5637 You have removed the word "discredited" twice:
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)
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)
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)
How do we edit this page? Seems a bit one-sided? Csessa2017 ( talk) 19:45, 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Snopes has been well established to be an RS. See the following discussions:
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaxxed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
If Vaxxed is a documentary then Game of Thrones is historical. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
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.
![]() | This
edit request to
Vaxxed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)