This article was nominated for deletion on 15 April 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Journalism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Autism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hi. the first paragraph of this article is almost verbatim Deer's description of himself on his own website, briandeer.com. even if Deer didnt make the entry himself, he still technically wrote it, albeit unwittingly, which iirc is not allowed

The External Links section also contains multiple links to different reviews of his book, which is unusual

briandeer.com: Brian Deer is a British-born investigative journalist, best known for inquiries into medicine, the drug industry, and social issues for The Sunday Times, and for his books 'The Doctor Who Fooled the World' and 'Blind Trial'

Wikipedia: Brian Deer is a British investigative reporter, best known for inquiries into the drug industry, medicine and social issues for The Sunday Times. Deer's investigative nonfiction book, The Doctor Who Fooled the World, was published in September 2020 by Johns Hopkins University Press. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:DF50:A1F0:6DEC:596C:9C18:7D1 ( talk) 15:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Much of this content is only sourced to or via Deer's own website. Better sourcing is still needed. LeadSongDog ( talk) 19:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Honest editing is needed even more. Inserting the fact that Deer's documentary was "the core subject of a libel case" and withholding the fact that the plaintiff (whom even the judge clearly suggested was engaging in a SLAPP strategy) ended up paying the costs of the defendant, even under the UK libel laws which dramatically favor plaintiffs, is dishonest.

Honestly, do you have any shame? You add as a reference a story whose title is "MMR Doc drops libel case versus Channel Four", but you withhold the fact that Wakefield dropped the libel case and only inform people that the libel case was once brought?? Don't try and say anything about WP:AGF because there's no way good faith would have resulted in such selective reporting. -- 192.250.175.25 ( talk) 13:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

WP:SOFIXIT Shot info ( talk) 06:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

[1]], thank you. But fixing an individual instance of highly selective editing only fixes part of the problem. The other part is that the selective editor, who put in only the parts that fit his viewpoint and withheld those that didn't, has done so and will do so again on who knows how many other occasions. That part is not fixed by alerting that editor that his withholding was discovered and seen for what it is, but it may give that editor cause to think twice before withholding key information in the future. -- 192.250.175.25 ( talk) 13:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Breaking News: Landmark autism study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield was "an elaborate fraud", CNN.

Kathleen and Eliot will talk with Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, and JB Handley, the father of an autistic child and founder of Generation Rescue, about the following breaking story:

(CNN) – A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines was an "elaborate fraud" that has done long-lasting damage to public health, a leading medical publication reported Wednesday. An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study's author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study - and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible. "It's one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors," Fiona Godlee, BMJ's editor-in-chief, told CNN. "But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data."

It will be interesting to hear what JB Handley, founder of Generation Rescue, has to say about this. This wasn't simple carelessness, but "elaborate fraud". Not only has Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine, he should be imprisoned. This probably won't make any difference to those who are involved in the vaccine controversy movement. Facts never do. -- Brangifer ( talk) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Unsurprising to those who follow this, but Wakefield's coworker Prof. Walker-Smith was vindicated as the claims of "elaborate fraud" by the GMC were themselves proved to be an elaborate fraud in the High Court appeal. www.naturalnews.com/035256_Professor_Walker-Smith_MMR_vaccines_High_Court.html ^{unreliable fringe source?}#ixzz1pC6wlnal] Carltonh ( talk) 15:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, if it was posted on naturalnews.com, then it must be true. They've never posted anything misleading, false, or outright insane, right? :) For those of us who have brainwashed by the medical-industrial complex and prefer sources with a reputation for "factual accuracy", here's the BBC's coverage: [2]. Probably worth noting Walker-Smith's successful appeal, although perhaps we should draw the distinction that the finding is in no way vindication for Andrew Wakefield (a distinction lost on some). MastCell  ^Talk 17:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply

There is some additional questionable information about Brian Deer, that should merit further investigation. There is some information provided on this website, which could offer the tip of the iceberg in regards to the matter. [3] Has anyone looked into this information from unbiased sources - the BBC not included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.245.164 ( talk) 18:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply

BMJ: "a deliberate fraud"

Secrets of the MMR scare: how the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed

In the first part of a special BMJ series, Brian Deer exposes the data behind claims that launched a worldwide scare over the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and reveals how the appearance of a link with autism was manufactured at a London medical school. In an accompanying editorial, Fiona Godlee and colleagues say that Andrew Wakefield's (pictured) article linking MMR vaccine and autism was based not on bad science but on a deliberate fraud. In a linked blog, Brian Deer analyses the similarities between the MMR scare and the case of the "Piltdown Man."

Editorial: "falsification of data"

Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent

Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare

Brian Deer series "exposes the bogus data behind the claims"

How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed, Part 1

In the first part of a special BMJ series, Brian Deer exposes the bogus data behind claims that launched a worldwide scare over the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and reveals how the appearance of a link with autism was manufactured at a London medical school.

The newspaper article which is provided to reference that celebrity psychiatrist, Raj Persaud, was suspended from practising medicine due to reporting by Deer does not mention Deer's reporting at all. A better source must be produced to establish this causation. __ meco ( talk) 13:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Have added one story and found a radio interview at Deer's site, where the witness in the case talks about Deer being the journalist, but don't really know how to ref radio interviews. It is here: http://briandeer.com/audio/persaud.mp3 81.108.171.172 ( talk) 11:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brian Deer. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080514091802/http://www.med.umich.edu:80/mott/research/chearevents.html to http://www.med.umich.edu/mott/research/chearevents.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brian Deer. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121005085559/http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/nhshealth/Ruling-on-doctor-in-MMR.6042714.jp to http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/nhshealth/Ruling-on-doctor-in-MMR.6042714.jp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brian Deer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110228034707/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk:80/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=46740&c=1 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=46740&c=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130614052235/http://www.healthwatch-uk.org/healthwatch-award/ to http://www.healthwatch-uk.org/healthwatch-award/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517195954/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=36663 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=36663

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I would ask editors to give examples where a subject is exposed in this way to an ageist attack, duplicating the subject's date of birth already on the page, as per Wiki policy. Age is, in the UK at least, where this guy lives, a protected characteristic, like race, religion, sexual orientation and so forth. So in seeking to make capital in this way, adding no new information to the page, I guess the insinuation is that Deer is too old, or something like that. I'd invite the editor to give examples of a Wikipedia policy to repeat the date of birth in the text in this way. Maybe try,say, Bill Clinton, or Adolf Hitler. Having never seen this before, I have reverted the reversion, and request the rationale for departing from Wikipedia's normal customs, before an edit war develops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.240.189 ( talk) 20:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Age and date of birth is almost always given in the text, when it is known. The infobox (the only other place that information appears) is meant to summarize information in the text, and as such should not be the only place it is stated.

Andrew Wakefield's article, for instance, states his date of birth in the Early life section: "Wakefield was born in 1956; his father was a neurologist and his mother was a general practitioner." Bill Clinton's date of birth is also the the first sentence in his Early life secton: "Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946, at Julia Chester Hospital in Hope, Arkansas." All of the featured articles of people I've seen have given dates of birth in the text, when known.

This statement of Deer's date of birth in no way appears to be an ageist attack, and mirrors what is accepted across Wikipedia.

TypistMonkey ( talk) 22:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for your response, you explained it better than I could. :) Slamforeman ( talk) 22:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

In 2016, Deer tweeted "When I began my investigation of research cheat Andrew Wakefield, he was a doctor and I wasn't." It definitely implies he is now a doctor, but I am not sure. I am probably going to add that fact with the tweet as a source, but I thought to add a topic here just in case anyone objects. Slamforeman ( talk) 05:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Oh it’s already mentioned, so I suppose nevermind. Slamforeman ( talk) 05:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

It could be the editor here shd work in a sandbox. Given d.o.bs should go after names at the front of biogs, the source does not stand up that Deer was born in the UK, and there is no date at which Deer said he had not bought a car, the rest seems to be personal knowledge or trivia. MPossinbly he has bought a car since he said it, so you need to say the date at If that is all the personal life the editor has found, then he should find some more so when Deer bought a car makes sense. Please do go to a sandbox if you are working on a new section. If youare a pal of Deer, you are making him look like a dick. Owning a car is not a life event. Sledgehamming ( talk) 08:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

A few things:

1. I don’t understand why you see the personal life section as "trivial". Can you clarify what you mean by that?
2. Nothing in the personal life section is personal knowledge. I have cited sources you can check for the information I've added.
3. You are right that the birth date should appear in the lead, but it should also appear in a body paragraph, see MOS:BIRTHDATE.
4. I do not have a conflict of interest with Brian Deer, I promise I would disclose if I did. In future, if you suspect a conflict of interest, raise it on the user's talk page, and if absolutely necessary at WP:COIN.
5. Because of the removal of the personal life section, the article now contains unsourced statements. The article says his middle name is "Laurence" and that he is "British-Irish" but this is now a summary summarising content no longer there, as this sourced statement was only in the personal life section.

For some of these reasons, I have done a partial revert of your edit. If you have further comments or concerns, feel free to reply. Thanks!

All the best, Slamforeman ( talk) 17:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I give up on you. It is you who have introduced unsourced material. You have not evidenced that Deer was born in the UK. The refernce you give leads to his website and does not contain this information. You may surmize that he was, but that is your assumption you are entering into someone's biography. Hence you may be creating errors that others assume to be truthful. You have also not stablished that he has never owned a car. He may have said that at some time in the past, but assuming this is pertinent to a biography (and it clearly is not) he may have bought one yesterday, or years ago. You evidently surmize that he has not, but you cannot possibly know this unless you have access to his personal personal life from an impermissible source. Therefore it is not a refernced fact. You are also restating things that have already been stated twice in a relatively short biography. I do not know what your issues may be, but you might want to consider that Wikipedia is a collective project. Not something where one person keeps reverting to their own whims. Could you as a start, for example, please source that Deer does not own a car and was born in the UK please?

But I will revert my edit and move on. Sledgehamming ( talk) 18:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

To answer your two questions, on page 300 of his book "The Doctor Who Fooled the World" Deer says "Could I—a man who has never bought a car—", and I quoted this in the edit summary when I initially added it. As to him being born in the UK, near the very bottom of the portion of his website I cited, Deer calls himself "a British-born investigative journalist".

I've discussed before your other concern about restating his birthday, MOS:BIRTHDATE says to put this where I have put it. See Andrew Wakefield for an example of this elsewhere.

I sincerely hope I've answered your concerns and we can put this conversation to rest. I thank you for your time. Slamforeman ( talk) 19:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The car thing is totally irrelevant and does not belong in the article. Who cares about which things he owns? Next, someone may want to add that he once bought a potato peeler, or that he never did? Also, the source is WP:PRIMARY. If secondary sources remarked on his carlessness, the sentence would be debatable, but as it is, it is completetly inappropriate.

These dates (specific day–month–year) are important information about the subject, but if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context. The word "if" in there means that it is OK to have the birthdate in the lede only. So, it can be there or not.

The only marginally relevant part is the Irish citizenship, but again, primary source.

Conclusion: delete that section. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't really care about the car thing. You can remove that if you want.

I do object to the removal of the entire section, however. To quote WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." All the facts in the personal life section fit this criteria. If someone wants to add other secondary or tertiary sources, then there is of course nothing to stop them doing that.

As for MOS:BIRTHDATE, this guideline says that " Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability". It is not relevant to Deer's notability, so it probably should not be in the lede. I should mention as well that other BLPs with known DOBs do the same thing that this article does now ( Andrew Wakefield, Louis Armstrong, and Flea (musician) to name a few), and none of these people's DOBs are all that notable, so if the article is kept how it is that is also perfectly fine. Slamforeman ( talk) 16:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The purpose of giving an additional date at the beginning is only meaningful to put people in immediate historical context (most often when dead). That is why relevance to notability is considered. Deer is not a historical figure and wiki's birthdate guidance would mean in a concise biography like this, the date of birth would not be expected to need restating. I have removed that. The alternative is delete the section, which includes original research and slows people getting to what is meaningful in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.241.3 ( talk) 08:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Can you please elaborate on why you believe the personal life section is WP:OR? All the info in the personal life section has a source attached that anyone can check.

Additionally, I disagree as to whether the personal life section buries more relevant content. If a person wants to read the other content in the article, the section does not stop them from doing so. Slamforeman ( talk) 13:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

After squandering an hour of time, I have not been able to find any secondary source confirming any of slamforeman's edits to this article. They all look to be the result of the editor's personal research. One link I found citing social media leads to nothing on the subjects nationality/middle name, the date of birth is worked out by the editor's own arithmetic, which he/she says was based on a comment by Deer in his book, with no secondary source etc etc. I know celebrities sometimes lie over their dob's for vanity or fraud prevention. Deer is not a celebrity, although he may do the same. Whatever the facts, I cannot verify any of the edits slamforman has made. He/she has a record here of reverting anyone who takes a different view, so I have not reverted the text back a few weeks (which is what I think is needed when such fundamental 'facts' are introduced to a biography without clear secondary sourcing). Could another editor take a look? Sledgehamming ( talk) 17:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I am reviewing, as part of Wikiproject rating work. While a well-rounded biography should absolutely include early life / personal life data, each piece of such data must be well-sourced, and I agree, this is not OK coming from primary sources or Twitter (though both of these can be used in certain limited ways for some points). Working out year or date of birth is not OK. I will be trimming now. Brian Deer is a notable journalist, who has done great service in exposing fraud, etc., and the article is proper - but it is wrong to have his Wikipedia bio below quality standards. SeoR ( talk) 00:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I've removed that section on his birthday. This a WP:BLP and there seems to be lack of understanding on what constitutes a good source to establish WP:V on a contentious piece of data like that. The source that was there was insufficient. It is a SPS sources. Don't use it. scope_creep ^Talk 18:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Date of birth isn't contentious. Being self-published is actually explicitly allowed for sources about oneself, and, as stated, Deer did not self-publish his book; Harper Collins did.

To quote Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves , "A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it."

This more than meets that. We can include Deer's DOB.

TypistMonkey ( talk) 14:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

No we can't and we won't, until there is a genuine WP:SECONDARY source to support it per WP:V. Self published sources are consistently open to promotion, lying and diversion/alteration by external parties. It is not accepted by AFC/NPP or GA. It only really accepted by folk who are looking to complete an article, who dont necessarily follow Wikipedia process and are on an external agenda. You see the same argument presented all the time and its completely false. I'm not saying that is happening here, but there needs to be some attempt to embody quality into the article when your editing and that means not using WP:SPS sources. scope_creep ^Talk 15:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Eventually something will be written about him and it will have the dob. There is no rush. scope_creep ^Talk 15:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It's not self-published, as @ Slamforeman said; Harper Collins published the book in question.

Even disregarding that, nothing in WP:V disallows us from using the book as a source for his DOB; DOB is in no way contentious or exceptional.

TypistMonkey ( talk) 18:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Did he not write the book that was published by Harper Collins? scope_creep ^Talk 18:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Did Harper Collins have a case of predestination, where they knew the guys birthday before he arrived at the door? scope_creep ^Talk 18:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks you very much for your input. I would also like to bring up that WP:DOB clearly states that "A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of 'today is my 50th birthday' may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth."

This is a step above that, and seems very clear cut. I can't imagine why it would be controversial to use it. Slamforeman ( talk) 18:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree; the source for Deer's DOB far exceeds the source explicitly given as acceptable, and is thus acceptable.

Does anyone but scope_creep think that a book written by Deer and published by Harper Collins is not a reliable source for Deer's DOB?

TypistMonkey ( talk) 18:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Is that Harper Collins book written by him? scope_creep ^Talk 18:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Every source is written by someone. The only feasible ways to find out DOBs would be because of Deer, a family member, or hospital records. Anyone else would be working off information they found from one of those sources. Slamforeman ( talk) 18:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Not necessarily. They are obituaries and other archival material when the person dies. What is the url that Harper Collins book so I can take a look at it? scope_creep ^Talk 18:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The book in question is "The Doctor Who Fooled the World: Science, Deception, and the War on Vaccines" by Brian Deer.

See here: [4]

TypistMonkey ( talk) 18:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Where exactly on the book does it state the date of birth. scope_creep ^Talk 18:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

On page 75, where it discusses when he was immunised, it says "…on May 4, 1955. I was fifteen months and twelve days old." Slamforeman ( talk) 19:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Is that Harper Collins book written by him? Please look up the difference between "write" and "publish". Read WP:SPS to find out what "self-published" means. Your stance is silly, and you should stop it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 20:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Kudos to whoever found that. That is a sold piece of detective work, no mistake about it but it still can't go in. I've just read the previous paragraph above. As a AFC/NPP reviewer, it is contingent on me to review the edits that have been mentioned in the paragraph above. There is now three editors who have made this comment about content like the birthday and there is other aspect about referencing that need checked. I will check them tommorrow. scope_creep ^Talk 20:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply