Talk:Andrew Wakefield: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:44, 25 February 2021

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Template:Vital article

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrew Wakefield article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 3 months

A news item involving Andrew Wakefield was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 January 2011.

Wikipedia

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative medicine B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative views B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Science and Academia B‑class

	Biography portal 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

England B‑class Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine B‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Autism B‑class Mid‑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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Andrew Wakefield.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Is the article with its negative material biased? (No.)

A1: No. The article with its negative material is not biased. While the article must include both positive and negative views according to the policies of Wikipedia, the balance must accurately reflect the balance in those sources according to their reliability. There are two relevant policies: biographies of living people and neutral point of view. According to these two policies, both of which are non-negotiable, we must reflect the subject as it is seen by reliable independent sources, but we must do so accurately and in a neutral way.

Q2: Should material critical of Wakefield be in the lead? (Yes.)

A2: Yes. Wakefield is at the heart of one of the most discussed scientific frauds in recent times. This is not Wikipedia's judgment, it is the consensus view of reliable independent sources, we reflect those.

Q3: Is the negative material in the article NPOV? (Yes.)

A3: Yes. Including negative material is part of achieving a neutral article. A neutral point of view does not necessarily equate to a sympathetic point of view. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view – both positive and negative – in rough proportion to their prominence.

Q4: Does Wikipedia consider the MMR-autism link a fringe theory? (Yes)

A4: Yes. The MMR-autism link is described as refuted in all significant independent sources. It is a fringe view.

Q5: Should studies that show a link between autism and MMR (or vaccines more generally) go into the article? (Only if they meet WP:MEDRS.)

A5: Only if they meet WP:MEDRS. We do not include low quality sources that contradict much higher quality sources. At present there are no studies meeting our sourcing guidelines for medical topics which credibly support the MMR-autism link, and there is an enormous body of research showing that there is no temporal link or association.

Q6: Should another article called "Criticism of Andrew Wakefield" be created? (No.)

A6: No. Another article called "Criticism of Andrew Wakefield" should not be created. This is called a "POV fork" and is discouraged.

Q7: Should evidence of a link between the gut and / or its microbiome and autism be included in the article? (No.)

A7: No. This would be a novel synthesis from primary sources, which is forbidden. Wakefield's work did not address this, and even if there were a proven causal link between the gut or its microbiome and autism, this would be irrelevant to Wakefield's published research and its subsequent refutation and retraction.

Q8: Should all references to material critical of Wakefield be put in a single section in the article? (No.)

A8: No. Sources critical of Wakefield should be integrated normally in the course of presenting the topic and its reception, not shunted into a single criticism section. Such segregation is generally frowned upon as poor writing style on Wikipedia.

Q9: Should the article characterize Wakefield's work as fraudulent? (Yes.)

A9: Yes. Wakefield's research has been retracted due to undeclared conflicts of interest and has been criticised in the literature for ethical and methodological issues. It is credibly identified as research fraud, and there is no significant informed dissent from this judgment in the published literature.

Q10: Should the article include favourable commentary from "vaccine skeptical" sources? (No.)

A10: No. The article may only contain material from reliable independent sources, and medical claims must be drawn only from sources that meet our subject-specific sourcing requirements. Sources within the anti-vaccination movement rarely meet our general sourcing reliability guidelines and almost never meet our medical sourcing guidelines. We do not accept agenda-driven claims from poor quality sources to "balance" more reliable sources, however much we might like or dislike the conclusions of either.

Andrew Wakefield is promoting a movie called "1986 The Act"

http://www.autismone.org/content/dr-andrew-wakefield-talks-about-his-documentary-film-1986-act

https://www.1986theact.com/

https://www.facebook.com/1986theact/

Apparently its VAXXED part 3 if you look at the posts2601:640:C600:3C20:E17A:89F2:3D3B:A3D3 (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. However, this is a Wikipedia Talk Page.

207.140.153.226 (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation Contained Herein is a disservice to public

Wikipedia is a reality-based project, this article accurately reflects the consensus in reliable sources. The fact that the walled garden of antivax sources has a different view is really not our problem to fix. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 information presented herein is not merely highly misleading, it is downright incorrect. As such it does a great disservice to the public in their search for credible information regarding Dr. Andrew Wakefield and for factual information with regard to Vaccines and their potential harm. Dr. Wakefield was exonerated by the High Court in the UK in 2012. Completely and absoloutely. This fact has been excluded from the page representing the Dr. and his professional career history and legal dealings with regard to the factual and supported information contwined in tne article referenced as published in "The Lancet". The responsible and ethical action is to edit the information as presented to reflect the entirety of what occurred and not simlpy the information which is generally 'accepted' and does not provoke or incur any negative reaction or ill will from the medical community. While there is a plethora of rhetorical and anecdotal information in the area of Vaccines and the protection they are claimed to provide by the aforementioned community. These views are widely presented alongside peer-reviewed and published credible articles, studies, and other documents used for the edification of, and in support for the medical/health care industry's endorsement and recommendation that Vaccines are 'safe' and serve a purpose which justifies the rarely disclosed numbers of contraindictions, and negative health effects/outcomes which are a very real and well documented reality for a vast number of parents and caregivers whose children have suffered these effects. I am including a link which provides the information showing that Dr. Andrew Wakefield was exonerated by the High Court in the UK. There is also a plethora of peer reviewed, well documented and citation supported articles and studies which entirely support the statement I have made. I would like to see the information provided for Dr. Wakefield updated to reference his exoneration and the opening sentence changed to remove the word 'discredited'. It is important for all relevant information to be presented when making a claim about the benefits of an action- To merely present that which is socially or generally accepted as the 'right thing to do' is to blindly stake your reputation and claims on the dangerous and very slippery slope of censorship- Ignoring the knowledge of this information being incorrect and this leaving it as presented would be a grave error.~ Justsues (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Start by reading all of the references at the end of the article, Justsues, and note that this Wikipedia article accurately summarizes these sources. Generalized complaints about articles are not productive. You are expected to propose specific changes to the article, based on summarizing what reliable sources say about Wakefield. That's how Wikipedia operates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What sources do you have for your extraordinary claims? Where is that "link" you are "including"? Do you really believe that we change the article because some random person on the internet says we should? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Wakefield was exonerated by the High Court in the UK in 2012 is an old canard. Wakefield wasn't exonerated, the other doctor was. So, yeah, somebody got exonerated, but it wasn't Wakefield. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brian Deer

Is it possible to add information on Brian Deer in this article without being reverted?

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 :{{tq|Dr. Wakefield was exonerated by the High Court in the UK in 2012}} is an old canard. Wakefield wasn't exonerated, the other doctor was. So, yeah, somebody got exonerated, but it wasn't Wakefield. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 06:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 {{abot}}
+== Brian Deer ==
+Is it possible to add information on Brian Deer in this article without being reverted?