Talk:Autism's False Prophets

Expand

I guess I'd give a bit more context in the article, including mentioning our chum Ben and also adding what prompted Offit to wirte a book and look a bit more at the reception. Just of the top a me head...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ben has got enough press as it is. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If Ben Goldacre reviewed the book, we could add that review here as a source. MastCell ^Talk 18:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor or not word suggestion

I would suggest replacing "disproven" in the first sentence of Summary with "thoroughly failed to substantiate" or some other Popperian phrase. Cannot prove a negative and all that jazz. If this is a phrase the author uses in the book, perhaps it could stay but would need to be attributed as a quote.

Well done article. A lot of editors who will find this article should take note of the interleaving of positive and negative commentary from RMN and Salon, as opposed to the separate existence of a Criticism section. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. - Taxman ^Talk 16:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

affiliate NPR interview with Offit

Apparently, a local NPR station did an interview with Offit about his book: (real audio interview). I personally found both the content of the interview and the writer's tone quite consistent to the material in the "Reception" section. Aside, I just noticed the beautiful pun in the book's title! Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

fringe parallels in NYT article

While I read the NYT article and see this article accurately represents what it said, I am going to write for the enemy here and ask if the comparison to AIDS denialists, Apollo hoaxmongers, etc., isn't a little excessive or at least off topic? That content no doubt is relevant to various vaccine controversies, but it really isn't relevant to the topic of this article, Offit's book.

If the book itself specifically mentions this comparison (does it?), then that might be different, but even then we chould take care to balance its presentation, preferably by an outside source noting the discussion in the book. I am suggesting removing that comparison, in lieu of third-party sourcing of that comparison being made in the book itself. Comments? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that would be fine with me. I see what you're saying: the comparisons aren't specific to the book itself, but are more a general comment on medical coverage of the vaccine debate, so they may not be appropriate or entirely relevant in this article. MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's appropriate to mention one example; it's relevant because an important theme of the NYT story is the book's sparking renewed skepticism of antivaccination claims. AIDS denialism is the most-relevant example mentioned in the NYT story, as it also intertwines bad science and politics. It's overkill to also mention the far-less-relevant Apollo moon landing hoax claims. Eubulides (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I just trimmed the Apollo mention per this discussion. I still have the same concerns but upon reading the whole paragraph, I think I see the merit of leaving the rest in. The phrase "galvanizing the backlash" is quite apropros, and the denialism mention serves as a nice illustration. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD) I reworked the paragraph slightly to reflect the logic of the NYT story. I removed the second instance of "The Times reported that" or words to that effect, as I am not a big fan of how too many such modifiers read. The drawback is that the sentence starting "Many doctors" now reads as a statement of fact. However, as it itself is the sentence which has the reference, I thought it acceptable. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Eliminate certain words

Words like "discredited" and "disproved" must go. Realskeptic (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

If we're describing something that is, in fact, discredited or disproven, then our neutrality policy (to say nothing of our basic compact of honesty with the reader) mandate that we describe it as such. Being honest with the reader should be a minimal expectation for participating anywhere on Wikipedia, but it is especially important when we're producing content that deals with health-related issues and may affect people's real-life well-being. Your actions thus far don't reflect very well on you in that regard. MastCell ^Talk 00:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It is up for debate whether the subject discussed was discredited or disproven. "Disputed" would be a more accurate descriptor, which I have replaced those words with in the article. Realskeptic (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources disagree with your perspective. Wikipedia reflects the reliable sources. jps (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources disagree with yours.Realskeptic (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Pray tell, what reliable sources would those be? Kolbasz (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

advocacy for vaccine safety

The current article text reads "He describes receiving death threats, hate mail, and threats against his children as a result of his advocacy for vaccine safety." This sounds as though Offit advocates taking steps to make vaccines safe (and in fact those claiming vaccines are unsafe do describe themselves in exactly these terms [1]). We need to say instead that he supports the idea that vaccines are already safe. Perhaps "advocacy for vaccination"? --Amble (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Autism's False Prophets. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2009/03/13/polinged_0313.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 22:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)