Talk:Sharyl Attkisson/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Disputed vaccine section and circular referencing

The good faith edit reversion by Toa Nidhiki05 cannot stand because citation "Vaccine journal" contains no mention of Sharyl Attkisson. Indeed, the only mention of the reporter's name in the journal writer's article is in a blog post, which the journal writer cites. The article itself makes no mention of Ms. Attkisson. Thus, we have a WP:BLP violation. At minimum, this cannot stand.

More broadly, the sourcing in this section needs to be discussed and rewritten, where appropriate, consistent with WP:BLP.

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 02:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Friendly tag(s): Petrarchan47, Ahrtoodeetoo

Please see all the above discussions, where this section has been extensively discussed. We doesn't use weasel words and we 're not going to sugarcoat what reliable sources say in search of a pretend balance; there is none here. I would prefer you read this entire page and discussion history before attempting to revert.

Also, please refrain from templating regulars and going to other talk pages for people to gatekeep your edits in contravention of BRD. Toa Nidhiki05 02:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, Please refrain from being bitey by assuming others had read some obscure policy on templating regulars. And, with respect, that policy you quoted to me at User talk:Bradv does say, at all times, recipients are to assume good faith, which is how I intended it. The template was meant to streamline my edit processes. Thanks! Doug Mehus T·C 03:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Copy of copied discussion from User talk:Bradv pertaining to the uncited and problematic "Vaccine journal" citation/sentence

Hi Bradv, I was checking out something called the Page Curation Log (is that something only administrators review, or do Pending Changes reviewers review this?) and noticed an article for Angelo De Augustine. Noticing his being featured in Paste (magazine) and Vogue (magazine), it seemed like this WP:CSD#A7 tagging may have been premature. So, I contested the deletion via the artist's talk page. Since I didn't create the article, I realized I could remove the tag, which seems correct, so I did that. I also added a citation from the Irish Times, which may help this article if it goes to AfD. So, the long way around to my question, can we still quote verbatim from an external source provided that we abide by standard copyright rules (i.e., usually no more than 10% of the work copied, quotation marks are used, and footnotes are added properly following each directly quoted passage). I've noticed some editors a bit hasty in their removal of copied content, but my thinking is, provided we follow standard rules for writing term papers, reports, and the like, and provide appropriate quotations and attribution, there should be no issue. Correct? Cheers, --Doug Mehus T·C 19:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Dmehus, you may find WP:CFAQ useful. – bradv🍁 22:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Bradv, Thanks for the link. On an unrelated note, per WP:BLP, I have partially undone the edit reversion by Toa Nidhiki05 whereby the "Vaccine journal" citation did not cite the allegation stated. Indeed, Sharyl's name was only mentioned in a bibliographic citation, but the author made no mention of her in the cited article. Thus, we can't have uncited allegations on living persons, as I understand it. I've taken it to the talk page, with an RfC, and provided a friendly note to the editor, but just making you aware of it to maybe help me watch that page to make sure my edits aren't undone. Thanks. Doug Mehus T·C 02:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Bradv, The editor has undone my good faith, friendly note on their talk page with this diff. At any rate, we can't let that "Vaccine journal" article go back in. I'm also a bit troubled by the comments noted in the edit summary of that diff. Doug Mehus T·C 02:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC) I don't think I need to explain why templating the regulars is not generally something that's done. I have the ability to govern my talk page as I see fit. Toa Nidhiki05 02:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Toa Nidhiki05, You are welcome to undo my template notice, but try not to be so bitey in assuming I'd read that policy. You could've just reverted and said, "my talk page; my rules." That'd be fine. Nevertheless, we have an uncited allegation and a WP:BLP violation that cannot standing pending the 30 day RfC discussion. Doug Mehus T·C 02:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Toa Nidhiki05, Note WP:DTTR#AGF. Thanks! : ) Doug Mehus T·C 02:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC) I took specific issue with you saying "Per BRD, please do not revert this edit" when in fact, per BRD, you should not have reverted mine. That is why my comment was a bit "bitey". Toa Nidhiki05 02:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Bradv, Brad, the editor has reverted the edit, so the uncited circular reference is back in. I'm also troubled by the edit summary provided in the reversion, as if WP:BRD applies to first-mover advantage. My understanding is that WP:BLP supercedes WP:BRD. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the "Vaccine journal" article citation. I downloaded the article using Microsoft Academic; it does not cite the given sentence. Thus, we have a WP:BLP issue. Can you intercede and remove that sentence pending another reliable source citation being found? Doug Mehus T·C 02:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Dmehus, I recommend having this discussion on the talk page of the article in question. If you need a third opinion at some point I'll be happy to help, but start out with a friendly discussion. – bradv🍁 02:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Bradv, Thanks, but I don't think it can wait pending outcome of the talk page. If you can have a look at the journal article in question ("Vaccine article" is the refname), it makes no mention of Sharyl Attkisson other than in the URL of a blog post in the article's bibliography. Sharyl Attkisson herself is not mentioned in the article. At the very least, the sentence needs to be refactored and a new source found per WP:BLP as it cannot wait for the conclusion of the talk page discussion per other issues in the article. Doug Mehus T·C 02:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I had no intention of getting involved here, but I looked up the source and Dmehus is right — the claim in the article is not supported by the cited source. I did a quick look and can't find another source for this claim, but some further research may be required. – bradv🍁 03:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, Thanks, Brad. I am fine if Toa Nidhiki05 wants to replace the cited source with another, but in the interim, I'm just asking it be removed to comply with WP:BLP. Doug Mehus T·C 03:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Per WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Thank you for removing it, Bradv. Thank you for the ping, Dmehus (although I didn't get it), and for your diligence. petrarchan47คุก 02:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Petrarchan47, Oh, that's too bad you didn't get my ping, Petra. I agree with you on the WP:BLP. I've noticed some editors don't look past a scholarly journal article in the "References" list sometimes, even when said journal article has no relevance or context to the material it is purporting to cite. It's kind of funny that it took two Canadians (Bradv) and I to get this problematic content removed. Go Canada? ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 02:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I've always said, if you need help with a BLP, ask a Canadian. Ok, not really, but from now on I will consider it a wise option. petrarchan47คุก 02:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

If it was fixing how come the source is still in the article? QuackGuru (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, Because when Bradv took out the problematic passage/paragraph, there was still a reference to the "Vaccine journal" citation, which AnomieBOT re-added. I haven't found what that journal article is citing, but the passage removed by Brad needed to be removed as it was a WP:BLP violation. Doug Mehus T·C 17:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I removed the leftover "Vaccine journal" reference, but would like either of Bradv or Petrarchan47 to take a look at the PLoS Blog article. It is an opinion piece, a letter to the editor. Per WP:BLP, I don't think this piece passes the muster for this negative information. Not every piece published by a journal publisher bears the same quality; this is one of them. A peer-reviewed scientific journal article carries a lot more weight than a letter to the editor or op-ed published in said journal. Doug Mehus T·C 18:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I intended to leave the reference, as it still supports the statement that the theory is rejected by scientific consensus. I left it to AnomieBOT to repair out of sheer laziness. – bradv🍁 18:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, Oh FFS, really? And why did you not courtesy-ping the reality-based editors as well? Are you going to be the new Bilby? No, we already discussed this, and no, we're not going to continue trying to whitewash her well-documented and factually incorrect anti-vaccine BS out of the article. Guy (help!) 09:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Sorry, Guy, I meant to ping you as well, though we are all "reality-based" editors. Doug Mehus T·C 17:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, you removed it, despite the fact that it supports the statement that the theory is rejected by the medical community, and despite objections and no apparent consensus yet. That wasn't a good idea. Guy (help!) 18:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Except it doesn't say that. As written, it asserted that Ms. Attkisson's reporting was in question and/or that she had those views. It made no mention of that. I had Brad and Petra take a look at it, which is a small, albeit, technically, consensus. Brad and Diannaa are well regarded for their impartiality and neutrality.--Doug Mehus T·C 18:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I appreciate your subsequent good faith edits to clean up this article, JzG. Agree with your edit summary comment about The Epoch Times being notoriously unreliable. There's also a reference to Raw Story in there somewhere, which may need to just be corrected to Salon.com. Salon.com is what I would call a "yellow source," but if the other sources back it up, it's probably fine. Doug Mehus T·C 18:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, I can tweak it to avoid ambiguity, it remains an excellent source for the fact that the vaccine-autism claim is BS Guy (help!) 19:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Strike that, QuackGuru already did. Guy (help!) 19:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Thanks, I'll have a look. Yes, it may well be a good source that assesses the debunked autism claims, but yes, it didn't address Ms. Attkisson's reporting, which was what I had concerns with. Doug Mehus T·C 19:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, well, tweaking the sentence order slightly has fixed it so I guess we can close this thread. Guy (help!) 21:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Yeah, it's a lot better so far. I don't know if we need formal closure, since Bradv deleted my RfC. (I tend to over-use RfCs sometimes.) However, it's up to you. My only suggestion would be, per WP:NPOV and Ms. Attkisson's refuting the characterization, renaming the "Anti-vaccine reporting" section to "Vaccine reporting controversy" or something more neutral. Doug Mehus T·C 22:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I held an RfC over just these issues (renaming the section is part 1). You can see the results. I became enemy number one. petrarchan47คุก 23:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Bilby has re-added Ms. Attkisson's refutation, which I hadn't realized was deleted. I support that re-add. Doug Mehus T·C 23:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion to include her statement was held at WP:BLPN. - Bilby (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

User Calton has reverted Bilby's edit on grounds that there was no consensus. While, perhaps, technically true, in that the link provided by Bilby, my rough analysis shows 9-3 in favour of including. Thus, I'm asking for this peer review, and tagging Bradv and Diannaa her per Petrarchan47's comment about asking a Canadian to deal with WP:BLP issues. Can an administrator, or non-involved editor, assess the consensus on the link provided by Bilby?Doug Mehus T·C 23:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Calton please review this noticeboard discussion and consider reverting your edit which is against consensus. petrarchan47คุก 23:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

No, how about YOU read this instead. --Calton | Talk 23:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, that looks like what you're doing. We have a clear consensus on BLPN, but you refuse to accept it and want a clear consensus here as well. This isn't that hard - consensus was to include the statement. If you want to change it, try starting a new discussion. - Bilby (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, I've requested full page protection for 30 days pending resolution of this RfC. Hoping an admin can action this appropriately and swiftly due to potential WP:BLP issues here. Doug Mehus T·C 23:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, we can include it as soon as there is a single reliable independent source that quotes it, giving context to allow us to establish its validity. Because we don't WP:PROFRINGE based on primary sources. X has been criticised for advocating bullshit, source $RS. X says this is completely wrong, source X. That is how newspapers work, not encyclopaedias. As so often you err too far on the side of protecting antivaxers. Guy (help!) 00:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Per Petrarchan47 and Bilby, that noticeboard does show a clear consensus to including it. Doug Mehus T·C 01:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, not true. Clear consensus among defenders of antivaxers, maybe, but this has been rejected multiple times in the past. Guy (help!) 08:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Procedural Comment: Administrator El C has temporarily fully protected (for 10 days) Sharyl Attkisson, to allow us to reach consensus re: this issue. Note from this diff] he has also imposed WP:1RR. Hopefully we can resolve things before then. Doug Mehus T·C 01:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The consensus at BLPN was clearly that we should include her reply, and the consensus here on sourcing was that Attkisson's website is suitable for opinions about herself, given the usual caveats. That said, even Gorski wrote an article about why Attkisson hadn't misrepresented Zimmerman [1]. The problem here was Zimmerman enabling antivaxxers, not Attkisson misrepersenting him. - Bilby (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, Thank you for your reply. I also disagree with Guy that we need to have a "single reliable independent source" that quotes Attkisson's blog since it seems unlikely that Ms. Attkisson's blog will achieve consensus for including at WP:RS (even though, it arguably should be; her reporting credentials are impeccable and speak for themselves). I see you're also an administrator, who is likely more familiar with WP:BLP than I...for controversial things of this nature, can you tell me if there is something in WP:BLP that says the subject should be given the opportunity to refute highly controversial allegations? Doug Mehus T·C 01:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, Interestingly, despite there being several people who are active on this talk page who have long opposed self-sourced apologia, none of them were pinged for the BLPN discussion. It is perverse to include a self-sourced "refutation" of an independent fact-checker. And if we were going to include self-sourced criticism, a rant titled "Wikipedia’s Pharma Industry Agenda Editors–at it again." is 100% the wrong self-published source for people long on the wrong side of consensus at this talk page to use, for very obvious reasons. "Wikpedia’s vaccine industry agenda editors are at it again." Seriously? We're using that as a source rebutting a fact-checker? And guess what? It includes a solicitation to take part in the "Wikipedia correction project" - following which, who'd have thought it, we got yet another round of the usual antivax apologia at this talk page. What a coincidence. Her "expose" of Wikipedia is literally based on getting rebuffed POV-pushers to send her the material they could not crowbar in, and then soliciting others to go and insert it. Guy (help!) 08:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

In regard to "none of them were pinged for the BLPN discussion", the the BLP/N discussion was raised on this talk page so that editors here could be informed. [2] We don't usually ping individuals from one side due to canvasing concerns. - Bilby (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, Sure, as soon as there's a reliable independent secondary source that cover it. Otherwise we're including the self-published protestations of an antivaxer. Guy (help!) 08:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, the word you're looking for is repudiation, not refutation. Guy (help!) 13:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

About the request to extend full protection by one month

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.

---

I'm considering that (2nd) full protection request, but since there's a few days till the (1st) protection expires, I'd like to hear what participants think of the notion of having the article frozen for such a long duration. Perhaps there's a tentative agreement both sides can arrive at with respect to the dispute that can serve for the duration of the RfC? That way, the article could at least remain open to unrelated editing. I'm open to creative suggestions. El_C 18:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason to extend it further. I also don’t appreciate that this was not discussed here by Dmehus before the request was made. Toa Nidhiki05 18:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, I didn't think it was necessary to discuss this, since we seem to be having trouble to come to a consensus. I actually think this page could benefit from indefinite full protection, given the multitude of RfCs on this talkpage and other noticeboards. This would have the benefit being two-fold. namely that:

1. it would mean we'd have to discuss things and come to some semblance of agreement instead of reverting others' edits in terms of adds and changes; and,
2. the edit requests would alert an administrator who doesn't necessarily always follow this page, which provides an added element of impartiality and objectivity.

I think, at minimum, the full page protection should be extended another two weeks or so, until the RfC concludes. Even still, I think it's worth considering longer term full protection for the above reasons.

We should also let JzG, Petrarchan47, BullRangifer, Bilby, David Gerard, and Markbassett know of this request. Please feel free to add any others I may have missed. Those seem to be the regular contributors to the discussion. Doug Mehus T·C 19:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

We haven’t had trouble coming up with a consensus, really, although that’s your best play for the RFC at this point. I see no reason for indefinite protection, either - that’s an exceptional step few articles have. I’m also disappointed that you continue to have issues with canvassing people. Either tag everyone in the RfC or nobody. This is getting ridiculous. You are either not getting the point or you’re willfully ignoring at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 19:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, I'd note, though, that El C did add this page subject to 1RR sanctions, which is also somewhat rare. Only the most contentious articles seem to get that.

Since El C is open to creative proposals, what about something like this...

1. Extension of full protection to December 8, 2019, to allow the RfC to conclude (with or without consensus); and, following this,
2. Updating this page to be subject to 0RR sanctions. This would mean that if any editor disputes another editor's edit, it has to be taken to the talkpage to talk it out (notwithstanding the usual exceptions for reverting patent nonsense and page vandalism, of course)

Cheers,

Doug Doug Mehus T·C 19:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think you understand how Wikipedia operates. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, No, I do, but sometimes situations require creative solutions and thinking creatively to come up with alternate solutions beyond predefined, cookie cutter policies. Doug Mehus T·C 19:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I actually think this page could benefit from indefinite full protection — that's not really a thing that we do. El_C 19:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

El C, See above creative alternate proposal. Doug Mehus T·C 19:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Except, that leaves your preferred version in place. Would you still feel the same way if I were to edit the protected page to the other version? El_C 19:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

El C, Well, note above, I have requested peer review for the article, so whenever that backlog is cleared, I think some improvements will be made that may result in changes to disputed section and potentially other sections as well.

I'd also be fine if you wanted to have a group of impartial administrators who don't edit this page on a regular or semi-regular basis come up with a revised section that would give something to both sides. Doug Mehus T·C 19:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want to give something to both sides, at least start tagging everyone. The fact that you don’t serious,y undermines your credibility. Toa Nidhiki05 19:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just not sure that that is a practical proposal. El_C 19:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

El C, Well, it was just an idea. I do think this article could benefit from fresh sets of eyes with respect to improved sourcing, neutrality, and BLP compliance. The concern I have with leaving at 1RR is one side will have a first-mover advantage. Sometimes it could be the side with which I agree; other times the side with which I disagree. I don't think that's healthy, or respectful for the article's subject, on a long-term basis. Doug Mehus T·C 20:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

We’ve had fresh sets of eyes here, multiple times. This comes off less as an honest attempt and more as a way for you to ram whatever changes you wish onto the page with nobody being able to revert. It’s not even consensus - your 0RR, as stated, means that nobody would be able to undo any edits. That’s insane. There is no BLP or neutrality problem here, nor is there a real edit warring problem at that, especially with 1RR. Toa Nidhiki05 20:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, for some unknown reason, some editors seem particularly interested in monitoring this article. I actually can, and would be willing to step away from editing this article at all, if the regular editors (including yourself) would agree to do the same. It needs a fresh set of eyes, by those attached to Ms. Attkisson and also by those with strong opinions on what you refer to as "fringe theories." Did you ever consider that, as Ms. Attkisson has stated in her TED Talks, those pushing a certain narrative seek to controversialize those levying the criticism? If not, have a look over here. Doug Mehus T·C 23:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The fact you put "fringe theories" in square quotes says a lot. No, I'm not going to step away from this page and I don't think anyone else here will, either, and I will continue to oppose promotion of fringe theories throughout Wikipedia. Toa Nidhiki05 23:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that 1RR suffices, for now. We gotta at least give it a try first for a bit, before we escalate to consensus required or similar restrictions. El_C 19:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

El C, Agree. Guy (help!) 19:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Any other thoughts before I render a decision on this (likely to day or at the latest tomorrow)? El_C 17:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

El C, Alternate idea: To give the others a chance to comment, who may not check in daily, we could take it week by week with you (or another non-involved admin, in your stead) extending the full protection on a rolling 7 day extension based on the evolution of the talkpage discussions? Doug Mehus T·C 17:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No reason to lock it further on this basis - David Gerard (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: we've only heard from Guy, Toa, and David. We've yet to hear from others, including administrator Bilby and editor Petrarchan47. It seems only fair for them to weigh in. I think El C should take the extension week by week, or three day by three day period, following November 25, per above and until the others have weighed in. Doug Mehus T·C 17:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

That's unlikely to happen. Also, I'm not inclined to wait further for other participants to comment. Either they do in the time frame set, or they don't. El_C 17:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No - David Gerard (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

El C, That's true. To add to that, I think that renders moot Toa's earlier comment, "I also don’t appreciate that this was not discussed here by Dmehus before the request was made[,]" in that it is not necessary to involve all editors in a discussion before requesting a good faith page protection extension just the same as it is not necessary for all editors involved in a talkpage discussion to weigh in. Doug Mehus T·C 17:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m getting sick and tired of asking this, Dmehus but stop canvassing. Now. You just notified four users, three of which agree with you. There are multiple other editors in the above discussion that you have not notified through multiple canvassing attempts. Either notify everyone who has been posting or don’t notify at all. This is your last warning before I take this to a noticeboard. Toa Nidhiki05 18:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05,  Done but it wasn't canvassing. I just extended the pings to talkpage notifications to the editors whom I'd previously pinged (along with yourself, David, and Guy. Since you guys responded, I didn't think it was necessary to re-notify you. No more pings or talkpage notifications. I was going to notify other editors, but El C said not to, so it wasn't canvassing—despite how it may appear to you.

Resolved

Doug Mehus T·C 18:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would support extending protection on anything related to the vaccine section/reporting, so that any changes to that content would be discussed here first. No other content is causing problems. In my view, PAGs are being ignored and misrepresented by advocates and that is what's causing the problems. I would also ask that the accusations by Toa stop at this page, and taken to the proper noticeboard. It is disrupting conversation about content. petrarchan47คุก 23:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  Petrarchan47, Agree with what you're saying. I'm not sure if it's technically feasible to full protect just a section of the page, but that's an interesting idea. El C?

  Even if El C decides against extending protection, I would support keeping 1RR sanctions indefinitely, and if we seem to be unable to get a handle on not reverting others' edits, then we may need to look at 0RR sanctions. Doug Mehus T·C 23:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Edit request

Change this:

In her reporting, Attkisson has published stories linking [[vaccines and autism|vaccines with autism]]; this contradicts the scientific community who reject such a link.

To this:

Attkisson has published stories linking [[vaccines and autism|vaccines with autism]], a position rejected by the scientific community.

"Contradicts" suggests a false equivalence (this can also be mended by substituting "consensus" for "community"); the rest is CE. François Robere (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

François Robere, I support the latter part of that change, but in actuality, we should further improve/clarify Attkisson's stories on vaccines. I think we should say that Attkisson has published stories on vaccinations which highlight counterpoints and to positions adopted by the majority of the scientific community. I want to see Attkisson's actual stories supposedly linking vaccines with Autism; not stories in the media which characterize her stories in that way. Doug Mehus T·C 18:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

No to both and a hell no to Dmehus’s suggestion. There’s no false equivalence here. She has published stories that contractions the scientific community’s views on vaccines. This has been decided on before. We aren’t going to sugarcoat her views to promote a false balance where none exists.

As for Dmehus, again, read the history here. Her response to being accused of bad reporting on vaccines is basically to say that not only do vaccines cause autism, but the “vaccine industry” (a term she has seriously used) and big government are conspiring to hide the truth. It’s patent nonsense. Toa Nidhiki05 18:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: That's exactly the problem. "Contradicts", in this construction, suggests her and the scientific community's positions have equal footing. They don't. So either we say her position is (widely) rejected, or we say it contradicts scientific consensus - phrasing that puts the emphasis on knowledge rather than people. Does this clarify my point? François Robere (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, nope. There is no significant scientific dissent from the consensus view that vaccines don't cause autism. What you suggest is effectively equivalent to climate change denialism. Guy (help!) 19:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. We should document that she holds positions that are contrary to the scientific consensus, but we should not include her reasonings or advocacy. Just state it as the nonsense it is. The due weight argument here is that her beliefs hold little weight and the scientific consensus position deserves to be explained. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, and, as noted previously, antivaxers know that their position is considered toxic so go to great lengths to insist they are not antivax at all, they just require proof that vaccines are safe delivered by a troupe of elves mounted on pugapegacorns. Guy (help!) 00:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest JUST FOLLOW THE CITES, and show some facts. This TALK seems about organizing OR and wording to suit posturing desires/goals, rather than stating sources by WEIGHT with cites of her output sourced to that, or the literal words from cites. Seriously, stifle the outrage and convey more clearly and credibly. My issue here isn’t concerns of ‘false equivalence’, it’s that I’m not able to tell anything about what the outrage is over other than a WP editor was outraged enough to ditch facts and just report outrage. The “published” seems more off here than the rest - if she published then in what venue, what was the title of the item published, and who was the writer she published? The cites here just aren’t great for this line or to any facts - the next line cite is better linked to facts in SethMnookin.com, a self-published criticism (rant) on one of her reporting, plus the factual slap-back in comments that he was dinging the wrong paper. So, can we skip stop polishing the outrage in better PC long enough to convey what is it you are outraged about ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  Markbassett, Well said. You articulated more clearly my concerns with this paragraph. Doug Mehus T·C 18:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't get what you are trying to say, except you are outraged about "outrage" and you are neither interested in avoiding false balance nor in addressing the subject of this section.

  I think François' suggestion is good. "a position rejected by the scientific community" says the same and is more concise than "this contradicts the scientific community who reject such a link". And "In her reporting" is redundant with "published". --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  Hob Gadling, yes. "A position rejected by the scientific community" is concise and readily understood, and an entirely reasonable paraphrase of the sources. Guy (help!) 10:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  Hob Gadling, That's not what I have concerns with (assuming you mean the sentence in the Lede paragraphs). What I am concerned with is a lack of multiple reliable source citations that substantiate her as being "anti-vaccination." She's done stories critical of both the vaccination and pharmaceutical industries, broadly speaking, but, as written, we've not substantiated the view that she is against vaccinations beyond the op-ed column on PLoS Blog or the Public Library of Science weblog. Doug Mehus T·C 19:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  There is no such thing as the “vaccination industry”. Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  Toa Nidhiki05, Uhh... yes, it's a subset of the pharmaceutical industry. It's pharmaceutical companies focusing, in whole or in part, on vaccines as opposed to treatments, remedies, and similar types of drugs. It's not meant to be a pejorative term. It's just describing a specific part of the pharmaceutical industry. Doug Mehus T·C 19:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The FDA, in this PDF entitled "Guidance for Industry", targeted the guidance to "manufacturers of viral vaccines". Here are two mainstream articles*, * that use the term. It seems quite commonplace and I'm unsure why Tao asserts otherwise. petrarchan47คุก 20:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• So, you are not interested in whether this change is made. Then, why don't you shut up in a section that does not concern you?

  The sentence does not even talk about "anti-vax", it talks about a thing she does not deny having done: namely "published stories linking vaccines with autism". That part of the sentence is not even part of the change.

  Maybe you should calm down and start trying to behave rationally? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• This may be just me but one of the aspects of The Panic Virus I found interesting was why and how generally reasonable people bought into the vaccine-autism and vaccine-other links. I'm firming in the "pro-vax" camp but I think we do our readers no favors when we say "this person said X which is against scientific consensus". What did she say, when did she say it, why is it wrong? This is another example where it appears that Wiki editors are writing to disparage rather than inform and allow readers to reach their own One of the better parts of Mnookin's book was the detail regarding why some of the anti-vax questions being raised weren't unreasonable or at least couldn't be reasonably dismissed out of hand until they were actually studied in detail. In the case of Attkinsson (I'm not familiar with her work) did she publish these stories recently or earlier when the science wasn't as conclusive? What exactly did she publish etc. If the article is going to make it clear that she was outright wrong in this area to the point where a reader of this article might assume her vax work should define her professional life then we should add more detail. As a reader I'm not interested in the claim that she is anti-vax. I'm interested in what she said and why. BTW, having thought about it a bit more, this is a case where I think the normal FRINGE concerns don't apply that well. FRINGE makes a lot of sense in an article about side effects of vaccines. However, in this case, what she had to say about vaccines, right - if any - or wrong, is of interest since it is what caused the replies from others. Springee (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Springee In 2008 she reported for CBS:

It's a very controversial question that's been debated for some time: Is there a link between childhood vaccines and autism? For the first time, federal officials conceded that vaccines contributed to autism-like symptoms in one child.

In 2010, again for CBS:

The first court award in a vaccine-autism claim is a big one. CBS News has learned the family of Hannah Poling will receive more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care; lost earnings; and pain and suffering for the first year alone.

In 2017 for the Daily Beast, in an article already heavily quoted in her BLP (save for this bit), she mentioned a statement by a scientist currently with the CDC:

"I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism."

The Daily Beast:

“The fact is, the government has acknowledged there’s a link,” Attkisson says, citing the recent admission by a senior Central for Disease Control epidemiologist that he and his colleagues improperly omitted from a 2004 study the data that tended to support such a link. “They simply say it’s not a causal link.”

As you can see here and here, the community rejected the idea of mentioning any of this. petrarchan47คุก 18:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

We have and will continue to reject including her claims that the government has admitted vaccines cause autism. They haven’t. It’s bordering on WP:TEND to keep bringing this pseudoscientific nonsense up. Toa Nidhiki05 18:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, so far I've only looked at the CBS link. I would be very reluctant to credit the loss of a court case or the views of a senator as the voice of the government. Senators are allowed to have their own POVs and legal cases can often be based on the whims of a jury. This is something Bayer is finding out with the questionable data used to decide that Roundup caused someone's cancer. At the same time, that particular example is also not a case of claiming vax causes autism. The claim in that case is that the person had a response to one or more vaccines that did result in harm. My understanding is that there is scientific consensus that vaccines will in special cases cause harm. This is the sort of example where I don't agree with her spin on the facts but I also don't see this as a claim that is challenging the consensus that vaccines don't cause autism. Springee (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Reference to the government was in relation to the CDC scientist, not to the award (unless I've completely misread everything). petrarchan47คุก 20:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I just reviewed the Daily Beast article. Again I feel this is a case were we really need to provide more rather than less detail. If one reads "Attkisson has received criticism for publishing stories suggesting a possible link between vaccines and autism,[6][7][8] a theory that has been rejected by the scientific community", it is very easy to assume she is one of the people who rejects vaccines and assumes the worst. It doesn't appear to be quite so straight forward though I also have issues with some of her statements. The CDC official saying, "CDC: “Possibility” that vaccines rarely trigger autism" is somewhat problematic. As someone in science shouldn't be claiming a negative has been proven. We should also be careful about saying "a theory that has been rejected" since that means we are claiming a negative has been proven in Wiki voice. This was actually an example Mnookin has pointed out. A scientist rightly shouldn't not claim a negative has been proven, only that the reverse hasn't been proven. So the CDC official was probably being technically correct in saying they haven't proven there is no link. However, to a lay person that might sound like they are admitting it is true in some cases. Rather they are admitting they don't have enough data to make a confident statement in those cases. So I think she is wrong in this case. However, this is an area where, based on my limited understanding, the information is limited so even if a scientist is confident there in no link in general they can't reasonably say in all cases. The problem, as Mnookin points out, this is an in that anti-vax advocates can use to try to discredit science in the eyes of the masses. So in that regard I can see where the anti-vax label comes from. However, that doesn't mean that she isn't chasing a valid story and a clear linkage may yet be found between a subset of children and vaccine harm. If such a result is found it would tend to validate what Attkisson is saying. So in the end this is why I think, if we are going to put the anti-vax stuff in the lead we should present a clear telling of what she has said and why others say it's incorrect. We should not gloss over it with a simple "anti-vax" label and assume she was reporting based on something other than a reasonable read of her research. Springee (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

"we should present a clear telling of what she has said and why others say it's incorrect" And the only argument against this has been some form of "I don't like it". When asked for policy-based arguments we get nothing. Yet those voices have formed a consensus. petrarchan47คุก 20:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Folks, this section, as the section title says, is about the edit request. The edit request - I regret having to shout at you, but I need to, because you will not listen, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANTI-VAX. Neither the original wording nor the proposed change talks about anti-vax. Both wordings say the same. What you say has no bearing on whether the edit request should be done or not.

The irrationality of one side of the discussion here is the reason why any consensus on anything is impossible here. Even when someone tries to make seemingly uncontroversial changes, such as François here, it turns into a discussion about you know what.

I will just make the change now. Discussion with you people leads nowhere. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Factual accuracy tag

Bilby is edit warring to add the inclusion of a “factual accuracy” to a location where factual accuracy is not disputed (the section on her anti-vaccine reporting) and where in fact consensus has been reached. The dispute is over BLP, not accuracy, and said comment is already included. This tag needs to be removed immediately as it is brazenly improper. Toa Nidhiki05 20:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It is currently in debate about a key claim - that she has denied the accusation made. As a result we are running an RFC. Given the significance of that claim - accusing a professional journalist of misrepresenting a source - and that currently we do not include her denial as Calton removed it, it seems reasonable to let readers know that there is current an active debate about the content of that section. - Bilby (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Then why a factual accuracy tag? The facts are not in dispute here aside from a handful of editors who were on the losing end of an RfC months ago. Toa Nidhiki05 20:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The debate we're having is about whether or not to include her deinal of the allegation made by Zimmerman. Without that denial it seems to me that the section is inaccurate, as it is missing a significant point. - Bilby (talk)

Zimmerman said “that there may be a subset of children who are at risk for [developmental] regression if they have underlying mitochondrial dysfunction and are simultaneously exposed to factors that stress their mitochondrial reserve.”, and she turned the "may be" into an "is" by saying that "vaccines can cause autism". So, how does she justify her claim that that is not a misrepresentation? Does she say that "may be" is the same as "is"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

According to Gorski, she didn't misrepresent Zimmerman [3], and, as far as I know, only Zimmerman is claiming he was misrepresented. The point is, though, that we're debating whether or not to include a claim which has now been removed. Without that point in there, there is an argument that the section is not factually accurate, because it doesn't include her denial. It seems to me that readers should be aware that this issue is under debate until we get to some sort of consensus. - Bilby (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, Yes, and we already have consensus, multiple times, to include her denial. We're debating whether to expand the scope of her denial. Doug Mehus T·C 16:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

No, we aren't. Toa Nidhiki05 17:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, Well, why do you propose to usurp consensus established at WP:BLPN, as pointed out by Bilby, Marcbassett, Petrarchan, and others? I'm feeling like you're taking ownership of this article and maybe you need to take a step back, edit some other things which interest you (perhaps an article on the harm done by anti-vaccinationists), etc.? Doug Mehus T·C 17:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I support inclusion of such tags. I also oppose Calton's removal of Ms. Attkisson's statement that she denies the way in which some in the scientific community have characterized her reporting considering the RfC at the top of this page and from WP:BLPN which Bilby previously pointed us to supported including. Doug Mehus T·C 21:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)