| Revision as of 16:09, 25 November 2015 editRealskeptic (talk | contribs)253 edits →Consensus must be specified, not misrepresented as unchallenged: On WP:WEIGHT← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:50, 25 November 2015 edit undoTenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs)Administrators21,284 edits →Consensus must be specified, not misrepresented as unchallenged: You need to stop misrepresenting an overall scientific consensus as an IOM opinion.Next edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| :To avoid further confusion on this point, I've piped the link under ''scientific consensus'' to point to ] (rather than just ]). The new, more specific link provides extensive sourcing to support the assertion. I don't think it would be helpful or necessary to copy and paste all of the dozen-plus relevant supporting references from that article. ](]) 03:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC) | :To avoid further confusion on this point, I've piped the link under ''scientific consensus'' to point to ] (rather than just ]). The new, more specific link provides extensive sourcing to support the assertion. I don't think it would be helpful or necessary to copy and paste all of the dozen-plus relevant supporting references from that article. ](]) 03:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::As ] means representing competing views "''in proportion to their representation in reliable sources'' on the subject," portrayals of IOM's position as undisputed scientific consensus and ''Trace Amounts'' as "fringe" would clearly go against that policy. Since IOM's only response to evidence that its report was anything but scientific includes a false accusation of Kennedy , such portrayals are an annihilation of ]. ] (]) 16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | ::As ] means representing competing views "''in proportion to their representation in reliable sources'' on the subject," portrayals of IOM's position as undisputed scientific consensus and ''Trace Amounts'' as "fringe" would clearly go against that policy. Since IOM's only response to evidence that its report was anything but scientific includes a false accusation of Kennedy , such portrayals are an annihilation of ]. ] (]) 16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::Your comment above simply restates your misleading and demonstrably-false assertion that the consensus on thiomersal-containing vaccines is based solely on the IOM's position. You know that this statement is false because I specifically addressed the point in my comment to which you were replying, which linked to ] and the multiple sources provided there. You need to stop misrepresenting an overall scientific consensus as an IOM opinion; more generally, you need to stop engaging in ] behavior or you will be topic-banned or blocked. ](]) 16:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:50, 25 November 2015
 | Film: Documentary Stub‑class   | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Not impartial in tone
Words like "anti-vaccine" and "anti-vaccination" violate WP:NPOV, specifying that articles must be impartial in tone. Realskeptic (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Anti-vaccine is simply a descriptor of a position that opposes vaccination. There is nothing inherently problematic about the word. jps (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Which this documentary does not, and any use of such is a lie. Realskeptic (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- This documentary promotes false claims that vaccines cause harm. jps (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless, that does not address my point at all re WP:NPOV. Realskeptic (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Being wrong about something and being against it are two different things.Realskeptic (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- This documentary promotes false claims that vaccines cause harm. jps (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Which this documentary does not, and any use of such is a lie. Realskeptic (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Anti-vaccine" and "anti-vaccination" are an accurate description of this film and its proponents. Neither WP:NPOV nor a general notion of impartiality compel us to describe anti-vaccination activists or their media output using those advocates' preferred soft-pedal adjectives. (Indeed, impartiality requires us to describe this film and these advocates in accordance with the consensus of scientific and biomedical experts.) I have removed your {POV} tag from the article, because you have misunderstood how NPOV works. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- I know how WP:NPOV works. There were never any soft-pedal adjectives. The wording used before accurately described what this documentary is. The wording used now is that which is used by critics, but it shouldn't be used in the Misplaced Pages entry for aforementioned reasons. There is no consensus of scientists that says otherwise; scientists come to consensus on scientific issues, not on what positions a documentary film advocates or does not advocate for. Glad you've at least responded, finally. Realskeptic (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- The "positions a documentary film advocates" (explicitly or implicitly) are very much subject to evaluation and criticism by scientists and physicians where those positions impinge on biomedical and public health topics. The real hang-up here, though, is that you don't like Misplaced Pages's use of "anti-vaccination" to accurately describe anti-vaccination films, positions, or advocates—and I can't help you with that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- They can criticize them all they want but that does not make them right to say this documentary opposes one thing when it actually opposes something else; if anything, it would suggest they have an agenda beyond simply being scientists of some sort. The truth is I have no problem with anything anti-vaccination being correctly labeled as such, but you and others clearly have a problem with WP:AGF and WP:NPOV. In this instance, it looks like a film is being intentionally misrepresented in order to malign it. Clearly, that would constitute an unresolved dispute. Realskeptic (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- The "positions a documentary film advocates" (explicitly or implicitly) are very much subject to evaluation and criticism by scientists and physicians where those positions impinge on biomedical and public health topics. The real hang-up here, though, is that you don't like Misplaced Pages's use of "anti-vaccination" to accurately describe anti-vaccination films, positions, or advocates—and I can't help you with that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- I know how WP:NPOV works. There were never any soft-pedal adjectives. The wording used before accurately described what this documentary is. The wording used now is that which is used by critics, but it shouldn't be used in the Misplaced Pages entry for aforementioned reasons. There is no consensus of scientists that says otherwise; scientists come to consensus on scientific issues, not on what positions a documentary film advocates or does not advocate for. Glad you've at least responded, finally. Realskeptic (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Consensus must be specified, not misrepresented as unchallenged
Words like "scientific consensus" are vague and overly broad, the source must be specified. Additionally, the integrity of the consensus is challenged. Realskeptic (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- The scientific consensus isn't overturned – or sensibly challenged, for the purposes of WP:WEIGHT – by a single boutique, fringe film. (There also exist, for example, fringe films which claim that the WTC towers were brought down by explosives secretly planted by a U.S. government agency—this does not mean that the consensus, for the purposes of writing a Misplaced Pages article, is not that the jet collisions and subsequent fire collapsed the WTC towers.)
- To avoid further confusion on this point, I've piped the link under scientific consensus to point to Thiomersal controversy#Scientific consensus (rather than just scientific consensus). The new, more specific link provides extensive sourcing to support the assertion. I don't think it would be helpful or necessary to copy and paste all of the dozen-plus relevant supporting references from that article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- As WP:WEIGHT means representing competing views "in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject," portrayals of IOM's position as undisputed scientific consensus and Trace Amounts as "fringe" would clearly go against that policy. Since IOM's only response to evidence that its report was anything but scientific includes a false accusation of Kennedy "fabricating quotations", such portrayals are an annihilation of WP:WEIGHT. Realskeptic (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your comment above simply restates your misleading and demonstrably-false assertion that the consensus on thiomersal-containing vaccines is based solely on the IOM's position. You know that this statement is false because I specifically addressed the point in my comment to which you were replying, which linked to Thiomersal controversy#Scientific consensus and the multiple sources provided there. You need to stop misrepresenting an overall scientific consensus as an IOM opinion; more generally, you need to stop engaging in WP:IDHT behavior or you will be topic-banned or blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- As WP:WEIGHT means representing competing views "in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject," portrayals of IOM's position as undisputed scientific consensus and Trace Amounts as "fringe" would clearly go against that policy. Since IOM's only response to evidence that its report was anything but scientific includes a false accusation of Kennedy "fabricating quotations", such portrayals are an annihilation of WP:WEIGHT. Realskeptic (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)