Talk:Andrew Wakefield/Archive 4

Tweaking the lede - why was Wakefield struck off
There seems to be a bit of back and forth about the sentence in the lede describing why Wakefield was struck off the medical register. The two competing wordings are (citations omitted, but identical between the two versions; differences bolded)
 * Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 1957) is a disgraced British former gastroenterologist and medical researcher who was struck off the UK medical register for unethical behaviour and other misconduct surrounding his fraudulent 1998 research paper supporting the now-discredited claim that there was a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease.

and


 * Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 1957) is a disgraced British former gastroenterologist and medical researcher who was struck off the UK medical register for his fraudulent 1998 research paper and other misconduct in support of the now-discredited claim that there was a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease.


 * From the lede: "On 28 January 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children." Enough said. Guy (Help!) 20:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to prefer the former, as it's strictly more accurate. Wakefield was struck off for his unethical behavior (some of which was in service of his paper, among other aims), rather than the paper itself. That is to say, it was Wakefield's actions which drew sanctions, rather than the product of those actions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is also a MEDRS issue as the credibility of Wakefield speaks directly to medical health claims. We should be very clear whenever we document anything associated with the MMR vaccine controversy that Wakefield is both unethical and a fraud, and that his claims about the MMR vaccine are categorically false, because that is the unchallenged consensus of the most reliable sources, and because people who try to use WP to research whether or not to vaccinate their children need to know this stuff, and it needs to be unambiguous. This is not activism, this is the absolving ourselves of liability in the wrongful deaths of children. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Mr. Pants please don't write stuff like "absolving ourselves of liability in the wrongful deaths of children". There is a disclaimer at the bottom of every page which contains a specific statement about medical content, and in any case it almost never necessary to talk about real world legal stuff like "liability".  What matters is what is best supported by the best refs, giving appropriate WEIGHT etc; our internal policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * it almost never necessary to talk about real world legal stuff like "liability" I have bolded the relevant word.
 * If you convey to someone the notion that consuming 3 grams of arsenic will improve their complexion and whiten their smile, there is no disclaimer in the world that will protect you from the ensuing wrongful death lawsuit. It is, in fact, a well-established legal fact that disclaiming yourself as no expert is not a defense when you continue to portray yourself as an expert. This is one of the reasons for the additional MEDRS requirements, as you well know. This is a topic in which deaths have occurred, due entirely to the spread of misinformation. Wikipedia is a purveyor of information. It would be profoundly unwise to treat it the same way we treat UFO conspiracy theories, for example. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, you are coming very close to a No legal threats violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See my response to Jytdog, below.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's not get all underwear-bunched about this. MPants the whole point of NLT is to generally keep everybody away from that whole mindset, which is what people reach for when things get passionate. It is enough to say "this is a big deal with real world consequences for people" (which is what you mean, i think) without waving around Big Legal Junk which has really nothing to do with how we intrinsically make decisions here. That is all i meant.  I will not respond further as this is all aside-ness. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing remotely threatening about what I've said, and I think both of you need to take another read of WP:NLT before you mention it again. NLT explicitly and intentionally applies to people threatening to take legal action. In order to read a threat into my comments, you would have to presume that I'd decided not to vaccinate my children because (at least in part) the WP articles on the MMR controversy weren't clear enough that the autism link is bullshit. You might recognize that, once spelled out, as ridiculous, given my editing history. If you feel threatened by reading it, then you've thoroughly and grossly misread it.
 * And I'm quite dispassionate right now. This is just me pointing out a legal reality for the WMF, not myself, and using it to illustrate the reason for one of our policies and to reinforce the reasons for following that and other policies. If that doesn't make sense, then here's the simple version: I'm explaining why "good prose" or "NPOV" "BLPVIO" aren't good arguments in this situation, because they're the go-to arguments for editors making edits like the one that was reverted. If you disagree, then I don't quite know what to tell you. This is the exact same reason why WP:MEDRS exists, and you presumably don't disagree with that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, you say


 * "I think both of you need to take another read of WP:NLT before you mention it again. NLT explicitly and intentionally applies to people threatening to take legal action."

But No legal threats says:


 * "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are 'defamatory' or 'libelous,' that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention. To avoid misunderstandings, use less charged wording, such as 'that statement about me is false and damaging, and I ask that it be corrected.' Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention, if there is any doubt."

Could you please reconcile what you claim the policy says (only explicit and intentional legal threats are forbidden) with what the policy actually says (implied and unintentional legal threats are also forbidden)? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you're quoting a subsection that only applies to this discussion if one makes some -frankly- incredibly ignorant presuppositions about me and reads a great deal into my comments which is not explicitly stated within them. Instead, you should be reading the very first sentence of the policy, which states the policy and defines a legal threat in two different, compatible ways (which quite obviously don't apply to anything I said):
 * "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors."
 * Merely discussing a legal situation is not a legal threat, nor is acknowledging that one WP policy is based in part on legal considerations (in fact, there are a number of such policies, see Category:Wikipedia legal policies) and using that fact to inform an argument over article content as it relates to policy a legal threat.
 * As I previously pointed out, there is no threat contained in my comments, and the only way to read a threat into it would be to presume some rather extraordinary circumstances in my life that, themselves would require me to hold ideas which run counter to those ideals glimpsed in my editing history, and stated explicitly by me multiple times, and which would require me to at least assert that a number of WP articles contained content and implications which they demonstrably don't; something which I have demonstrably never done.
 * To be perfectly clear, I'm asserting without qualification that anyone reading a legal threat into what I said is suffering from a truly bizarre miscomprehension of what I said and willfully ignoring the fact that I've now explicitly stated three times (including this comment) that it's not a legal threat. Furthermore, such an editor is wasting time continuing to bicker about their misunderstanding of my point and the nuances of WP:NLT instead of engaging productively elsewhere on the project, or even on this very article.
 * I respect you a lot, Guy (and Jytdog as well), but your argument here is almost incomprehensibly misguided. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how any reasonable person could make the assumptions and assertions you have made, despite operating myself under the well-evidenced assumption that you are a reasonable person. I can tell you now that there is nothing to gain from me from continuing this line of accusation, and I would venture to guess that you won't get anywhere at one of the drama boards with it, due to the factors I've described above. Pursuing it further is nothing less than a waste of everyone's time, and I'll not be assisting such a waste by responding. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem is that what you say are "the assumptions and assertions [I] have made" are actually only the assumptions and assertions you have think I have made. I (and I am not alone) think that you made a comment that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat, even if that is not your intention. Repeatedly stating that it was is not your intention is 100% true but irrelevant. The policy says don't made a comment that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat, even if that was not your intention. Repeatedly stating that you do not understand the statement as being a legal threat is also 100% true but irrelevant. The policy says don't made a comment that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat, not that you understand as a legal threat. Repeatedly stating that in your opinion the two editors who have asked you not to make such statements are not being reasonable isn't helpful. I believe that I am being reasonable. Get one or two other people besides the person who made the statement in question to agree that I am not being reasonable and I will consider the possibility.


 * I would strongly suggest that you not make statements like "this is the absolving ourselves of liability in the wrongful deaths of children" or "If you convey to someone the notion that consuming 3 grams of arsenic will improve their complexion and whiten their smile, there is no disclaimer in the world that will protect you from the ensuing wrongful death lawsuit" simply because of how such statements are interpreted by other editors. Those appear to be WP:NLT violations to me and to at least one other editor. Is doesn't matter whether you think that those were legal threats. It is an established fact that at least some other editors think that those were legal threats, and nobody has come forward agreeing that those editors are all, in your words. "incomprehensibly misguided".


 * There comes a time when a person should comply with a reasonable request even if they disagree. You can make your point without using terms like "liability in the wrongful deaths of children" or "wrongful death lawsuit". I am in basic agreement with your underlying point, just not with the legal threats you are using to make that point. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I dearly hope you don't expect me to actually read and respond to the bulk of this. As for reasonable requests (the one part that I noticed), I would agree; When a person is asked to cease making disruptive accusations that fly in the face of logic, common sense and basic civility, they should comply. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OMG! Is this really still dragging out and distracting? The key word here is "reasonably". No, it is NOT reasonable to make such an assumption about Mpants's words. SMH. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Unwatching this page. I see zero sense in continuing to discuss such a minor issue. I have expressed my opinion, and been told that it was not read. I would hope that we can put this behind us and not have it interfere with what has so far been a spirit of mutual respect and collaboration. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC) `
 * Not that comment I read. And agree with, wholeheartedly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I read ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants's original post (the one in question here) and didn't see any thing even close to a reasonably construed legal threat. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants's concerns were clearly that the WikiMedia Foundation would be morally and legally liable if due diligence were not taken to document the fraudulent nature of Wakefield's purported link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
 * However, in a similar instance where I thought a wikipedia article was close to breaking US Federal law on publication of details helpful to the illegal fabrication of weapons of mass destruction (I am not now specifying which article on purpose), I asked an admin to delete the text in question from the article history to keep dangerous information out of the wrong hands. The admin consulted colleagues and eventually put me in touch with an attorney with the Wikimedia Foundation.  The attorney explained the WMF's position, and we worked out a fix for the problem.
 * I'd advise anyone concerned about legal or moral liability for harm arising from the content of one of our articles to make an admin aware of the situation and let the admins handle the issue. But that's tangential to the issue of making legal threats, which I don't see happening in ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants's case.  loupgarous (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Categorization
I recently removed 3 categories, 1 for overlapping with another, and 2 for violating the WP:Categorization principles, specifically the set categories part. My edit was reverted by SkepticalRaptor, who thought the change should be discussed. So here we are.

The name of a set category is always in plural, and (simply put), for an article to be in a set category, it has to be what the category name describes. The two set categories that I removed – Category:Medical scandals in the United Kingdom and Category:Academic scandals – should not contain people. They should contain scandals. People are not scandals.

You cannot categorize articles "by association", so to speak. A notable cat that was often involved in fights with dogs would not be categorized as a dog.

In this particular case, Wakefield was (heavily) involved in the MMR vaccine scandal. That does not mean that he was the scandal. The scandal itself was the scandal, and it is rightly categorized as such. Wakefield's involvement is covered by the "People associated with the MMR vaccine controversy" category. (The overlapping category that I removed was "MMR vaccine controversy".)

Look, I'm not trying to whitewash Wakefield, which is why I left the set categories Category:English fraudsters, Category:Anti-vaccination activists and Category:Medical doctors struck off by the General Medical Council, also certain topic categories, in place.

Some would point out the fact that there are other people in those categories. I'd call that circular evidence. Per WP:Categorization, people simply should not be put in non-people set categories.

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You need to fix the categories, not the article. Wakers belongs in both Medical and Academic scandals cats. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Because? HandsomeFella (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You're kidding, right? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * No. Please elaborate. Have you read what I wrote above, and have you read WP:Categorization? HandsomeFella (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You have read the article, yes? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I know he's a scumbag and a fraudster. That is not a good reason for violating the WP guidelines. If other editors find it meaningful, we could create real people catagories that would satisfy you personally, such as "People involved in medical scandals" and "People involved in academic scandals" (alternatively "Academics involved in scandals"). Wait, he's already in on such category: "People associated with the MMR vaccine controversy".
 * Also, please elaborate how I "fix the categories".
 * If you cannot explain your point, why are you in this discussion?
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You intimated above that he wasn't the scandal. He was the creator and perpetrator of the scandal and should remain in the cats concerned. I will ask for further opinion. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I said that people are not scandals. People can be fraudsters, and a whole lot of other things, but they cannot be scandals. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is about the person and the scandal, though. And it is one of the biggest scandals in modern medicine, it has caused serious harm and killed hundreds of children. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It's about him and his role in the scandal (admittedly significant), the rest is in the MMR vaccine controversy article. It's still an incompatible category for people. The fact that it has caused serious harm and killed hundreds of children is irrelevant to the categorization question; it does not mean that we should break WP rules and guidelines. I'm sure you don't mean that we should allow unreliable sources just because he's a scumbag. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This isn't complicated. Categories exist for navigation purposes. People reading about scandals will want to read about Wakefield. If you're unwilling to put him in this category, then go make Category:People involved in scandals, fill it with all the subcats your heart desires, then stick Wakefield in the medical one. This isn't rocket surgery. Either drop the pedantry, or act on it. Don't keep using it as an excuse to to screw with the rest of the project outside of the walled garden of cat space. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I know it isn't complicated. I actually "acted on it", but was reverted, and told to start a discussion. I also suggested categorization similar to what you suggest. Have you read what I wrote above?
 * I just want to avoid edit wars and achieve a consensus.
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * From WP:SETCAT: Set categories are named after a class (usually in the plural). For example, Category:Cities in France contains articles whose subjects are cities in France. Category:Medical scandals in the United Kingdom is not in Category:Set categories; is it nonetheless a set category? If so then Wakefield is disqualified due to being a person rather than a scandal. Certes (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read the entire discussion. The problem here is that certain editors are being pedantic enough about categories to cause a disruption on this page, but not pedantic enough to fix the problem they've created for themselves. Create an appropriate category or stop causing problems here. This isn't difficult to understand. Right now, it looks like you're seeking out trouble, rather than seeking out solutions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Right now, the article appears in both Category:People associated with the MMR vaccine controversy and its parent, Category:MMR vaccine controversy. Of the 19 people in the "People associated with ..." sub-category, Wakefield is the only one appearing in both the parent and child categories. Is the argument here that the other 18 have been mis-categorized and that all of them should also appear in the parent category? NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Then what's the argument for treating Wakefield differently than the other eighteen? NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wakefield's the originator of the controversy, the deliberate inventor and tireless promotor of it. No-one else has that distinction. Also bear in mind that our articles aren't people themselves: our articles are about people. Every article is a topic, not a person, place, event, object or a non-topic form of abstraction. Arguing about whether some article is a person or controversy is ultimately futile because in the end, they're both topics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This happens to be the article which documents the scandal, just as much as MMR vaccine controversy. Both should be in the category. This scandal belongs to Wakefield. It could just as well be called the Wakefield MMR vaccine scandal. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it shouldn't. Please re read WP:CAT WP:SUBCAT (Subsequent edit by Malerooster --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)) . MMR vaccine controversy is a parent category of People associated with the MMR vaccine controversy as pointed out above. I have read this talk page section twice and can't figure out why this is such a problem to folks. If this was tunnels or bridges in NYC would this be happening? --Malerooster (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC) ps, if you are still confused, please see this.pss, after reading a third time, this is a good faith disagreement and I do respect the editors who disagree with me, thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you can't understand my last comment, then ask specific questions about it and I will answer them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * MPants at work, why would you include both categories when this does against WP:CAT? --Malerooster (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is explained in the same comment I just referenced. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, so to be clear, if you think that the subject belongs in both categories, its ok to go against WP:CAT, fine. --Malerooster (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for inviting questions. Doesn't your "everything is a topic" theory effectively nullify the parent/child rules under WP:SUBCAT?  If not, why not?  NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. The problem is that some people cling to the notion that categorization is always absolute. It's not. Any categorization system that uses a strict hierarchy is going to fail to properly categorize everything. When I use my cellphone to weigh down some papers on my porch table while it compiles some clisp I wrote on it, it should be categorized as a paperweight->tool->object, a smartphone->cellphone->phone->tool->object, a smartphone->minicomputer->computer->tool->object, a compiler->software->computer code, a computer->tool->object, a tool->object and an object, if I wanted to sort and organize the contents of my house. It should be removed from the compiler and paperweight categories when it is no longer performing those tasks. You should really get fewer OOP coders and a few more big data devs, simulation specialists working in cats. They'd explain to the rest of you how hierarchical categorization can be implements as keywords in order to better sort and organize data. (Since WP is intended to eventually produce static articles, the temporal considerations don't need much attention). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It's NOT against WP:CAT because this article is about the scandal. That it's also about a person doesn't disqualify it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But that wasn't the question I asked. I asked MPants whether their "everything is a topic" theory effectively nullifies the parent/child rules under WP:SUBCAT.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi BullRangifer, I am really trying to get this. I hope we all agree that 99%? of the time, sub categories do not belong in their parent category?In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing – see below – or eponymous). The exception seems to be WP:DUPCAT. Is this what you are saying? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No we dont agree that 99% of the time at all. 99% of the time we don't even bother to think about categories, until CPOT start fiddling about with a perfectly good article, and then this happens. Daft, isn't it? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok Roxy the dog, how about 98%? Whatever, it should be rarely as the guideline points out. Not sure what CPOT is. --Malerooster (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Categories exist for navigation purposes. They're there to help categorize stuff for the reader. Now, any reader trying to read about the MMR vaccine controversy is going to want to find all our content which is relevant to that. Sure, they'll expect Wakefield and others to show up in the subcat, and they'll not expect to learn about Wakefield's post-secondary education from a page in the main cat. But they're going to be surprised if they find that reading all the pages in Category:MMR vaccine controversy doesn't give them a complete picture of the MMR vaccine controversy, and that they had to go through at least one page in the subcat to learn more details. The Wakefield article -being about a BLP so central to the controversy- has details which belong here but which also are highly important to the controversy itself.
 * I don't know what group of editors got together and decided that cats needed to be strictly hierarchical, but that group of editors made a decision that flies in the face of every bit of epistemology concerning categorization. And as we all know, any rule that prevents us from improving the project can and will get ignored.
 * Finally, as has been pointed out more than once. You've shown up here to make a change. That change immediately caused a furor. That change does not measurably improve this article, and only arguably helps improve the project in general (and even then, only because of the way certain editors -not a majority- feel about certain subjects). Multiple editors are thus required to come here and explain epistemology to multiple other editors whose primary focus is on epistemological constructs used by this project, in order to avoid this article being damaged again (and possibly further). This should have been a quick one, two, three: the cat gets removed, the cat gets put back, a brief explanation given, and we're done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * May I recommend reading the following excerpt from the Hitchhiker's guide to Wikipedia in the original Peter Jones radio series voice of the guide ... "In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing – see below – or eponymous)."


 * ...also, Category Police On Tour. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But that was the point of my original question here -- if the category is regarded as non-diffusing with respect to "People associated with ...", then why don't the other eighteen names appear in the category? (At which point, of course, you might as well just get rid of the sub-category).  But maybe there's a compromise here:
 * Compromise proposal: Remove the instant article from Category:MMR vaccine controversy (and leave it in the "People ..." sub-category), but also replace the opening hatnote with a sentence such as This category includes articles that address the MMR vaccine controversy associated with the work of Andrew Wakefield.
 * Would this be an acceptable compromise? NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Except for the bit that says "Remove the instant article from Category:MMR vaccine controversy" I support the above proposal. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt response. Applying the rules of WP:SUBCAT in this fashion is an essential element of the compromise proposal.  I take it, then, that you reject the compromise offer.  But let's see what other editors have to say about it.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I reject the compromise proposal because there is no consensus for a change, and therefore no need for a proposal of any kind, as a compromise isn't really needed. See what I mean? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I reject it, as well, for the reasons I described in detail above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your prompt responses. I was hoping to resolve this without the need for a 30-day-long Request for Comments, but your unequivocal responses make that seem unlikely.  Within the next day or so, I'll initiate that RfC.  Thanks again for your prompt responses. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that WP:SUBCAT should apply here, and the article should be in and not the parent . This article is about the person - there is a separate article about the MMR vaccine controversy. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to ask any Category Police hanging around, if Wakers didn't exist, would Category:MMR vaccine controversy exist? The man is the Category. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * if Wakers didn't exist, would Category:MMR vaccine controversy exist? — Yes. There are 16 other pages directly in that category, and 18 other pages in the sub-.
 * I disagree that "the man is the category", because:
 * There is no.
 * (Possibly you meant "the man is the controversy"?)
 * There are two separate articles: MMR vaccine controversy and Andrew Wakefield. If "the man is the controversy", there would only be a single article.
 * The Andrew Wakefield article includes a MMR controversy section, but that section is only part of the article. Andrew Wakefield is apparently more than just the controversy.
 * There are 18 other people associated with the MMR vaccine controversy, so the conversy is apparently more than just Wakefield.
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it just me? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comments regarding categorization of this article
Should this biographical article be listed under both Category:MMR vaccine controversy and Category:People associated with the MMR vaccine controversy? NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * No, the rules of WP:SUBCAT call for listing the article only in the more-specific category (i.e., the "People associated with ..." category) and not in the parent category. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No - Not both. Per WP:SUBCAT. Blueboar (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No per SUBCAT. If there wasn't a clear rule on this then we'd have continual time-wasting debates about which articles "deserve"/"need" to also be in the parent category. DexDor(talk) 21:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No: the article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories unless someone explains why WP:SUBCAT doesn't apply here. Certes (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No. There are exceptions to WP:SUBCAT but this isn't one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:SUBCAT: an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. ... a page ... should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category... A reader browsing looking for Wakefield could quite reasonably be expected to look in the sub-. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No Not in both. (invited by the bot) North8000 (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No Not in both. What useful purpose would it serve?Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No - Per SUBCAT. Reasons given in the 2 sections above, although good faith, don't over ride this. --Malerooster (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

disgraced
I would also add that I find the use of the word disgraced in the opening sentence to be far too emotive for being suitably used. While it's true that the individual's behavior was disgraceful, and while it's true that his reputation was rightfully disgraced, the use of the word isn't very encyclopedic, not really professional. Damotclese (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's how he is normally characterised (e.g., , ). "Former gastroenterologist" implies that he retired. He didn't. He was struck off. It's no different from opening the lede of an article on a convicted criminal by calling theme exactly that. Disgraced former doctor is pretty much the consensus view. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember the discussions about the wording of the "former gastroenterolgist" that we had a month or so ago, it's just that the word "disgraced" seems rather unprofessional.
 * Re-reading the article again, it seems to me that it's a shame that insofar as a WP:BLP is concerned, the extant article is woefully thin. The article is about Wakefield's criminal and unethical behavior, it's not really a biography. A solid biography would contain fairly extensive details about his up-bringing, schooling, family background and some history, it would include achievements as well as details about his failures and frauds. In all the biography is kind of thin here.
 * Still, after re-reading it, I don't see any cause to remove any quotes; the article looks pretty golden to me at this point other than needing to be fleshed out insofar as a WP:BLP is concerned. Damotclese (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Bluntly, if it weren't for his role in creating "the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years", we almost certainly would not have a biography at all. Virtually all sources about Wakefield are about his fraud, but the story has run long enough, and with sufficient additional bullshit from the antivax cult, that by now there's not really any hope of merging or any title we could use other than his name. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If he was notable for doing valuable work as a researcher and gastromumble, then perhaps one would expect his BLP to be covering such work, to be "fleshed out" a bit. but frankly fleshing out for BLP's sake is asking a bit much. Also, disgraced fits very well. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's true, he's otherwise not a notable character. Damotclese (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * He's known for a complicated crime, his involvement in its denial, and the following perpetuation of the personality cult it created. Otherwise he wouldn't have an article. His infamy is his only claim to fame.
 * If anything, the "Epidemics, effects, and reception" section should be updated to document what's been happening. That section could easily be twice its size.
 * The consequences of his false ideas have grown roots and we'll see more deaths and epidemics for a generation or two because of his dastardly behavior. He has gotten off very light. He should be in prison. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I strongly object to the word "disgraced" in this article. Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial and fact based. The word "disgraced" is inflammatory and defamatory opinion based. If I am to continue using Wikipedia as a trusted resource for factual information I require this to be ammended. If you wish to avoid being accused of gross hypocracy, why then is the word "disgraced" used for the opening description of Dr Andrew Wakefield and not Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris, Max Clifford, Bill Cosby... ? Davijee (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

In addition to my above comment add Nicolaus Copernicus. He was "disgraced" and spent the rest of his life locked up for his theories that the earth moves around the Sun. Why is there no emotive defamatory description of his name? Davijee (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Was not Harold Shipman "disgraced" ? Davijee (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Wakefield is disgraced, so this is fact-based. The word is probably in some of the sources given.
 * You are confusing Nicolaus Copernicus with Galileo Galilei. See also Galileo Gambit for that comparison. Neither Copernicus nor Galilei is disgraced at the moment.
 * Also, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. There is no rule that all disgraced people need to be described in exactly the same words.
 * So, all your reasoning is bad. Nevertheless, ignoring all your shrieking after the first sentence, the word is indeed not really needed. Opinions, anyone? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that the rest of that (very long) first sentence specifies the reasons for Wakefield's removal from the register, the word "disgraced" adds nothing of encyclopedic value. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The word is mild, compared to what he deserves, but we document what RS say, and that's their accurate description. Bill Gates criticized Wakefield in very strong words("So it's an absolute lie that has killed thousands of kids."), and said that anti-vaccine activists "kill children". So true.
 * Wakefield was relatively unknown before this whole scandal, which is his sole claim to fame. Wikipedia's job is to document what RS say, and 99% of what they discuss is about his multiple dishonest and unethical actions.
 * Davijee fails to understand NPOV. Neutrality applies to editorial conduct while editing, whereas content and sources do not have to be neutral or unbiased. Editors must remain neutral in the way they document biased sources, and they must preserve that bias, not censor or neuter it. If they did that, they would be violating NPOV and misrepresenting the sources. My essay explains this in detail. Wikipedia's job is to document reality, and reality is rarely neutral, hence articles won't always seem neutral, but that bias is from the sources, not from editors (Wikipedia). -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I note that the opening sentences of Jimmy Savile, for instance, describe him as "...a predatory sex offender—possibly one of Britain's most prolific." While that article and this one use different words – because they are, after all, different articles about different events and different people – the insinuation that the use of the particular word 'disgraced' means we're being more critical of Wakefield than Savile doesn't really hold water. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The word Disgraced is unprofessional
I stand by my argument that the word [disgraced] is not professional, unecessary and in fact is attempting to coerce the reader into a biased opinion.

In addition, the opening paragraph is flawed grammar, an extremely long sentence with no punctuation and double description of the legal reasons he was struck off. Its also historically out of date as he is currently active.

The infamy and notoriety Wakefield courts and exploits is actually inflamed by the obviously emotive anti Wakefield tone of the author. Wikipedia is supposed to be dispassionate and fact based. Words matter!

I propose that my edit following is exactly that dispassionate, non biased and factual. My reasoning is that using Plain English (non medical or abbreviated, legal mumbo jumbo or psychobabble) is necessary to convey a balanced representation of a person. Using obviously biased and emotively loaded descriptive words that encourage propaganda or counter propaganda such as; disgraced, notorious, infamous, despised, reviled, revered, loved ... encourage the reader to take one critical stance or another rather than allowing them to assess and make up their own minds. Facts not coercement are paramount to maintain truthful statements in encyclopedic statements.

A case in point. I would argue that even the most notorious person in recent history Adolf Hitler has no coercing description such as reviled or in fact any leading description in its Wikipedia entry, therefore the author of Andrew Wakefield's entry is showing that Wikipedia views Andrew Wakefield as more notorious than Adolf Hitler?. I doubt anyone could argue that this is in any way appropriate or helpful in the course of historical truth telling.

Also Mr Wakefield is currently active in fighting his cause. Whether or not this deserves praise or condemnation is completely irrelevant. It is what the reader needs to know about.

I propose the following edit to replace the existing entry:

[Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 1957)[1][2] is an English documentary filmmaker, activist, author and public speaker/educator. Wakefield is a former gastroenterologist and medical researcher who was struck off the UK medical register for serious professional misconduct in 2010. The General Medical Council ruled that the co written Lancet research papers in 1998 linking the MMR vaccine (combined measles, mumps and rubella) to inflammatory bowell disease and Autism were fraudulent. [3][4][5][6][7] ]

Adding:

[Despite worldwide professional condemnation for being anti-vaccine, Andrew Wakefield has continued to publicly defy his critics during the subsequent 20 years since the Lancet papers were published. He repeatedly publicly stands by the research and maintains his stance that he is not anti vaccine but pro safe vaccine. ]

The above ammended from the existing Wikipedia entry:

[Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 1957)[1][2] is a disgraced British former gastroenterologist and medical researcher who was struck offthe UK medical register for unethical behaviour and other misconduct surrounding his fraudulent 1998 research paper supporting the now-discredited claim that there was a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the appearance of autism and bowel disease.[3][4][5][6][7] ]

Davijee (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Who is "the author" you keep referring to? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I’m ignoring the wall of text above. Disgraced is a bad word because it has a vague possibility of indicating his mental state (shame). This is not factual. We do not have s reference that he feels shame. Instead, I recommend using the word “discredited”. The lede could use a good copy editing. Subject to further comments or edits, I may straighten it out next time I look.Jehochman Talk 01:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That might work. We do use it in that same sentence, but about his claim. Maybe we can find some other good synonyms so we don't use the same word. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Why use any word? That first sentence already has the words/phrases "struck off the UK medical register", "unethical behaviour", "other misconduct", "fraudulent", and "now-discredited".  Does we really need to add an editorialising adjective?  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Disgraced is how the reliable sources describe him. The Guardian: . The Independent: . The Times: . The Daily Telegraph: . Channel 4: . Even that wretched hive of scum and quackery the Daily Mail: . It appears t be pretty much the most common adjective used in describing him these days. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In answer to common adjectives comment, Wikipedia was set up by pioneers not sheep. Davijee (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

disbarred is a more appropriate matter of fact replacement word for disgraced. It means expelled. Disgraced does not mean licence revoked. It means shamed as mentioned in the thread. Wakefield is shameless. Davijee (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Disbarment only happens to lawyers. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Expelled, struck off, licence revoked... any more anyone? Davijee (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How about "discredited", as the reliable independent sources have it? That works for me. Two of the three you propose, and the fourth above, are incorrect, so I say we stick with the sources here. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed "Discredited" is appropriate Davijee (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Disagree: Removed  from  the UK General Medical Council register of medical practitioners   would be better and more accurate. Aspro (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with Guy here, stick to the sources (and common usage) which say "disgraced." My own alternative proposal would be "ethically challenged" (for wikipedia) or "ethical ratbag" (roxypedia) -Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The GMC remit is to consider the conduct  of medical practitioners, not to judge  medical science. So they can not discredit anybody in this regard.  It was journalists that opted to  used this word. Aspro (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I refer the hon. gentleman to my earlier reply. There are thousands of references describing Wakefield as disgraced. The GMC found the gross ethical failings, the Lancet checked the science and found it bogus, and mainstream media sources apply the label "disgraced" because of how Wakefield handled the evidence of his fraud and ethical violations - i.e. he doubled down. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How about “quack”, scammer or pseudoscientist? Jehochman Talk 06:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * IMO the whole things is getting lost in the agony of these edits. Seems to me that it is not only his research that has been discredited. The man himself has been disgraced and discredited at a very personal level. There are issues of personal honesty, of the world's moral condemnation, his treatment of children. I think somebody should put it back the way it was. Bluehotel (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct, and I just made that edit. It absolutely is not just his work that is discredited. He is now a professional liar - he literally makes his living peddling known falsehoods for money. I spent some time surveying the search results on this. The consensus among sources appears to be that Wakefield is disgraced, and his work is discredited. This article is about Wakefield, so it looks very much as if we should go with disgraced. Obviously WP:BLP applies, but that does not require us to conceal a consensus view on someone: we don't have to pretend that a fraud is anything but a fraud. If he had disappeared quietly after he was struck off then the apologists above might have a point, but he didn't. He has now made two movies pretending that he was right and the rest of the world is wrong, he continues to peddle "the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years", and he is a continuing danger to public health, actively lending credibility to wholly bogus claims of vaccine harm, "big pharma" suppression and the like. This promotion of fraudulent and objectively dangerous claims, which is now his principal source of income (and quite a nice income as well, looking at the facts), is why people describe him as "disgraced". Faced with proof that his work was fraudulent and unethical, he has doubled down.
 * Compare this with another notorious British person, John Profumo. He was disgraced in public life, he devoted the rest of his days to charitable work and when he died nobody had a bad word to say about him. The obituaries spoke of a lamentable lapse of judgment, followed by humble atonement. The obituaries for Wakefield will not, I think, be as kind - at least not the ones in the reality-based press. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The GMC had one hand tied behind their backs at the time because they were relying on what a 'single' journalist  was saying. That is why their deliberations went on for so long – the longest in the history of the GMC. They were trying to square the circle upon   false premise's.  Initially, when  the GMC finally published  their pontifications, some  medical journals went into panic-mode and back-peddled.  This  article just reiterates the former accusations and leaves out  later clarifications of where  the journalist was confabulating – as journalists often do. Aspro (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's like saying that if a journalist has published that Hillary Clinton runs a pedophile gang from a pizzeria, a court will sentence her to life imprisonment on that evidence alone. But, yes, seen the Profumo example above, Wakefield's disgrace has not happened only once, but it is part of his enduring behavior. He has not only erred, but he persists in error. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that Brian Deer brought his fraud and ethical violations to light is entirely irrelevant. The GMC is an independent body, had Deer's allegations not been supported by the facts, then Wakefield would still be practising. Remember, all his co-authors withdrew their names. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You are reiterating out -of-date information again, which I am pointing out is not suitable for a Wikipedia Bio. A court case in the UK was brought by one of his colleagues. The court chose to look at the full evidence (which the GMC did not) and were satisfied that the 'whole' research team followed  normal research protocols. So it is a circular argument to keep saying this doctor is persisting in an error which he did not make in the first place. Do you follow me? On wikipedia we should be on out guard against illusory truth effects. Aspro (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Nope, his anti-vaccination, anti-Big Pharma, woo campaign is "persisting in error". He could have simply claimed that he conducted ethical research without engaging in deadly promotion of quackery. At least, this is the WP:MAINSTREAM view, see WP:NOTNEUTRAL about how Wikipedia is to handle it. We're neither university nor research institute, so we don't establish truth claims, we only parse reliable sources. E.g., if the vast majority of reliable sources would state that Einstein was a pedophile, we would report it as fact, regardless of establishing its truth through original research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * ? He simply did claimed that he conducted ethical research. A court found  that the hospital did such. Your using a circular argument again. Aspro (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * We are not called to evaluate facts, we are called to evaluate sources. There is nothing circular about that: if you don't have sources you have nothing to add to the article. See also WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Think some clarity is need here. If this doctor was so anti-vaccine why did he get his own children vaccinated and gone on record supporting vaccination as providing the lesser risk.  This issue came about that if 'you' get proscribed a pharmaceutical product you expect it to have been properly trialled and to be proven as safe as can be expected. If the pharmaceutical company hides bad results and still markets a product as safe and then denies all responsibility and you or you child suffered the life changing effects, wouldn't  you want some form of compensation. This issue first surfaced in Sweden in about 1994   when they got concerned about the high levels of mercury in inoculations and wanted it  lowered. In practice is is difficult to exclude it completely in some vaccines as it is such a good sterildent. Since then,  mercury load, per inoculation, has been reduced. Inoculations are now safer thanks to wary professionals that did make their concerns  known.  This doctor never said that he was against vaccine per sa he was just pointing out that some individuals in his practice  appeared to  show serious vaccine reactions ( and reactions are   medically acknowledged)  and that better 'oversight'  should be implemented in the case of one particular  triple vaccine.   Would 'you' want safer medications?  Have you got the slightest clue about the process of ensuring pharmaceutical safety or are you all just getting on the band wagon of throwing rotten tomatoes at the pillory just because it makes you feel better?  You don't have to answer that, because it was rhetorical. This  article is a Bio and we should know and conduct ourselves better. This includes Einstein. In  a bio, such a claim  would require 'high quality' sources and not drivel.  Your are looking ever bit more like and exposing yourself as a  Wikilawer  rather than a Bio contributor.  You ask for sources, and if I point to the UK courts determinations you will instantly come back with “Are but they are primary sources and we prefer  quantity over quality”.  WP's credos is  “Verifiability is more important than truth and we will ignore the truth when it does not suit my firmly held beliefs”. Quite frankly Tgeorgescu,  you should stop dipping   your paddle into the cauldron of  immunization of which you haven't shown no understanding of.  If you want to reply  with anything meaningful then don't just reiterate a short sound-bit like you have done above ( that you read somewhere) because any non -thinking person can do that .  I haven't given you a brief sound bit with no context like your in the habit of doing but expanded on the issue with context .  If you expect a reply, then frame it on what is known, rather than what is believed by the hoi polloi and uniformed journalists. Aspro (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * He's no longer a doctor. And the answer to why, is pretty clear: money. He was paid to produce a result to support a lawsuit, and he had a patent for a single vaccine which would have made him a lot of money if MMR had been removed. As to his children, it's pretty clear that he doesn't care overmuch about children. Which is one of the main reasons he is no longer a doctor, bringing us full circle. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that Wikipedia editors be experts in the field they are editing. All that is required is that they cite sources whose reliability is objectively assessable even for laypeople. Wikipedia is merely a mirror for reliable sources, which exist in the off-wiki world. If many mainstream reliable sources will vindicate Wakefield, Wikipedia will write that in big shinny letters. So, that has to change in the off-wiki world, and as far as I know it did not happen. And, yes, Wikipedia has sold its soul to mainstream science, but this is hardly news. By the way, eating a herring will ensure receiving a quantity of mercury similar to that of one vaccination from the past. And court verdicts hardly have any bearing on the making of scientific consensus. Yes, vaccines have side effects, but their health-advancing effects greatly outweigh any of their negative effects. At least, this is the mainstream scientific view, so Wikipedia takes it for granted. E.g. someone wrote: "For example: no vaccination, 10% risk to die of a disease. With vaccination 0.0001% chance on a harmful side effect. You choose the odds you prefer, I know which one I prefer." Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , A court found that the hospital did such. is false. A court restored John Walker-Smith's medical license because they found that he was not involved in the fraud. Wakefield's license remains revoked, his "research" remains retracted. No court has contradicted the findings of ethical breaches and research fraud against Wakefield. However, the error is understandable, as the antivax movement frequently portrays Walker-Smith's victory as a vindication of Wakefield. They are of course lying. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just remembered: 30 points have been granted according to the 36th proviso of The Crackpot Index. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Aspro, it actually comes back to you stopping your misuse of talk page(s) for your WP:ADVOCACY of fringe nonsense. Stop repeating Wakefield's talking points and defending him. If you can't base your views on RS, then it's better to be quiet. I'm surprised no one has blocked you for wasting everyone's time. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow,, what did you do that made someone delete your edit summary? Natureium (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's just Bilby. He is pretty consistently protective of antivaxers. Shrug. The summary was: "It's not just his work that is discredited, he is now an antivax propagandist and professional liar". Which is exactly true. He currently makes his living by lying about his own work and about vaccines. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It still comes back to:  a  WP  bio should not included  hearsay.  The GMC conclusions did not mention  dishonesty nor lying nor fraudulence. It was a opinion suggested  by a journalist which became a  meme.  Hearsay  has no place on any bio  about anyone, no mater how many times it is repeated unless a court accepts it. Aspro (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant. The documentary evidence of fraud and ethical violations is absolutely unequivocal: the GMC is not the only source, many other sources, cited in the article, examine Wakefield's conduct. The Lancet also doesn't retract papers on a whim, especially highly cited ones. The facts are abundantly clear: he conducted unapproved invasive tests on vulnerable children, he tested other children outside of any ethical framework, his work was motivated by undeclared conflicts of interest, he made public statements that led directly to the deaths of children but which were not even based on the findings of his own work, but instead on a different undeclared conflict of interest. And he continues to make statements that lead, directly, to the suffering and death of children. In science you are allowed to be wrong, but you are obliged to change your position when it is shown to be wrong. Wakefield has done the opposite. And that is why the reality-based sources are contemptuous of him. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It still comes back to:  a  WP  bio should not included  hearsay.  The GMC conclusions did not mention  dishonesty nor lying nor fraudulence. It was a opinion suggested  by a journalist which became a  meme.  Hearsay  has no place on any bio  about anyone, no mater how many times it is repeated unless a court accepts it. Aspro (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That word hearsay. You keep using it, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
 * We have sources for him being a fraud, a liar and an ethical vacuum. You seem to believe that only the GMC matters, but the GMC had the narrow remit of reviewing his fitness to practice medicine. They found him unfit, obviously. Other sources focus on the deadly impact of his fraud, the motives behind it, his conflicts of interest, his continued promotion of his fraud after it was exposed, and so on. That is the nature of a biography: an evolving narrative drawn from multiple reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this probably counts as a primary source, so isn't permissible, but I've dug around and found what the medical board actually ruled. Its here http://briandeer.com/solved/gmc-wakefield-sentence.pdf If it's the same as in the US, it has the same status as a court, unless a court overrules it, and I can't find anything doing that. There is something about Wakefield's partner, but his case was about something else, to do with whether he thought he was only doing clinical medicine. Nothing I could see about Wakefield, other than a false claim of IRB approval. Bluehotel (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The GMC's findings include the statement that Wakefield was "dishonest, irresponsibile and showed callous disregard for the distress and pain of children". His autobiography is called "callous disregard", but he spins it as the medical establishment having disregard for autistic children, even though his own work actually showed no link between autism and vaccines (but there, you see, as the GMC noted, he is dishonest). Guy (Help!) 22:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Full findings here: . Guy (Help!) 22:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Aspro, the word "disgraced" is mild, compared to what he deserves, but we document what RS say, and that's their accurate description. Bill Gates criticized Wakefield in very strong words("So it's an absolute lie that has killed thousands of kids."), and said that anti-vaccine activists "kill children". So true. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Wakefield is not a so called Anti vaxxer. (He calls for safe vaccines.) It is an overly simplistic derisive term coined by the vehemently dogmatic designed to ignite polarity between two opposing opinions. If everyone believed they were safe, a concern widely voiced way before Wakefield appeared on the scene there would be no schism between the two opposing opinions. In fact surely both sides want safe vaccines. To attack those who doubt simply creates in fighting. Vaccination has become a fervent war akin to relgious extremism with mandatory vaccinations. Forcing people against their will is totalitarian, undemocratic and more like North Korea. Until hard evidence of vaccine safety can reassure those with vaccine hesitancy and avoidance attacking them simply loses the arguement. That's what terrorists do. Take this debate out in public with respectful evidence based dialogue #vaccinesafety and lets either reassure people vaccines are safe or demand that they become so. Davijee (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Godwin's law. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wakefield is indeed not a "so-called antivaxer". He is an antivaxer. He adopts the standard antivax figleaf of arguing for mythical and unachievable "safe" vaccines, while consistently enabling and promoting anti-vaccination tropes, including the damaging fiction that vaccines cause autism. But this is Wikipedia, and we go by what reliable independent sources say, e.g. "Disgraced anti-vaxxer Andrew Wakefield aims to advance his agenda in Texas election". Guy (Help!) 08:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Guy you just made a case supporting the reasons why many people believe Wakefield is justified in his quest. If safe vaccines are as you say mythically unachievable then widespread public concern over vaccine safety is indeed valid. Davijee (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of the joke with the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. Quick intro for WP:MEDRS at . Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Davijee, that's BS. Use a bit of common sense. Calling vaccines safe doesn't imply they are 100% safe. Nothing is that safe, but they are safe enough that the benefits FAR outweigh the risks, and those who dispute that are ignoring the abundant and very open evidence. If you want to dispute that at Wikipedia, I suggest you read WP:ADVOCACY, because pushing such views can get you topic banned or blocked. Talk pages are not a free speech zone. We do have standards here.
 * Wikipedia does not cater to what Jimmy Wales calls "lunatic charlatans", nor does it allow advocacy of fringe points of view, so the fact that fringe believers don't like these articles shows that we must be doing something right. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Vaccines are safe. They are not perfectly safe, nothing is, but they are a lot safer than, say, measles, polio or HPV. The point is that the antivaxers demand a mythical and unachievable standard of safety. For example, they want randomised controlled trials, which would be unethical given that vaccines are proven to prevent serious disease. Of all medical interventions, vaccines are probably the most heavily scrutinised. Remember the furore around thimerosal? Antivaxers screamed "MERCURY!" (as if mercury salts are the same as elemental mercury), there was no credible evidence of risk, but thimerosal was withdrawn form all the childhood schedule anyway, as a precaution. Of course it made no difference to autism rates, hence the antivaxers are now screaming "ALUMINUM!" - the rationale shifts but it's always and forever the vaccines. And they have been doing this since Jenner's day, none of it is new. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It is my opinion that the Andrew Wakefield article, in its current form, is libellous. I will say no more. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No response, so I have blanked the page as possibly libellous. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You have just been warned of WP:NLT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Unnecessary, because I have not made any legal threats. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You have stated above that our article is libelous. Well, if a reality and science-based description of his deeds would amount to libel, Wakefield should sue himself and demand being paid for damages. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Please get your facts right. I did not state that the article is libellous. I expressed an opinion but, since I am not a Queen's Counsel, my opinion is not the law. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My opinion isn't law, either. Certain opinions are, however, not welcome here. Bill Gates stated that Wakefield is a child murderer, has Gates been sued for libel? Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * NOTFORUM. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Certain opinions are, however, not welcome here. is a quite germane statement about WP:PAGs and your own edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Still comes back to WP bio policy. No court has made the accusations that many you are making in order to own this article. So those libelous comments are legally moot and therefore, are against our policy. Aspro (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Being factual and truthful has never amounted to libel. We are not here to whitewash the CVs of quacks and other con men. Bill Gates has stated that Wakefield is a child murderer, has anyone pressed charges against Gates for such statement? "they, they kill children" said Gates, see . Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Aspro, read what BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE says about how we are to include allegations. There is a proper way we are supposed to do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A court does not have to make the accusations. We rely on reliable independent sources, who have weighed the matter and conclude that Wakefield is a liar who ahs engaged in research fraud and unethical conduct, based on findings that have the weight of law. And you want to replace that with a more flattering judgment based on synthesis from your decision as to where an accusaiton has to be made in order to meet your own personal standard of validity for criticisms of Wakefield. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Disgraced (again)
The first topic on this page as it currently stands has been hatted.

However, this appeared today. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Article not coherent
Wakefield is supposedly disgraced or discredited, because he supposedly claimed that "there was a link between the administration of the polyvalent measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the appearance of autism and bowel disease".

It then goes on to say that he raised "the possibility of a link between a novel form of bowel disease, autism, and the MMR vaccine". And in fact I gather that's what Wakefield did, he hypothesized a link and suggested it as a field for further research. "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue". So he and his colleagues are suggesting this as a topic for further research.

So: 1) why does this article state Wakefield claimed a link, and 2) why should hypothesising a link cause Wakefield to be discredited, disgraced, whatever? Bougatsa42 (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Wakefield is disgraced because he was found to have conducted unapproved invasive tests on vulnerable children and failed to disclose material conflicts of interest. He would have been struck off even if his claims had been right, so the two points are separate.
 * It is true that his research did not prove a link. He subsequently did claim to have proven that, using PCR data which was very obviously contaminated, but again it doesn't matter because regardless of what his research found, he was all over the TV and the press saying he had found a link. This was shortly after my children were born, I don't think there was a parent in England who was unaware of the claim he was making.
 * Wakefield said "I can't support the continued use of these three vaccines given in combination until this issue has been resolved"and called for MMR to be "suspended in favour of the single vaccines" (he "forgot" to mention he had a patent on one of these). Guy (Help!) 08:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

 * You reverted my changes on this article, and left a message on my talk page. The right place to talk about changes to this article is here, on it's own talk page. You say you reverted my edits because they "seemed less than neutral". The very reason I edited the article was because it's current wording is "less than neutral". There should be no confusion about this; it's pretty easy to establish a NPOV: any qualification of anything or anyone in the text must be attributed to someone rather than left unattributed. If WP, for instance, says that Andrew Wakefield is discredited, then, to retain a NPOV, it must also say by whom. Since "discredit" is an unrecorded event, unless a recorded poll is cited, it's not WP material. What is a recorded fact is that Andrew Wakefield had his license withdrawn. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I won't play by your game. In scientific matters WP:SPOV is WP:NPOV. There are guidelines like WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS which you should never violate. We don't do WP:GEVAL. Jimbo agrees, see WP:LUNATICS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , please read the FAQ at the top of this page. That should answer your concerns. --McSly (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You're misquoting and misapplying the policy.
 * The policy literally states that WP:SPOV "for science articles is consistent with WP:POV."
 * This article is a WP:BLP, not a science article. WP:BLP are about someone did and what happened in their lives, not character evaluations.
 * WP:LUNATICS has nothing whatsoever to do with this. My edits do not give credence to Andrew Wakefield et al (1998); they only correct the article's wording to simply say what he said and did, and what others said and done in relation to that.
 * WisdomTooth3 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a BLP about a scientist, so it can talk about his work, including by describing his work as discredited, given that his work has been thoroughly discredited. Why do you feel the need to make the article sound less clear that wakefield's 1998 study was wrong? Tornado chaser (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course the article can say his work has been discredited; it only needs to say by whom (WP:POV). This makes it clearer, not "less clear". WisdomTooth3 (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You say "The policy literally states that WP:SPOV "for science articles is consistent with WP:POV." No, that is a misleading paraphrase. Literally it states that "This scientific point of view for science articles is consistent with the neutral point of view policy". By replacing "the neutral point of view policy" by "WP:POV", you turned the sentence into its opposite, although WP:POV links there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * By replacing "the neutral point of view policy" by "WP:POV"…
 * That's literally what WP:POV means! That's precisely why it links there. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yup, you try to present facts as if they were opinions, see WP:ASSERT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. Therefore, when Tgeorgescu says "In scientific matters WP:SPOV is WP:NPOV", your accusation "You're misquoting and misapplying the policy" is clearly false. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Explicit about when article was retracted from The Lancet
The third paragraph in the 'Before the Lead' section of this article I find the statement about when The Lancet retracted the publication to be misleading. How it's written it sounds like it happened the same day but in fact it happened 6th of February. I think this is a important thing to be explicit about because my spouse, who's a researcher, whom I admire and think very highly of, incorrectly remembered the retraction to be the same year as the article was published.

Original as of 5th of March 2019
On 28 January 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally delayed children.[14] The panel ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted both against the interests of his patients, and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research.[15][16][17] The Lancet fully retracted the 1998 publication on the basis of the GMC's findings, noting that elements of the manuscript had been falsified.[18]

Discussions
I'd like to suggest a minor change such as: February 6th the same year The Lancet fully retracted .... Looak (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible to make the lede more concise?
The lede is pretty overwhelming. I think it would be possible to make it more concise without losing much substance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Response to fraud allegations
Having a separate section for "Wakefield's response" under seems like a point-of-view fork that gives undue undue weight to the response itself. Is it really helpful or necessary to quote Wakefield's press release at such length? It seems to qualify as "unduly self-serving" per BLP policy. I suggest trimming most of the primary-source material and covering the response/denial in the main section. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a short quote, and I'm loathe to view someone's denial of an accusation - especially one this serious - as "unduly" self serving. Given the number of other quotes we include in the article from other perspectives, having one from Wakefield seems ok. - Bilby (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2019
It would help to state further up that his paper was published in the Lancet. It currently does not do that until 3rd paragraph. The 'paper' is mentioned twice without mentioning what journal it is in. PWwvwiki (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. First, edit requests need to be specific, not vague suggestions.  But regardless, in this case, having to wait until the third paragraph is hardly burdensome to the reader, especially since the actual journal it was published in is kind of secondary anyway.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 21:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about source
I see that Bilby has questioned the reliability of Speaking of Research, a source I just used to document a piece of history. What's up? On what basis/policy is its use being questioned for the way I have used it? -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, I just deleted what I had added. It appears this subject was already covered in the article, so I deleted what I had added, but moved the source above because it is about that earlier controversy. I'd still like to know why my source was questioned. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Research is a lobby group focused on defending animal testing. That they posted an article about the MMR vaccine on their blog is interesting, but I don't see that a lobby group making a post about something outside their specific area of expertise as sufficient for serious claims in a BLP, especially when it appears that the post has not undergone any editorial process. - Bilby (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Significance of Measles virus being found
There are several references to evidence that measles virus wasn’t found in patients in Wakefield’s Lancet study, and in the Japanese study. These references apparently constitute evidence against Wakefield’s claims, but I don’t think it’s ever explained why. Could someone knowledgable add that? Peter Delmonte (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add photo
Can you add a photo ? It's first one available in Wikimedia. This account is my sock-puppet so I don't have a right to edit this article now. Later I will upload more Polish anti-vaxxers photos. You should also add of people cosplaying concentration camps victims (yes, really...) in yesterday's march. We've risked staying in completely undervaccinated group of people for half a day just to show them everyone on a free license so please appreciate our work :) Bladość (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I’d post the pic to this article after cropping it to just Wakefield. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Reference to article on Lancet MMR autism fraud
I would suggest that this article, instead of summarizing the issues regarding the fraud in Wakefield's 1998 paper, refer to the existing page Lancet MMR autism fraud.

That page now refers to the primary literature more rather than just Deer's articles. I would suggest removing the summary of the fraud's in the 1998 Wakefield paper and referring to that other page. Such a reference will make it easier for readers to see the primary literature and reports and verify if they wish.

I attempted to make this change but it was reverted due to the semi-protected status of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterNSteinmetz (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You gave no explanation for your removal. An edit summary would have helped other editors decide whether your removal was justified.--- Avatar317 (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a little unsual, as seen from here. Deer's articles are the primary literature for the fraud. Dallas66 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Deer's articles were published in a newspaper, which is a secondary source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , and have also been extensively reported on by others. Guy (help!) 23:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit request - wrong date in opening sentence of lead
Information to be added or removed: In the first sentence of lead 19 8 8 → 1998 Explanation of issue: per sourced main text References supporting change: see cited source ( primary source = PMID 9500320 )

86.134.212.26 (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield has a COVID-19 Conspiracy theory in 2020
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/05/05/anti-vaxxers-wakefield-coronavirus-vaccine/

As of 2020 the COVID-19 Vaccine is in clinical trials. But he made a rant in 2020 over coronavirus vaccine. From the Washington Post

“One of the main tenets of the marketing of mandatory vaccination has been fear. And never have we seen fear exploited in the way that we do now with the coronavirus infection,” Andrew Wakefield, the former British doctor and founder of the modern anti-vaccine movement, said at a three-day teleconference last week. “I think what we have reached is a situation where — I hope we’ve reached a situation where — the public are now sufficiently skeptical. ”

As the pandemic kills nearly 2,000 people every day in the United States, Wakefield — whose medical license was revoked after he published a study, since identified as fraudulent, that linked autism with the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine — said the coronavirus is “no worse” than seasonal influenza.

“We are seeing a destruction of the economy, a destruction of people and families … and unprecedented violations of health freedom,” Wakefield said, speaking to viewers on a screen split with a poster advertising his new film agitating against vaccines. “And it’s all based upon a fallacy. ”2601:640:C600:3C20:450B:A535:49EE:1D8 (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation Contained Herein is a disservice to public
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)
 * Start by reading all of the references at the end of the article,, 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

Interesting. However, this is a Wikipedia Talk Page.

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

Brian Deer
Is it possible to add information on Brian Deer in this article without being reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.73.113.69 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally, when someone asks a question like, it means that the proposed edit is probably going to violate some basic aspect of a Wikipedia article. Well, we can't guess as to what you want to add, and remember this is an article about the defrocked former doctor named Andrew Wakefield and not about Brian Deer. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Fudenberg
This article contains no reference to Wakefield's relationship with H. Hugh Fudenberg. While the sources about their relationship in that article is sourced to Brian Deer's website, I believe this BMJ piece by Deer is a usable source Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield named in a paper for disinformation dozen
https://www.counterhate.com/pandemicprofiteers

In this study Andrew Wakefield is named in a posting for the anti-vax profiteers in the COVID-19 pandemic2601:640:C600:3C20:E071:61F1:C608:AB0D (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Trivial But Proper English Language
I argue that "British former physician" is incorrect use of English language.

I argue that the correct expression is "former British physician".

This is to say he is no longer a physician, and does not indicates whether or not he is still a British citizen.

I made this minor edit and it was reverted for reasons I believe to be incorrect. Zollo9999 (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe that the other editor (who was not me) was correct to revert you. British former physician seems correct to me – we read from left to right that he is still British and that he is a former physician. Your version, former British physician, seems to me to read from L to R that he is formerly both of those things, or maybe even, in the worst possible case, that he could be formerly British but it doesn't make it clear whether or not he is still a doctor. I feel, with the greatest respect, that your understanding of the English usage is contrary to what is actually going on, that your argument is wrong, and that it should simply be left how it was when the other editor reverted you. This isn't a good battle to start, in my honest and friendly view. With best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I hear you, but that is not the way it works. It's not a matter or reading left to right but of following how people actually speak, and English list-processing rules are (as you might expect for a human language) somewhat vague, contradictory, situation-dependant, subject to individual preference, and generally messy. But they do exist.


 * We can say "great green dragon" but not "green great dragon". That is how native speakers do it, is all. There's no logic to it, but there is a rule (derived entirely from observing native speakers) for the order of adjectives. You can say "look at that big old blue car" and only in that order (if you want to sound like a native English speaker). From this we deduce that size comes before age comes before color. There are more rules about this and there might even be a name for this, you can look it up.


 * (Obviously there are exceptions for specific unusual cases: "I want the old car." "Which one?" "The blue old car".)


 * So yes by this rule status comes before nationality. "Inept British doctor" is fine, "British inept doctor" not so much. "Deceased Irish politician" vs "Irish deceased politician", which sounds best. "French imprisoned pilot" vs "Imprisoned French pilot", etc.


 * So, "former British physician" is correct.


 * And because people expect this order, they are not going to misintepret this. Retiring from being a physician is normal and something most doctors do. Stopping being a British person happens but is much less common. So people are not going to be like "Wait... it says he he lives in Britain now... but it said former British in the lede... whaaa??" because they know how adjective order works, know what you mean, and know that if you meant the other you would have made a point of expressing it differently ("Retired physician, formerly a Briton but now a French citizen" or something).


 * Howeverrrrrr... apparently there are parts of the rule that are strong and strict and parts that are less so. I guess. "Big old ugly blue car" would be normal I think, and "big old blue ugly car" is right out, but "big ugly old blue car" might pass muster, I guess.


 * And "British former physician" is like this... it is kinda-sorta OK. It doesn't grate as badly as other misorderings might, it does have the advantage of, FWIW, being more technically correct, and it is something I've seen here, and seen argued over.


 * So there is a case to be made that while "British former physician" is unidiomatic English and therefore wrong, there's also a case for not "correcting" other editors grammar except in clear and egregious cases. And since the correction was rejected, I'd say let it stand and move on.


 * However, if it comes to a vote, yes, "former British physician" is more correct. Herostratus (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Herostratus for your detailed response. Obviously, I agree with your views. Being a little past middle aged and a Native English speaker in a predominately Anglo populated part if Australia, I've naturally absorbed the way adjectives are ordered. Within the last few months I saw post pointing out this hidden language "rule" that most English speakers didn't know they knew. Sadly, I don't have a copy of that reference handy.

I do think it was a bit over zealous to revert my correction. It appears in the text and a sub heading and appears glaringly wrong. Zollo9999 (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If he was no longer British but still a Physician, I believe the correct phrase would be 'formerly British physician'.

'former British physician' says he his no longer a British physician, and as physician is the ultimate descriptive noun, it makes sense that he was formerly a physician (thus his nationality isn't in question). Zollo9999 (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I cannot believe an argument over simple syntax has gone on this long. Does it not make sense that the reader will understand either way? And if the occasional reader does not, that reading a bit further into the article will make it quite clear that he is a British physician who lost his medical license and is now a British expatriate living in Texas?  Or perhaps we should just SAY that, and remove all points of argument?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that I think "no-longer credible, formerly British Texan ex-doctor" is the best description, because that's the description I think will rile things back up here the most and I believe if we get at least two more comments and one PA flying, this will qualify for WP:LAME. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I've usually viewed wikipedia as a place where everyone contributes to make the content better. I've make a lot of unreverted edits that are simply improving typos and minor language mistakes for the benefit of readers.

I understand that some content needs oversight by those with expert knowledge, yet sometimes it seems an editor may be just protecting their own content, not allowing improvements from others. I'm not sure if that is happening here, probably not. For me this is purely about the correct use of language.

Now please note that I'm a human being, and saying this is an 'argument' could be edging into personal criticism, so please avoid that.

I've pursued this point partly for my education (but yes mostly because I'm convinced the phrase is wrong), even consulting my close-friend and award winning book editor about this. But that has just confirmed for me that the phrase is wrong, and to me it glares of unprofessional writing.

Although I accept, as it is obvious, that all languages have variations in use, often regional variations. Sadly for me, personally, it seems this English language rule is not universally applied and significant numbers of others use and read the language differently.

Myself being a native English speaker for many decades, I doubt, my brain will unlearn or accept an alternative phrase structure. And yes, I also don't want relearn it because I see the alternative as clunky, unprofessional, and an incorrect use of the language.

As a former, 10+ year professional writer and software developer for a Federal government agency, good and correct language and code is very important to me and my work.

It seems I may have to learn to live with this alternative use of the language when I come across it, esp. in this international setting. Zollo9999 (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This comment doesn't contribute to any relevant content discussion here. It also looks like it's time to invoke WP:STICK. KoA (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with KoA. You're now reduced to making grand claims about your own qualifications, which no-one here really cares about. No-one's calling you dumb or ignorant, they just don't agree with your correction. It's not a big deal. Accept that, move on, and we'll all be happier for it.
 * I would also add that English does not have many absolute grammatical rules, and certainly not one covering this. There's no "correct" or "incorrect" way of phrasing it, only "common" and "uncommon" ways. So regardless of the logic, the majority should rule on this and other, similar issues. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

British Conspiracy Theorists category membership
I have removed the link to Category:British conspiracy theorists

The article does not call him a 'Conspiracy Theorist' as such I do not believe justifies membership of this category (the facts may or may not) but my interpretation of WP:BLP and WP:NOTART combined is that membership of a category must be supported by the article, and as the only reference to 'conspiracy' in the article is that he may have once implied that one thing was a conspiracy (and the reference is behind a paywall so I can't verify it) I don't believe this is the case.

If any of the references do support this then I think it needs an inline citation somewhere before the link to this category is re-instated. This is clearly a very contentious statement and I can't easily find a reference calling him a 'conspiracy theorist' directly. JeffUK (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I've undone your edit. The infobox lists seven conspiracy theories he's been known to endorse, and the body describes another conspiracy theory he promoted: that pharmaceutical companies and public health officials. On top of that, the largest chunk of the anti-vaccination movement is widely described as a conspiracy theory (as well as being described as being built on numerous smaller conspiracy theories) in the sources, and Wakefield literally created that.
 * When I searched for "list of conspiracy theories", I found that about half of them include the anti-vaccination movement, and Wakefield is mentioned by name in each and every one of those. Searching more specifically for "Andrew Wakefield" "conspiracy theory" found over 16k results, with plenty of RSes among them. See.
 * One thing I did not find a single example of: an RS asserting that Wakefield was not a conspiracy theorist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Clearly he's linked to conspiracy theories, but is he verifiably a conspiracy theorist himself? He may have inspired the 'vaccines cause autism' meme, but he (verifiably) did so for fraudulent purposes, not because he believed in a conspiracy. https://www.wired.com/2016/02/conspira-sea-cruise-know-truth/ is the only one I can access that actually says he is a conspiracy theorist, do the first three actually call him a conspiracy theorist directly or just mention him at the same time as mentioning conspiracy theories?  Should the article not call him 'a conspiracy theorist', and back that up with a reference before he is added to the list of conspiracy theorists as per "the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." WP:BLPCAT? JeffUK (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * For reference I've posted on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for a second opinion JeffUK (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Pubmed.org
In 2016, the above respected publication said this;

"This current review, however, will focus specifically on mercury exposure and ASD by conducting a comprehensive literature search of original studies in humans that examine the potential relationship between mercury and ASD, categorizing, summarizing, and discussing the published research that addresses this topic. This review found 91 studies that examine the potential relationship between mercury and ASD from 1999 to February 2016. Of these studies, the vast majority (74%) suggest that mercury is a risk factor for ASD, revealing both direct and indirect effects. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that mercury exposure is causal and/or contributory in ASD." Source; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27473827/

Whilst not mentioning Andrew Wakefield by name, it does back his theory that mercury could be a cause of Autism and as such, I believe that it should be allowed to stand, as it would seem to exonorate him with his findings. I have no view of the allegations regarding fraud or conflicting financial interests.

I apologise for the double post. Long time since I've edited anything here and thought I had forgotten to press submit.

Amstacey (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)amstacey


 * Firstly, Pubmed is not a publication. Secondly, the article to which you refer is co-authored by Mark Geier. Based upon that fact alone the article can not be considered reliable under any criteria. Thirdly, your claim that the article "exonerate(s)" Wakefield is at best WP:OR. I suggest that you drop this stick. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I endorse the comments above by JoJo. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 12:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also endorsed. -- Valjean (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Amstacey, don't get fooled by totally discredited Geier. There is "mercury" that's super dangerous, and then there is "mercury" that isn't (the kind formerly used in some vaccines). Mercury has three forms: elemental (liquid mercury), inorganic mercury and organic mercury (methylmercury). Look up their articles here and study the differences. -- Valjean (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Whilst not disputing what you say, did you check the links to other publications/pages which also lead to other sources. They all appear to be backing the research that Vaccine contents may well contribute to autism. Amstacey (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You are not making any sense. What are the links to other publications/pages? Do you mean the references used by the Kern et al paper? Of course they would quote other crappy papers that confirm their opinion, mostly written by themselves.
 * Also, your signature goes below your contribution. I corrected that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I intend this to be my final post to this thread. Recognizing that WP is not itself a reliable source, I nevertheless recommend to you, Amstacey, this extensively- and reliably-sourced page where you will learn, beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, that the fringe point-of-view you are pushing here - that Wakefield's claims have been exonerate(d) and that Vaccine contents may well contribute to autism - has been thoroughly discredited. I ask you once more to please drop the stick. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Lancet article
This Wikipedia article says:

"On 28 February 1998, Wakefield was the lead author of a study of twelve children with autism that was published in The Lancet. The study proposed a new syndrome called autistic enterocolitis"

The Lancet article may be found here:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext

There appears to be no mention whatever of autistic enterocolitis.

Paul Magnussen (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's there. You'll find even more at Lancet MMR autism fraud. -- Valjean (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"11 of the biggest lies in history"
If we mentioned such things in every article, they would be full of "was named as one of the". I don't think this improves the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ?? This is usually the type of notoriety we mention. Is it the source you question, or would it be worthy of mention if his lie was one the top five? This is certainly in line with other entries in that section. -- Valjean (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it is journalists' annoying habit of making subjective top-X lists out of everything as soon as nothing interesting happens to write about. Those are among the lowest forms of journalistic writing. Maybe it's just me. How do you measure the size of a lie? Why cut off at 11?
 * We already have the highest form of journalistic writing in the article, Brian Deer's uncovering of the fraud. I think this one is just not needed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see your point. At this stage, because we already have plenty of similar good content in that section, this may be overkill that doesn't really add anything different enough to be worth it. -- Valjean (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

No mention of autistics' opinions.
I might have missed it, but I did search the word 'autistic' and skimmed through the article. I feel that a section devoted to this is needed, as many feel his work added tremendously to the stigma around neurodivergence. Dolfone (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to mention any reliable sources which discuss this. Maybe we can use it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Propaganda usage
It is biased language to use the term propaganda as an adjective to a film. The irony is that your page then becomes propaganda by the very nature of your definition: trying to influence. 174.29.39.14 (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * A WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia does propaganda for mainstream science by default. People who agree with mainstream science call it educating the public, while those who disagree call it brainwashing the public. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The film was explicitly identified as propaganda by three of the cited reliable sources, with a fourth not using the word but clearly describing it as such. So yeah, it's an appropriate adjective for the film. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Notability
, you reverted my recent edit as "notability is only a criteria for article creation". However, WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Appearing on a list made by a commerical infotainment website is nowhere near the same as anything else discussed here. If HowStuffWorks made a list of the "ten worst people of all time" including Adolf Hitler, most would agree that that doesn't need to be mentioned in his article. An anonymous username, not my real name 14:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly well-written article. You're welcome to start a discussion at WP:RSN about it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2023
Wakefield was not a physician,he was a surgeon 2001:8A0:7FFA:7500:4567:A62E:8D74:9115 (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Forbes
It's not WP:FORBESCON which makes it WP:RS, but the fact that it is written by a competent full professor. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I saw the edit that you just reverted. I didn't revert it myself, but it did give me pause.
 * On the one hand, Steven Salzberg is undoubtedly a highly-skilled, highly-competent, highly-respected scientist. Further, his identification of Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist is certainly correct.
 * On the other hand, is Salzberg's specific expertise close enough to this topic to choose to cite him in particular in calling out Wakefield as the conspiracy theorist?
 * On the third hand, as written our article attributed the identification of Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist to Forbes, rather than to Salzberg personally. Is such an attribution appropriate for an opinion piece by a "contributor"? It strikes me that if we're just going to create a list of all the respected scientists who have called Wakefield a conspiracy theorist, fraud, and general dipshit, we're going to need a much bigger article...
 * I'm not going to revert either one of you at this point, but...food for thought. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The policy on WP:BLPSPS is simply "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". There's no exception in that for experts - the problem is the lack of independent editorial control and verification, not a lack of presumed expertise. Given that we don't need the reference, as we already have seven pefectly usable sources, I'm going to revert per BLP. It simply adds nothing and violates a core policy. - Bilby (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A blanket removal like that would violate WP:SPS policy, which is explicit (my bold) Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. You just can't use a source like that in Wikipedia's voice or as an independent source, but instead would have to treat it not as distant as a third-party source and use attribution, which basically was already done when Jabota gisum made this recent edit.
 * Since it original text was policy compliant, I've gone ahead and restored it. If someone has tweaks to suggest to the language or reassessing overall just how many people we list that call out Wakefield's quackery, that sure can be done, but should be discussed first at this point. Sources like the Salzberg one could possibly not meet that bar if it's established for what is WP:DUE, but it's better not to put the cart before the horse and figure out just what that metric would be. In the meantime, a source like this isn't harming anything, and it's not that long of a list either. KoA (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPSPS is really clear, as you quote it - never use a self published source for claims about living people. We do sometimes carve out exceptions, but given that we already have seven perfectly good sources for the claim, why do we need to violate WP:BLPSPS to include an 8th? How about we just leave out the one that we need to use a special interpretation of BLP for and just rely on the other seven? Including this source adds nothing that the seven does not, and leaves us open to accusations that we are ignoring our own policies. - Bilby (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, BLPSPS is often taken out of context. SPS policy is where we deal with how to handle self-published sources. That a single sentence over at BLP hasn't been updated and can be taken out of context and out of line with the rest of our central WP:PAG on this is not a reason to double down to cherry-picking that one line. Either way, SPS policy is clear that this is how we handle self-published sources. Especially since we are in a WP:FRINGE subject, WP:PARITY also applies, which ties in to our SPS policy and why we specifically say not to treat them as third-party sources. That application is pretty consistently done for all SPS sources regardless of BLP involvement or not. KoA (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm lost as to what you are trying to say. I think this is best taken to BLPN, so I'll raise it there. - Bilby (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are unfamiliar with policy, I don't know what else to say except to reread WP:FORBESCON to reiterate it. It also is explicit that we cannot use them as a third-party source, and those last few words are there for good reason. That's because such sources can still be used, just not as a third-party source. If you want to see the supplemental guidance on that, WP:INDEPENDENT covers the subject broadly to help readers with some the nuance that informs our policy language.
 * The short summary there is A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. The opposite of a third-party source is a first-party or non-independent source.[1] A first-party, non-independent source about the president of an environmental lobby group would be a report published by that lobby group's communications branch. A third-party source is not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest related to the material.
 * Third-party and independent are often used interchangeably, but here all that matters is to treat it like a source closely affiliated with the subject rather than independent/third-party. We need to use attribution in those cases practically all the time when it cannot be treated as a third-party source. That's all. Whether such sources are absolutely needed here is something that sure can be discussed separately, but the BLP question is a tangent to that since the current text follows our guidance on SPS. What matters now is what is WP:DUE. KoA (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That reading - that we can use an SPS in a BLP if we use it as a primary source - has been opposed when it was raised in RFCs in the past. It might be a viable interpretation, and maybe the community is more supportive of that now than they have been in the past, but I'd only use that card if we really, really needed the source, which in this case we simply don't. - 00:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Bilby (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems to me 'conspiracy theorist' is being thrown around as an insult here and the source cited has no special status on that topic or the topic of this page anyhow, even if the New York Times says he said it. I mean if he was editor of the Big Book of Conspiracy Theorists, maybe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sledgehamming (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2023
"Wakefield's study and his claim that the MMR vaccine might cause autism led to a decline in vaccination rates in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Ireland, and a corresponding rise in measles and mumps infections, resulting in serious illness and deaths"

This statement is misleading because it suggests a CORRELATIVE relationship only between the decline in vaccine rates and the increase in MMR cases and not necessarily a CAUSAL relationship. Correlation does not equal causality (ie. that two events occur at the same time does not prove that one is the cause of the other). A scientific study needs to be cited that would show such a causal relationship. ShrodingersChat (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * -- that specific claim is directly supported by the NEJM source at the end of the paragraph. Nice try, but no.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2023
I would like to add a section on Andrew Wakefield, conspiracy theories and the COVID-19 pandemic. This would bring the narrative up to date and link Andrew wakefield to the wider conspiracy theories and second wave anti-vaxxers Andyalaszewski (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Write out your proposed text here with the sources you used and reopen the request then Cannolis (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Status of Fraud
Might it be more appropriate to state in the introductory paragraph that the 1998 Lancet study was allegedly fraudulent given that Andrew Wakefield continues to deny that any fraud occurred and offers a somewhat reasonable rebuttal to such allegations in his book Callous Disregard? Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You might want to wait for a more experienced editor in this field, but I would say definitely not. It why he was struck off. It's explained in the article. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, which are even more rigorous in WP:BLP articles. Wikipedia BLP'S generally do not care what the person writes about themselves, Wikipedia relies on what independent sources say, which in this case, is that his actions were deemed fraudulent and he lost his licence to practice medicine. Knitsey (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yup, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI, and WP:MEDRS&mdash;all these say the proposed edits are inadmissible. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please quote the passages in WP:GEVAL, WP: FRINGE and WP:PSCI that demonstrate that these edits are inadmissible? Also, is WP:MEDRS really relevant to this discussion since we're not debating whether or not vaccines really cause autism, we're debating whether or not a study that found that vaccines cause autism was proven beyond a doubt to be fraudulent? Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Scientists are very often wrong in their research. But that isn't scientific fraud or medical fraud. It is simply a judgment made upon limited data. So, there was no big scandal if he were only wrong. He could have admitted he was wrong, and proceed further unscathed. But it was a combination of an undisclosed conflict of interest, plus breaching the ethics of medical research (the way he approached the kids to be tested). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He does not even give any reasons why anybody should believe him. He just claims there is a conspiracy against him, which does what all conspiracy theories are invented to do: it enables him to blame every piece of evidence against him on the conspirators faking it. Only gullible idiots believe that sort of thing, and they tend to not write reliable sources, so it is not a reason to add WP:FALSEBALANCE to the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason he gives in Callous Disregard for why people should believe that he was unfairly discredited is that the children who already displayed deficits characteristic of autism prior to inoculation displayed much more severe deficits subsequent to inoculation. However, I am willing to show indifference to the notion that the study was fraudulent due to an undisclosed conflict of interest and for that reason alone, I will consider this matter settled. Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to read this article and any cited sources you find pertinent, or the Lancet MMR autism fraud article itself - we have sufficient RS to support using "fraudulent". We already mention Wakefield's rebuttals and his book in our article here. Cannolis (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

So, where is the "fraud"?
He has different opinion, for sure, but where is the "FRAUD"? 98.51.145.194 (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Read the article. It's clearly explained there. --McSly (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "A different opinion" that he justified with a fraudulent study, sparking nation-wide vaccine hesitancy and outbreaks of preventable diseases. Woozybydefault (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)