Talk:Sharyl Attkisson/Archive 7

Remover quote of Kennedy
I removed "On the program, prominent anti-vaccination activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called this "one of the most consequential frauds, arguably in human history." Reason: it is not about Attkinson. This article is a bio, not about all anti-vax.

I can see how this slipped into wikipedia: Originally this phrase was attributed to Attkinson. LAter she in her aniti-WP blog post cited this claim as false. Later (not necessarily because of that, but I suspect because of) the quote was re-attributed in wp without noticing that the re-attribution renders this quote irrelevant, because this section is about Attkinson's views. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I support your removal of that quotation. Despite Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s quotation potentially adding a counter-balance to the "Anti-vaccine reporting" section, I concur with your assessment. I note, though, that editor has reverted your good faith removal of this quotation, which was also unsourced, potentially in violation of his or her rollback privileges since you'd already initiated a good faith discussion at this talk page (Talk:Sharyl Attkisson). Doug Mehus  T · C  19:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug, I get that you haven’t bothered to read any of the previous discussions here but this was already discussed months ago. The inclusion of the quote fits the general critiques that have been made of her program as being anti-vaccine. If you’d like to make frivolous claims of policy violations, take it to a noticeboard rather than making threats. Toa Nidhiki05 19:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yes, I appreciate your good faith reply, but I would remind you that consensus can change at any time (including the minute after a previous consensus determination has changed). Moreover, though, took it to the talk page, consistent with bold, revert, discuss, and yet you reverted his or her good faith edit despite you telling me previously "it's BRD, not BRRD" via an edit summary related to an edit I'd made. I urge you to undo your reversion pending the outcome of a new consensus. Nothing is set in stone on Wikipedia, and if you tire of having to re-hash previous disputes, I'd remind you can always turn away from the article. Doug Mehus  T · C  19:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t think you understand how BRD or consensus works and that is extremely troubling. You’ve been here more than long enough to understand then. He made a bold edit, I reverted it to the consensus version, and now we discuss. That’s BRD. Your argument here makes absolutely no sense at all and I would advise you to actually read guidelines and policy before citing them. Toa Nidhiki05 19:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , two things: consensus can change and what you linked to does not show consensus. There is no point in letting unsourced material stand on an article per WP:BLP, as I understand it. Doug Mehus  T · C  19:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus doesn’t change because one person edits. I should not have to explain how BRD and consensus work to an editor who has been here since 2007. Toa Nidhiki05 19:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sure it can. In this case, the editor,, removed unsourced material per WP:BLP and then proceeded to the discuss phase of WP:BRD to establish new consensus (or consensus in this case, since what you linked to doesn't show consensus) vis-à-vis the relevance of the quotation. You've effectively subverted WP:BRD by reverting to the revert phase from the discuss phase so as you can present your preferred outcome pending the discussion outcome. I find this troubling. Doug Mehus T · C  19:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The material isn’t unsourced. It’s literally the first thing mentioned in the Snopes article. You would find it less troubling if you understood how BLP, BRD, and consensus work and maybe if you actually read the previous discussions here. Toa Nidhiki05 19:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh, what you linked does not mention the quote. I support removing it. PackMecEng (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote is literally in the first paragraph in the Snopes article. We mentioned who said it so as not to inaccurately attribute the quote itself to Attkisson when she did not literally say the words - however, Snopes, a reliable source, felt the quote reflected the editorial tone of the broadcast. Let’s go with what reliable sources say. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To add to what said above, no actual consensus has been formed at the discussion you linked to,, and, indeed, I noted administrator  linked to the discussion at WP:BLPN via this discussion. I suspect that may be the WP:BLPN discussion that shows emerging consensus in favour of including Attkisson's rebuttal in the anti-vaccine reporting section. Doug Mehus  T · C  19:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You linked to the discussion not the article. I think you misunderstood what I said. PackMecEng (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I've been following this article at arms length. Since this is turning into a BRD discussion, how long was the quote in the article?  Was it in long enough to be considered the stable version (I think that is typically 1-3 months depending on circumstances but that's my thumb ruler)?  Springee (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Well, there was an unclosed discussion at WP:BLPN which administrator raised back in May or June of this year, as I recall. Plus, there's been related discussions, which are active and ongoing. Doug Mehus  T · C  19:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears the quote has been in the article since at least 1 July. In my opinion that would make it the long standing version and consensus would be needed for removal.  Currently it appears things are 3:1 in favor of removal (I currently have no opinion) but it would probably be best to get a few more voices before deciding what the new consensus is.  It's unlikely the world or any lives will be changed if this edit waits for the discussion to wind down.  Springee (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It was her program, and she chose to include the anti-vax opinion of the notorious anti-vaxxer Kennedy, the same way she chose to include the anti-vax opinions of other anti-vaxxers. The quote is relevant for characterizing the tone of her work. A reliable source mentioned it. It has already been decided on this Talk page that it should be included. That is enough reasons to include it.
 * Dmehus suddenly says that consensus is not set in stone, while before, when he found a consensus he liked, he acted as if it was. I cannot be the only one who finds such anisotropic maxim-hurling despicable, and I suggest we should count every time he uses it as two reasons against his position, instead of as one in favor of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrator assistance request
, can you please revert editor 's reversion of editor 's good faith use of the bold, revert, discuss cycle to discuss inclusion or non-inclusion of an unsourced, potentially irrelevant point? The reversion should not have happened and may, intentionally or unintentionally, constitute a misuse of rollbacker privileges. Doug Mehus T · C  19:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * FFS. Do you understand how BRD works? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yes, but in this case, the editor has already gone to the discuss stage. You don't get to revert to the revert stage. Moreover, the supposed consensus you cited isn't there. Doug Mehus T · C  19:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You don’t understand what you’re talking about. Also, please stop tagging me whenever you mention me. I do not need to be tagged in an active conversation. I get an email and notification whenever I am tagged. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, noted. For clarity, I was using reply-link, which automatically tags you. I'll try and remember to not tag you, but please assume good faith should I forget. Doug Mehus T · C  19:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * BRD means that the reverted edit is not re-reverted, but rather is discussed, instead (with the status quo ante version retained for the duration). El_C 19:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Okay, but regardless of what WP:RSP may say, per WP:BLP, we should not be allowing material that is singularly sourced by Snopes to be maintained. I'd support it remaining, provided Toa adds a second citation. Snopes is literally maintained by a single guy out of Tacoma, Washington, as I understand it. Doug Mehus T · C  19:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Snopes is a reliable source and has been confirmed as such in at least 6 or 7 discussions. You’re welcome to start a new one, though. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is deemed as generally reliable by Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. El_C 19:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Except the problem is Snopes and Sharyl Attkisson are engaged in an editorial tussle with each other. Thus, Snopes has a conflict of interest with respect to Ms. Attkisson. Doug Mehus T · C  19:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s not how any of this works. I am growing increasingly concerned at your apparent lack of understanding of some of our most basic policies and guidelines - The “tussle” is Attkisson not liking their reporting, which is typical of fringe theorists, pseudoscience advocates, and frankly anyone that is criticized by any outlet. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's not how it works. Just because someone disagrees with a publication saying something negative about them does not introduce a conflict of interest. If that was true, valid criticism would be impossible. El_C 08:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thus, Snopes has a conflict of interest with respect to Ms. Attkisson. That statement makes absolutely no sense whatsover. None. --Calton &#124; Talk 14:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

In your entrenched dispute you missed the whole point of my removal. It is not related to the section which describes Atkinson's view, not the views of Trump, Snopes,  Jr. or etc. (see WP:COATRACK, if you do not understand where I come from) And to those talking about "stable version", I gave an explanation how this is the result of sloppiness of wikipedians. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It actually is, as the paragraph question regards the episode of a Full Measure, her show. It’s entirely relevant and related to that criticism and is in fact the first thing Snopes mentions. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No it is not. This section is not about the show, it is about her views. The show is merely a venue where she expressed her view. And other people expressed their views. So what? WP:COATRACK.  Staszek Lem (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Interesting policy/essay. I hadn't seen that before. Sooo true...this article puts too much emphasis on certain aspects to this notable investigative journalist's life, one who correctly challenges the partisan interest-controlled mass media and their force fed narratives. Just because ABC, NBC, or CNN have been around for years doesn't mean they're still quality news organizations...I personally would remove them from WP:RSP but Wikipedia has a definite leftist bias so consensus will not happen. I'm contemplating refocusing my Wikimedia volunteer efforts to more mundane, less controversial areas, like the Commons. I wouldn't edit for Wikinews because I don't like that Wikimedia doesn't give editors shared bylines. Doug Mehus T · C  15:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Doug, you keep doing this: coming to contentious articles and disputes and giving us the "benefit" of your inexperience. It's tiresome. Please stop. Guy (help!) 10:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Zimmerman
In regard to this revert,, there are three problems with the text as it stands.
 * Nowhere in the Snopes source does it say that Attkisson mischaracterised Zimmerman's statements from the affadavit. In fact, the only time it makes that claim is when it publishes Zimmerman's statement claiming that she did. Therefore the statement that "According to Snopes, in a January 2019 episode of her television show Full Measure, Attkisson mischaracterized statements made in 2007 by a medical expert, Andrew Zimmerman" is incorrect, and as this is a BLP we need to fix it. Teh correct wording is "According to Andrew Zimmerman ...", not according to Snopes.
 * The Snopes article does say that Attkisson mischaracterised the importance of Zimmerman's claims. It checks and finds that two statements by Attkisson are false: "The legal decisions refuting a connection between autism and vaccination during the Omnibus Autism Proceeding rested primarily on the written testimony of Andrew Zimmerman", and "Zimmerman’s knowledge about a potential circumstance in which a vaccine could theoretically affect ASD was hidden from the public until he came forward in 2018". Both relate to the significance of Zimmerman's statements, not to the statements themselves. Therefore, I think we should make it clear that Snopes does say that she mischaracterised the importance of Zimmerman.
 * If Gorski is reliable enough to criticise Attkisson, then should we not also use Gorski to say that Goski found that Attkission did not misrepresent Zimmerman's statements, but misrepresented the importance of them? It seems to me that either we use Gorski for both claims or neither.

If I've made an error and Snopes did say that Attkisson misrepresented Zimmerman's statements, as opposed to their significance, I'm happy to change this, but I can't find that statement. Is there a quote we can use from the Snopes article ? - Bilby (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Snopes article, specifically and in detail, says she misused Zimmerman's testimony (see the section: "Attkisson’s Claims, Addressed")
 * Again see "Attkisson’s Claims, Addressed", where it explicitly points out, for example, that Zimmerman's "theory" isn't new and that Attkisson claimed his view was that "vaccines cause autism" when it really wasn't.
 * Gorski is eminently reliable source for medical and this has been discussed here before. Nothing you are discussing here has not already been discussed. The section has been relentlessly examined word-by-word. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that she misused his testimony by misrepesenting the significance of it. The point is that Snopes did not say that she mischaracterised his claims - the only person who says that she did that is Zimmerman. Which is what I wanted to clarify in the change that you reverted.
 * If Gorski is generally reliable, then how about we just add his statement that Attkisson misrepresented the importance of Zimmerman's claims, but not the claims themselves? I would be ok with that as a fix. - Bilby (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tried a much simpler change to keep it in line with the sourc and our own text on the subject. Hopefully that addresses the concerns without causing any issues. - Bilby (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverted again? Ok. The thing is, Snopes did raise several issues - all were to do with Attkisson misrepresenting the significance of Zimmerman's testimony. At the end of the article, Snopes says "Zimmerman, a scientist with serious credentials who was once a government expert on vaccines, believes that narrow circumstances might exist in which the combination of pre-existing mitochondrial dysfunction and vaccination could trigger ASD". We know that this is not in keeping with current science, and Zimmerman should not be in a position to deny that he made those claims. What Attkisson did - and what Snopes and Gorksi said she did - is she overstated the significance of his testimony, not that she misrepresented the content of his testimony. We should make sure that we follow the sorces and don't make incorrect claims in a BLP, and we can easily do that with a tiny wording change which brings it in line with the source.
 * Alternatively, how about whe find where in the Snopes article it says that Attkisson misrepresented what Zimmerman said, as opposed to the significance of what he said? If I missed that quote I'm ok with the current wording. If not, we should just fix it. - Bilby (talk)
 * I mentioned it above - Attkisson used his claims about mitochondrial interaction to assert that vaccines cause autism, a stance that Zimmerman does not claim to take. It wasn't an issue of her misrepresenting the "significance" - she misrepresented his arguments, period, at least according to Snopes. '<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>':::: 17:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I quote Snopes: "Zimmermam ... believes that narrow circumstances might exist in which the combination of pre-existing mitochondrial dysfunction and vaccination could trigger ASD". The thing is, Zimmerman did say that vaccines could trigger Autism, and both Snopoes and Gorski have said as much. Attkisson didn't misrepresent what he said. What she did was claim that his testimony was much more important that it actually was, which is what both Snopes and Gorski found. If you could give me a quote from Snopes saying that he didn't make that claim it would be good, but you'll find Snopes said the opposite. - Bilby (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been a week, and there hasn't been any quotes showing that Snopes found Atkisson to have misrepresented what Zimmerman said, as opposed to misrepresenting his importance. I think an FV tag is at least warranted if we don't have any evidence to back up the claim. - Bilby (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)