 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrew Wakefield article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | A news item involving Andrew Wakefield was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 January 2011. |  |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Andrew Wakefield.
Q1: Is the article with its negative material biased? (No.)
A1: No. The article with its negative material is not biased. While the article must include both positive and negative views according to the policies of Wikipedia, the balance must accurately reflect the balance in those sources according to their reliability.
There are two relevant policies: biographies of living people and neutral point of view. According to these two policies, both of which are non-negotiable, we must reflect the subject as it is seen by reliable independent sources, but we must do so accurately and in a neutral way. Q2: Should material critical of Wakefield be in the lead? (Yes.)
A2: Yes. Wakefield is at the heart of one of the most discussed scientific frauds in recent times. This is not Wikipedia's judgment, it is the consensus view of reliable independent sources, we reflect those. Q3: Is the negative material in the article NPOV? (Yes.)
A3: Yes. Including negative material is part of achieving a neutral article. A neutral point of view does not necessarily equate to a sympathetic point of view. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view – both positive and negative – in rough proportion to their prominence. Q4: Does Wikipedia consider the MMR-autism link a fringe theory? (Yes)
A4: Yes. The MMR-autism link is described as refuted in all significant independent sources. It is a fringe view. Q5: Should studies that show a link between autism and MMR (or vaccines more generally) go into the article? (Only if they meet WP:MEDRS.)
A5: Only if they meet WP:MEDRS. We do not include low quality sources that contradict much higher quality sources. At present there are no studies meeting our sourcing guidelines for medical topics which credibly support the MMR-autism link, and there is an enormous body of research showing that there is no temporal link or association. Q6: Should another article called "Criticism of Andrew Wakefield" be created? (No.)
A6: No. Another article called "Criticism of Andrew Wakefield" should not be created. This is called a "POV fork" and is discouraged. Q7: Should evidence of a link between the gut and / or its microbiome and autism be included in the article? (No.)
A7: No. This would be a novel synthesis from primary sources, which is forbidden. Wakefield's work did not address this, and even if there were a proven causal link between the gut or its microbiome and autism, this would be irrelevant to Wakefield's published research and its subsequent refutation and retraction. Q8: Should all references to material critical of Wakefield be put in a single section in the article? (No.)
A8: No. Sources critical of Wakefield should be integrated normally in the course of presenting the topic and its reception, not shunted into a single criticism section. Such segregation is generally frowned upon as poor writing style on Wikipedia. Q9: Should the article characterize Wakefield's work as fraudulent? (Yes.)
A9: Yes. Wakefield's research has been retracted due to undeclared conflicts of interest and has been criticised in the literature for ethical and methodological issues. It is credibly identified as research fraud, and there is no significant informed dissent from this judgment in the published literature. Q10: Should the article include favourable commentary from "vaccine skeptical" sources? (No.)
A10: No. The article may only contain material from reliable independent sources, and medical claims must be drawn only from sources that meet our subject-specific sourcing requirements. Sources within the anti-vaccination movement rarely meet our general sourcing reliability guidelines and almost never meet our medical sourcing guidelines. We do not accept agenda-driven claims from poor quality sources to "balance" more reliable sources, however much we might like or dislike the conclusions of either. |
 | Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
This article is too long and contains too many quotes
editThe article desperately needs to be condensed down to something that an average reader might read. It's nearly impossible to find what you're looking for. For example, the lede calls him anti-vaccination, so it should be easy to find a summary of his stance on vaccination in this article. For instance, is he opposed to all vaccination or just MMR? That's the kind of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia, but instead we are given endless indented quotes and tons of needless material that more correctly belongs on the separate page for Lancet MMR autism fraud. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Test kits?
edit"Wakefield reportedly stood to earn up to $43 million per year selling test kits."
Test kits for what? Autism? Fleas? Jellybeans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)