Talk:Informed Consent Action Network

Page creation

Untitled

Another new Wikipedia page! Please do not hesitate to improve it. Robincantin (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2019

Please remove the line that says, "Catharine Layton stumbled upon the anti-vaccination movement via social media."

I am Catharine Layton, and I was misquoted by the source used to make that claim. It needs to be removed from this page or I will pass the matter on to my attorney.

Also, the president of the Informed Consent Action Network is not Lisa Selz, it is Dr. Scott Guidry. AutismMomof2 (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is correctly used. Your remedy is to get The misquote corrected. unless you withdraw your legal threat, you will get blocked. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

blockedRoxy, the dog. wooF 15:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The user is welcome to retract their legal threat above, and we'll be happy to unblock the account if they do. Unless this happens, the account will remain indefinitely blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 15:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I have adjusted the statement in the article to read "Source says: .....", since we only have one source for that statement, rather than stating in wikivoice. ---Avatar317^(talk) 18:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Importance of group

@Avatar317, 4johnny: The Washington Post source says (it tracks with other sources but WP is the most explicit): "Thanks largely to the Selzes’ donations, ICAN is now the best-funded among a trio of organizations that have amplified concerns about vaccines. ICAN brought in $1.4 million in revenue in 2017, with just over $1 million supplied by the Selz Foundation, according to tax filings." I equated "well funded" with "one of the main groups", given that this funding brings visibility, the ability to travel and recruit, etc. I could change the lead to say "one of the most well-funded" if we're more comfortable with that. Robincantin (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Not sure exactly what this post is referencing. But "anti-vaccination" is a classic strawman against "informed consent". Also, Wikipedia is more credible when the sources are science, not newspaper articles. 4johnny (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Not objective

"Spreads myths" is a ridiculous characterization and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:7B00:1033:90B2:1578:C2DE:BB0C (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

But it is properly sourced, so per Wikipedia policy it can stay. - DVdm (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Help me to understand please

I'm a fan and contributor to Wikipedia-just to clarify no conflict intended with my questions as follows: 1) I was confused when I read that ICAN spreads myths... and then saw the talk page (first time). I see that it was "properly sourced" so it can stay.?? Explain please. If my former coworker writes a false allegation about me, it is a "proper source?" 2) I don't understand why the woman citing incorrect info and requesting it to be removed or she will report to her attorney would be blocked rather than welcomed to help bring balanced, proper and fair reporting/information? I'm truly not sure what's happening here. Is this why people make negative comments about Wikipedia and don't accept it as reliable? I love Wikipedia but am a bit concerned now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamR888 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@PamR888: The use of proper sources is a big topic. Statements in an article should be backed by reliable sources, usually published - see this help page for what that means. As far as I can ascertain, multiple good sources indicate the organisation disseminates information that isn't true, so that's what goes on the page. Legal threats are viewed as intimidation and are quite unwelcome - more details here. I just checked, again, for the identity of the president of the group, and the person she mentions comes up nowhere, so for now we have Lisa Selz, who's mentioned as being president in the news coverage. If leadership changed, maybe ICAN should make information public about this. I find people who make negative comments about wikipedia do it for a variety of reasons, I can only speak for myself. When I do make negative comments about wikipedia, it's not because of reliability. Robincantin (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Revert on 17 Nov 2020 of edit made on 16 Nov 2020

@Doug Weller: Per your request I am continuing our discussion here on the article talk page.

I contacted you regarding the revert on 11/17 of my edit on 11/16.

I'd like to better understand the reasons for the revert. Here is the edit summary.

Not encyclopedic - maybe if it ever gets substantial coverage, but not until then

My specific questions are:

• What does encyclopedic mean in this context?
• Also, what does "substantial coverage" mean? Is is possible to quantify what the term substantial means in this context?

I've reviewed the articles that you suggested:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

However, it isn't clear how the content in those articles is applicable. For example, the first article, Reliable sources, doesn't actually use the term encyclopedic. The second article does use the term encyclopedic, but then has 11 different subsections that discuss ways in which content on Wikipedia might not be encyclopedic. Again, it isn't clear which--if any--of these subsections is applicable.

What would be helpful, I think, is if you could explain your reasons for the revert.

CarlJParker (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

encyclopedic means suitable for an encyclopedia, and substantial means covered a bit more thoroughly than a mention on the ican website. I agree with Doug, this isn't wiki material, yet. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Another way to look at that is the reference you provided for that statement was on ICAN's website. This can also be called SELF-SOURCED promotional WP:PROMOTIONAL material. (Their press-release as to what they are doing.) What I think that Doug meant is that when an Independent Source WP:IS (a newspaper) sees this as IMPORTANT enough to report on, then we can include the statement in this article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Avatar317: Thanks. That is the feedback that I was looking for.

However, you didn't revert my edit; Doug Weller did.

@Doug Weller: Do you agree with Avatar317's reasoning about the revert? I ask because if a source is identified that is not WP:PROMOTIONAL, then I will reinstate my edit referencing that source. -- CarlJParker (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please, do not do that. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@CarlJParker:Using another source would still leaves the problem of importance (suitable for an encyclopedia). As others have stated, it would be nice to have some kind of news coverage by a credible source showing this is important - any legit news coverage, really. The FDA gets 200 of those petitions a year, someone needs to show why this one is significant. Too many pages are just lists of every little thing a group does, it would be nice to avoid that trap. Robincantin (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Robincantin: Thanks. I agree that this petition has received little news coverage--except for the statements about it from ICAN itself and their affiliates, such as The High Wire. If we use coverage as the measure of importance, then, yes, we would conclude that the petition doesn't meet that threshold.

However, I don't think we are quite done yet. I can't find anything in Wikipedia's guidelines or policies about importance being a determining factor for content inclusion.

Both Doug and Roxy the inedible dog indicated that the edit was not encyclopedic. I assume they meant that it doesn't pass one or more of the tests on WP:NOT--although neither has said that is what they meant. In any case, those are the guidelines that I searched to understand the consideration of importance. Perhaps those guidelines talk about importance using other terms. If so, can you help me see what you are referring to?

-- CarlJParker (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not wasting my time on this. I agree with Doug. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we have reached a stopping point. As I mention above, the lack of any non-ICAN references for the petition supports Avatar317^(talk)'s point about the edit being construed as WP:PROMOTIONAL. I still question the point about importance being a determiner for content inclusion, but practically speaking, that consideration isn't currently relevant; for now, the issue around WP:PROMOTIONAL precludes the edit. -- CarlJParker (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@CarlJParker: Here's a little more on the "Importance" issue: from WP:IS: Independent sources are a necessary foundation for any article. Although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why. To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

ICAN and Siri Glimstad story

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/05/26/vaccine-mandate-litigation-siri-glimstad-ican/

Update ICAN is named as being a client for a law firm called Siri Glimstad in an article related to the Vaccine Passports story.2601:640:C600:3C20:314D:D8FF:7FD2:A6EC (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2022

It is not an anti-vaccination group! It's a group that strides informed consent before giving vaccinations. Onnonius (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Plenty of sources linked in the article that describe it as such, as well as describing them spreading vaccine misinformation Cannolis (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2023

Please add the following to the section relating to targeted audiences: "Distrust for government is irrational because the government has never mistreated its citizens, particularly minorities; distrust for government is particularly irrational with regards to vaccines, as the government has never approved a vaccine that had to be withdrawn at a later date. Given the government's unblemished record in general and with regards to vaccines in particular, distrust of government is best understood as a form of mental illness; thus, ICAN is best understood as targeting and exploiting the mentally ill who fail to grasp the significance of the government's perfect record on civil rights and drug approvals. More generally, ICAN fails to appreciate that the US Constitution is based upon the idea that everyone should place their blind faith in the government to do what's best; thus, ICAN ignores the very legal principles on which it allegedly litigates, implicitly rejecting hundreds of years of Anglo-American jurisprudence that holds that courts should always assume the government is right and acting in good-faith." Chp223 (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Since this paragraph is obviously your own words unsupported by a credible source, it will not be possible to add this. If you're interested in understanding how wikipedia work, you can start with learning more about its use of credible sources and why it doesn't use original research. Robincantin (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)