| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because User Calton has reverted Bilby's edit on grounds that there was no consensus. While, perhaps, technically true, in that the link provided by Bilby, my rough analysis shows 9-3 in favour of including.
To provide a bit of background and context, there are potential WP:BLP issues with respect to Ms. Attkisson's reporting of vaccines. Bilby provided a link to a BLP noticeboard, which appeared to show a substantial consensus in favour of including Ms. Attkisson's refutation; however, that had not been officially closed. Indeed, it had been included in the article prior to significant recent edits, but it was removed. Per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, it seems prudent to have it back included. I'm not sure why Calton removed it.
I have separately tagged Bradv and Diannaa, independent of this peer review process, due to the potential WP:BLP issues here in Calton's removal of her refutation. However, should they decline to re-add it, I wanted to start a peer review in tandem.
Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 23:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment from Toa Nidhiki05
editAs another editor here, I highly contest the claims this article has BLP issues. A small group of editors, as well as Ms. Attkisson herself, seem intent on scrubbing this page of criticism, primarily regarding vaccines. Attkisson has attempted for years to modify the article, and this has now extended to extensive criticisms on her website, some of which specifically attack certain Wikipedia users, including myself, as shills for the “vaccine industry”. Virtually all debate on this page has come from the extent of vaccines. Attkisson is widely regarded as promoting anti-vaccine viewpoints and this has been discussed numerous times. I find the request for peer review extremely unnecessary, given how extensively this article has been worked on by a variety of editors. Toa Nidhiki05 20:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)