Talk:Vaxxed: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 99:

::::::::{{tq|I feel like you're pushing beyond the bounds of BLP, which Wikipedia takes very seriously, just in order to have a comment that is going to be less convincing to the average reader than most of the ones you already have further down in the text.|italic=yes}} How does a 7 word summation by a noted, respected expert '''not''' qualify for the lead? It's a brief, succinct summary of the film. The film ''is'' a work of propaganda, and it ''is'' made by a known scientific fraud. I mean, the only notable thing about this film is the fact that it's a propaganda film by a known scientific fraud. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''MjolnirPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 19:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::The facts of the matter are reasonably well attested, so the question is why they should be supplemented by this particular phrasing from this particular source. Is it just to twist the knife? Is every source so precious that not one can be lost? Your high opinion of the author notwithstanding, there are [[WP:IRS|guidelines on what constitutes a good source]] and this blog does not meet them. [[User:Rhoark|Rhoark]] ([[User talk:Rhoark|talk]]) 20:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

{{od|:::::::::}}It's a succinct summary of all the criticisms, the nature of which are the only source of notability this film has. (Okay, well, the coverage it got in the press is the source of its notability, but that coverage stems from its nature as an anti-vax film by Wakefield. It's not notable due to its popularity, success or coverage by film critics.) If you want to find something similar to replace it with in the lead, be my guest. I don't much care which notable source says something like "this is an anti-vax film by a guy who lost his medical license," so long as it's said. My only interest is in making sure the lead accurately summarizes the article, and that no anti-skeptic/anti-science/anti-vaccine POV is being pushed on the article. Let me ask you a question; given the emotional rhetoric you're using, why does this matter? Do you think this film has scientific merit?

P.S. As I've pointed out before, Gorski's blog gets challenged constantly. It almost always results in a consensus that it's a reliable source, and consensus trumps policy. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">[[User:MjolnirPants|<font color="green">'''MjolnirPants'''</font>]] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 20:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

: I looked at this and to me it looks like a blog. I don't see a ScienceBlogs editor being fired if Gorski publishes something wrong. BLP is pretty strict about some stuff, and quoting a self-published primary source to call someone a scientific fraud is pretty high on the list. It doesn't matter if it's true - it's just not a good enough source. Which brings me to the point - why bother to quote what might be discounted as an anti-anti-vaxxer's rhetoric when you have lots of better-known publishers with a more neutral perspective saying pretty much the same thing? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 16:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)