Talk:Andrew Wakefield/FAQ

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Andrew Wakefield.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

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.