deleted new section
I deleted the new section ("Bullshit that anti-vaxxers use to justify their beliefs") not because it was wrong, but it didn't quite work. Ordinarily, I'd leave rough stuff in for someone to polish, but, for this cover story article, I think new material has to be better to stick around. Also, some of the new section's material was covered elsewhere either in the "Premise" section or in various other more specific examples. Feel free to polish it up elsewhere and talk here or try it again. MarmotHead (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Do videos "In a Nutshell" and a flood of text make this a good article?
Compared to how it looked a year ago, this article has since then grown FAT. Now, I'm not saying that anything added since then has been false or wrong, I'm just saying that this article is starting to have the same problem that the Gamergate article had. It's too long to be comfortably read in one go. This is not an unknown issue; Wikipedia has an entire section on how tl;dr can ruin articles. I especially think it's a mistake to slap multiple videos in the article. At best, we should add links to videos at the very end of the article. Embedding multiple videos everywhere in the article is silly as who has time to watch them, when we're already having trouble to read the article itself? It's also ridiculous that the very first section begins with a MASSIVE quote; couldn't this be instead incorporated into the article itself? In fact, I'd say that our article already says pretty much the same. It's starting to look like we're trying to advertise as many youtube channels as we can; when we should instead try to present this wiki's words on the matter.
- I think you raise an important point here (aside from the fact that the article does not start with a massive quote, but a tiny quote. The next segment has a moderately sized quote that sums up the issue perfecly, as is relevant to that section). The article is certainly better than it was a year ago, and I'm very much generally in favor of "In a nutshell" video segments from trustworthy channels (I only add from high quality sceptical sources - to any article where such segments have been included - such as KurzGesagt, inFact, SciShow, CrashCourse, Veritasium, It's OK To Be Smart, QualiaSoup and HealthCare Triage). That being said - while encouraging a discussion prior to editing - I think the current implementation in this particular article is imperfect, and you raise a proper issue. I certainly don't think the gold star is at risk, so we're at 1-1 in regards to that. But again, your concerns are valid - in my view - and we should figure out ways that preserve the additional content (and indeed, open for yet more additions) but without resulting in article bloat. My two cents, like yours. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with embedding multiple videos, and telling our readers to watch them if they want to understand our article. As I said before, videos should be only added at an "External links" section at the bottom of the article. Making it appear like our readers have to interrupt their reading at multiple points to watch a video is absurd. It's certainly not how Wikipedia does it, and their article on this subject is much, much better, especially from a stylistic point of view. If these videos bring any new facts that our article doesn't, then it should be included in text form. If these videos explain the same thing as our article in a better way, then that's just a challenge for us to do better. Typhoon (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also, the massive quote I was referring to was the one you call "moderately sized". It's big enough to be its own section. Typhoon (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I have moved the videos to the bottom of the article. That way anyone who's interested can find them there and watch them, while at the same time we preserve the flow of the article. Also, please don't add Maddox aka "I punch kids in the face". Someone so incredibly polarizing and who's also a person with no background in science or medicine will NOT change anyone's mind. Typhoon (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- What I said above still applies. Typhoon (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a bit rubbish because the '99%' part implies that in the absence of a reason why 99% don't develop autism, then no link can be shown. This is inaccurate. You can have a causative link with low penetrance. I get what he's trying to say, but he's fucked up what he was trying to get across. We can do better than quotes where someone has fucked up what they were trying to say. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly, to read that quote in the way you describe here requires a significant degree of anal retentiveness. First of all, he literally says "you know that some kids who've been vaccinated develop autism". That's a clear admission, via the quantifier some, of the existence of a minute percentile that actually has the disease, per science. So he's clearly not saying that a large number has to be involved for correlation to also be causatively linked — which absolves him of your low penetrance criticism. Furthermore, he's also clearly pointing out that you haven't controlled for all the other variables, such as diet, genetics, environment, chance mutations, related disabilites or simply the higher diagnosis rate due to greater awareness. Notice the quantifiers such as and or — these show definitively that he's not making his statement in exclusion of what you claim. It's not until these very overt premises are given that he tosses in the obviously true statement, plus "you can't explain why the 99% of people who have been vaccinated didn't develop autism", which marks the giving of a separate hypothesis and is not itself a pillar of the prior comments on the original hypothesis, that "kids who are vaccinated do develop autism". All in all, it's a great quote. Relevant and snarky. And there's tons of sections that could use more quotes of this quality, so if your point is that other quotes should be included, please add such where sourced and reliable in addition to this one. There really is no problem here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's inaccurate because Maddox has no background in science or medicine. He's an internet loudmouth who boasted about how he wants to punch kinds in the face. It's hypocritical for us to denounce anti-vaxxers for getting their info from uneducated simpletons, and then do the same to support a pro-vaccine position. Typhoon (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Another thing is that the number one issue that anti-vaxx parents fear about the well-being of their children. Maddox, is NOT someone you use for that. His hatred of kids is infamous and absolutely no parent will listen to him. In fact, his inclusion in this article will be used by anti-vaxxers as proof that we source our claims from child-hating assholes. Typhoon (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Your first statement is quite literally:
- It's inaccurate because Maddox has no background in science or medicine. He's an internet loudmouth who boasted about how he wants to punch kinds in the face. It's hypocritical for us to denounce anti-vaxxers for getting their info from uneducated simpletons, and then do the same to support a pro-vaccine position.
- Your second statement isn't much better:
- Another thing is that the number one issue that anti-vaxx parents fear about the well-being of their children. Maddox, is NOT someone you use for that. His hatred of kids is infamous and absolutely no parent will listen to him. In fact, his inclusion in this article will be used by anti-vaxxers as proof that we source our claims from child-hating assholes.
- You could be quoted for a few mainspace articles yourself, you know. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Your first statement is quite literally:
- He's setting up 'what anti-vaxxers would do if they actually tried science', distinct from and more reasonable than what they often argue (Autism pandemic!!!!one). He brings up valid confounding concerns for the first version, which is great. Then he throws in a criticism that's only valid for the second version, but it's placement and lack of qualifiers suggest that it's also valid for the first. For those of us who know the field well, it's obvious that it's not meant in that way. In my experience, people who aren't statisticians or medicos can easily be tripped up by that sort of thing and come away with a false impression. It's a very small science communication cock-up, but it's less than stellar for what's ostensibly a science communication article for non-experts. The quote is overlong anyway, for the section it's placed in. It can be fixed by slinging some ellipses in there. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for replying. And actually, I think you might be on to something here, buddy. While I would contend that what you call "him setting up what anti-vaxxers would do if they actually tried science" is, in fact, a completely apt description of the exact "methodology" of the anti-vaxxers — and thus highly relevant to the article — it's fair enough that the quote can be, as you put it, fixed by slinging some ellipses in there. (Perhaps the quote could also be moved in full to a segment on how the Anti-vaxxers think, rather than standing under "scientific reasons"?)
- Anyway, I'd love to see you put those ellipses you suggested where you think they would best elucidate the quote, in light of these points you've made here. Do that and put the doctored quote back in the article so we can consider what that looks like! Maybe it'll be perfect? Also, you suggesting we do so, and me supporting you doing it makes two editors. They'd need atleast two editors in opposition to stop us from testing this. So give it your best shot, Queex. Worst case, the quote just belongs in another article, e.g. on skepticism or methodology. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
LA Times: Will 2017 be the year the anti-vaccination movement goes mainstream?
- Freedom of speech. It's strength is it's own weakness. Everyone has a say, but also everyone has a say. —127.0.0.1 (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)