Hi CMTBard,

Welcome to Wikipedia!

I've reviewed your proposed edit to the article Jenny McCarthy, but I feel at this time, the comment you added in parentheses is not directly related to Ms. McCarthy, and thus, not the appropriate page for that edit. As we all know, the topic of vaccines and autism has strong feelings on both sides. However, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must remain neutral. Additionally, if you take a look at this page, I think that may be a more appropriate page to discuss the reference you provided, rather than in an article on a person, since that statement you added is not something Ms. McCarthy has said, but something written on a blog, and therefore doesn't belong in an article about Ms. McCarthy. I'd ask you to please head to the talk page for causes of autism to discuss this with established editors, if you'd like to see if that source is acceptable, and if that differentiation in terminology would be appropriate in that article. Thanks so much, Ariel♥Gold 14:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CMTBard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Jenny McCarthy. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Govindaharihari (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I seen your efforts to improve a couple of articles, please take it easy and look for other users support on the talkpage chats you have started, such changes usually do take time here, best wishes. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I would if wikipedia even had a semblance of effort to be balanced. also if your English was correct.

Opps, yes, I apologize for my typing mistake. Govindaharihari (talk)

Stop trying to repress and dominate. CMTBard (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are using a label that has been discussed on the Talk pages and still is not being addressed. You state that McCarthy is “anti vaxx” but doesn’t like to be called that, it’s perfectly logical to want to explain why many parents in her shoes agree with her. CMTBard (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CMTBard,

I realize you have strong opinions on this, but you wish to attribute the words "contribute to autism in some children" to Ms. McCarthy - but the journal article that is a reference for that statement has nothing to do with her, and the Time article requires a paid subscription to read, and in the blurb that non-subscribers can view, does not have any such quotation. Please review the policy about articles on living persons, so you can understand why these changes are being reverted. Her article is not the appropriate venue for a discussion of semantics. *IF* you can find an appropriate source that doesn't require a paid subscription to confirm, which directly attributes those words to Ms. McCarthy - please take it to her talk page as an edit, and if approved, an editor will add it to the article. Thank you, Ariel♥Gold 14:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The talk pages do not allow any outside links, so the only way I can add in a proposed link is to put it in as an edit to the article. And then it’s immediately taken down and I’m told “handle this in talk.” What a joke of a process!!

1. the time article cited in the same paragraph requires a paid subscription 2. i’m extending common courtesy and not using a derogatory label 3. if you were truly not being biased you would quote her actual words, which never once say “i am against all vaccines”— they say “space them out, delay them, wait until 2, maybe skip some you don’t want” and “I’d like a test to see which kids are most likely to have a reaction” (ie are vulnerable). 4. yes I am passionate about sticking up for my work. I took the time to make a small edit that only adds compassion and clarity and it keeps being removed within minutes. CMTBard (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this. But I would really encourage you to read the policy on articles related to living people, which have very clear instructions on what is, and what is not, appropriate. The first edits you made did not have a valid source and that is why I did not approve them. Now that you added the PBS article as a source, and it clearly does use those terms, I have added that into her article in the appropriate section. Also, please realize that the article is citing sources written about her - regardless of if those are her beliefs or not. So when the article says she has been called an 'Anti-vaxer' - there are multiple, valid sources, that back that statement up. Whether she wishes to be called that or not, is not relevant. It has nothing to do with bias on my part - it has to do with what has been published about her from reliable sources. (Please do review what constitutes a valid source in the link above). Remember, this is an encyclopedia, and must simply state things that can be backed up with verifiable, reliable sources. Ariel♥Gold 15:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So if an article called a person with Downs a “retard” we should quote that verbatim in an article on Downs Syndrome? So long as we have a valid source that someone somewhere called someone a name they don’t like because it’s perjorative and inaccurate, it’s ok to use it? #sensible #not

Hi CMTBard,

After further review, and now using the PBS article (rather than the earlier blog URL you had added) - which does attribute the statement that she prefers the term "pro-safe-vaccine schedule" - I have edited her page to add her "preferred term" in a neutral and sourced sentence. Please note that this article is under review protection, so your edits are not actually visible until a revieer approves them, so continuing to edit this is not to your benefit. I hope that this is a comfortable compromise for you. I have, however, not changed 'can cause autism' to 'can contribute to autism in vulnerable children', because again - her *biography page* is not the appropriate venue for such a discussion of semantics. Again I urge you, if you have strong feelings that Wikipedia is not properly wording the issue of autism and vaccine controversy, to take it to the page on Autism, and not to the page of a living person. Thank you, Ariel♥Gold 15:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC) ________ While I do appreciate you adding her own preferred term, the current summary of her beliefs “vaccines cause autism in children” is NOT an accurate summary of her actual beliefs. **This is not about vaccine controversy— this about being accurate in summarizing Jenny McCarthy’s position on the topic.** There are no sources stating that she believes this— all sources and quotes have her saying either that vaccines triggered autism **in her own child** (not all children), and/or that she believes vaccines or a vaccine CAN CONTRIBUTE to or cause autism in SOME children. You are still unfairly representing this living person’s perspective and aims in advocacy. This is not about our opinion of her opinion. It as about accurately presenting her opinion so that others can form their own opinion.[reply]

While I do appreciate you adding her own preferred term, the current summary of her beliefs “vaccines cause autism in children” is NOT an accurate summary of her actual beliefs. There are no sources stating that she believes this— all sources and quotes have her saying either that vaccines triggered autism **in her own child** (not all children), and/or that she believes vaccines or a vaccine CAN CONTRIBUTE to or cause autism in SOME children. You are still unfairly representing this living person’s perspective and aims in advocacy. This is not about our opinion of her opinion. It as about accurately presenting her opinion so that others can form their own opinion.

It is a far more correct summary to state “belief that vaccines can contribute to autism in some children” or “in vulnerable children” than what is currently there.

Look in that same PBS article, this is a direct quote from McCarthy herself:

“When I began my crusade for autism, one of the first speeches I gave was: “Is it mercury? Is it the schedule? Is there just too many?” My answer to people and what I’ve been telling them is, “It’s all of the above.” We don’t know for sure, which is why we keep saying, “Study it.” But they won’t.

Some parents saw their child only get a flu shot, which has mercury in it, and boom, fall off the wagon — meaning loss of the ability of eye contact, no more babbling. And this is after one shot.

We’ve seen children like Evan, who have this, what I believe, the whole schedule we’re looking at that caused his regression. We get phone calls from farmers who have children who — they just sprayed their fields, and their child regressed into autism.

So is it one thing? No. But what is a common factor? It’s a toxic overload.”

She says specifically that it is not ONE factor (vaccines) causing all autism, but rather that in some kids/vulnerable kids (she later mentions kids with family histories of autoimmunity) vaccines it can be A factor leading to autism.

I never quoted that Time article, that was there before I got here. CMTBard (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most antivaxers claim not to be antivaxers. McCarthy is no exception. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not our place to force a label on them. An encyclopedia exists to present information, not opinions. Our job is to accurately present what McCarthy thinks & says— which is not that “vaccines cause autism.” As I have quoted above, it is that vaccines, among many things, can contribute to autism in some kids, and that it should be up to parents what they do when it comes to vaccines. That is not “anti vaccine” (lit. “against vaccines”).

The consensus view of reliable independent sources is that she is an antivaxer. The fact that this conflicts with her self-image is not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion about 1. accurately summarizing someone’s advocacy position/goals — as activist this is crucial to the article on her. I have insisted that her position needs to be stated as

“belief that vaccines can contribute to autism in some children” or, better yet, “belief that vaccines can contribute to autism in vulnerable children”

NOT “belief that vaccines cause autism”— which is NOT her stated position or belief, as I have provided an extensive quote to support.

2. making sure we provide her own response to the derogatory & innaccurate term “anti-vaxxer” — this has been done and is no longer an issue. (but side note— if someone was of Indian descent and yet the media insisted on calling them “Black Ghetto”, and they responded repeatedly that they were in fact not African-American nor from a ghetto culture, and that they wanted to be called “of Indian” or “of Asian descent,” we wouldn’t say “well a reputable news source called you Black Ghetto, so not our problem.”. We would strive to use an accurate (and neutral) label, or at the very least give his response.)

Again, this has already been done and is not the topic of contention now.CMTBard (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. It's about McCarthy trying to retcon a public-facing position adopted in order to get a specific job, while continuing to promote the same breoad-based conspiracist bullshit in the background. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]