Talk:Andrew Wakefield

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. The entire article relates to the following contentious topics:

pseudoscience and fringe science
Living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrew Wakefield article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 3 months

A news item involving Andrew Wakefield was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 January 2011.

Wikipedia

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Autism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2025

In this article, the claim is made that the study was of 12 autistic children, but I've read the paper since its retraction as well as writings by Brian Deer, and only 9 children were claimed to be autistic, of which three were actually allistic. Could this more accurate information please be put into the main article?

Likelihood of this claim?

Nothing productive is likely to come from this conversation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

> The publicity surrounding the study caused a sharp decline in vaccination uptake, leading to a number of outbreaks of measles around the world and many deaths therefrom

Is this measured anywhere? Does this belong on wikipedia without a citation? 24.236.207.173 (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this section of the article where citations are present. The lead section is supported by the body text. As long as the body text supports what is written in the lead, we do not have to cite the lead. - Roxy the dog 12:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no citation which measures this. It would be accurate to say this is a frequent accusation.

But then the article wouldn't be doing what you want, would it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Andrew_Wakefield

TheodoricStier (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to be disapointed by the outcome of that. Good luck though. - Roxy the dog 12:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> The publicity surrounding the study caused a sharp decline in vaccination uptake

Just reminded a few months later that Wikipedia still does not have a citation for this claim. WP:RS and WP:POV and WP:NOR are all being violated here.

This harms the credibility of wikipedia and in fact ethically compromises the editors using Wikipedia to level this claim.

24.236.207.173 (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You had your time at WP:BLPN and did not succeed. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant because no source was provided to support the claim.

One of the respondents claimed an article linked the study to four deaths.

I read the article. It didn't at all.

If you really think wikipedia is a good soap box for this then feel free to continue.

24.236.207.173 (talk) 24.236.207.173 (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One study? There are at least 10 WP:RS WP:CITED for WP:V deaths.

I think that if you examine all the references, there are around 20 sources which make this point. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a bunch of sources that claim concurrency. The consensus on the matter, which is consistently expressed in the sources, is that the causal configuration (forward, reverse, common) is unknown.

The causal claim in the article goes against the consensus in the sources and in the real world. Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for this. 24.236.207.173 (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again: that's your uncited opinion against around 20 WP:RS.

A source which very clearly makes this point is Kay Fullenkamp, Natalie (2021). "Playing Russian roulette with their kids: Experts' construction of ignorance in the California and Ohio measles outbreaks". Social Science & Medicine. 272 113704. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113704. PMID 33581420. Retrieved 25 September 2025. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2022, there were an estimated 136,000 measles deaths globally, mostly among unvaccinated or under vaccinated children under the age of 5 years." From Measles. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.