Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Diane Harper"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Allen3 (to prep3) |
imported>Genometer |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:{{*mp}}[[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] Article is increasingly POV in favor of one brand of vaccine over another, which Harper's own [[WP:RS]] statements do not bear out. Needs a re-write (and in my opinion, a removal of all non-[[WP:RS|RS]] material) to prevent POV. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 03:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC) | :{{*mp}}[[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] Article is increasingly POV in favor of one brand of vaccine over another, which Harper's own [[WP:RS]] statements do not bear out. Needs a re-write (and in my opinion, a removal of all non-[[WP:RS|RS]] material) to prevent POV. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 03:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| − | {{*mp}} [[File:Symbol voting keep.svg|16px]] Update: I myself have removed the offending non-[[WP:RS]] material from the article (''Sunday Express'' tabloid nonsense; Bad Science blog entries), and made a few changes to the article. As long as the tabloid and BS blog material stays out of the article, it's balanced and accurate. I think this is now a good and accurate hook; article is good and well sourced, everything else checks out. If someone more experienced in DYK can check whether a QPQ was warranted, I think this is good to go as long as the nominator does not restore the non-RS material. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 15:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC){{#if:yes|</div></noinclude>|{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template talk:Did you know/{{SUBPAGENAME}}|[[Category:Pending DYK nominations]][[Category:DYK/Nominations|Pending]]|{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template:Did you know nominations/{{SUBPAGENAME}}|[[Category:DYK/Nominations|Pending]][[Category:Pending DYK nominations]]}}}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | + | {{*mp}} [[File:Symbol voting keep.svg|16px]] Update: I myself have removed the offending non-[[WP:RS]] material from the article (''Sunday Express'' tabloid nonsense; Bad Science blog entries), and made a few changes to the article. As long as the tabloid and BS blog material stays out of the article, it's balanced and accurate. I think this is now a good and accurate hook; article is good and well sourced, everything else checks out. If someone more experienced in DYK can check whether a QPQ was warranted, I think this is good to go as long as the nominator does not restore the non-RS material. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 15:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC){{#if:yes|</div></noinclude>|{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template talk:Did you know/{{SUBPAGENAME}}|[[Category:Pending DYK nominations]][[Category:DYK/Nominations|Pending]]|{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template:Did you know nominations/{{SUBPAGENAME}}|[[Category:DYK/Nominations|Pending]][[Category:Pending DYK nominations]]}}}}}} |
| + | |||
| + | Update: this article seems to have been created by the subject herself, who is not a particularly famous scientist. Unfortunately she or others now seem to be using it to cast doubt on the efficacy of the HPV vaccine, essentially using Wikipedia to spread anti-vaccination propaganda. Quotes from Diane Harper are now included that are her opinions rather than facts, making this a strong POV article rather than a biographical page. Suggest that the entire page be designated for removal. [[User:Genometer|Genometer]] ([[User talk:Genometer|talk]]) 20:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | <!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | ||
Revision as of 20:06, 10 December 2013
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 23:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Diane Harper
- ... that Diane Harper, who formerly worked on the clinical trials of the HPV vaccine, has since questioned the vaccine's safety and efficacy?
Created/expanded by Jinkinson (talk). Self nominated at 11:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC).
Observation: I think the heading "Opposition to Gardasil" should possibly be changed to "Opposition to HPV vaccine[s]" per the citations and per the fact she was involved in investigations for other HPV vaccines besides Gardasil. To focus on Gardasil alone seems possibly non-neutral POV regarding Merck. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Article is increasingly POV in favor of one brand of vaccine over another, which Harper's own WP:RS statements do not bear out. Needs a re-write (and in my opinion, a removal of all non-RS material) to prevent POV. Softlavender (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Update: I myself have removed the offending non-WP:RS material from the article (Sunday Express tabloid nonsense; Bad Science blog entries), and made a few changes to the article. As long as the tabloid and BS blog material stays out of the article, it's balanced and accurate. I think this is now a good and accurate hook; article is good and well sourced, everything else checks out. If someone more experienced in DYK can check whether a QPQ was warranted, I think this is good to go as long as the nominator does not restore the non-RS material. Softlavender (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Update: this article seems to have been created by the subject herself, who is not a particularly famous scientist. Unfortunately she or others now seem to be using it to cast doubt on the efficacy of the HPV vaccine, essentially using Wikipedia to spread anti-vaccination propaganda. Quotes from Diane Harper are now included that are her opinions rather than facts, making this a strong POV article rather than a biographical page. Suggest that the entire page be designated for removal. Genometer (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)