User:Bluevista99/sandbox

This is the user sandbox of Bluevista99. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here. Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

  *** JOBS ***

Monticello (Jefferson's plantation home)

fix alt text (& caption?) in others - (2 done [re gentry])

Desiré Dubounet

- quack/fraudster
- article seems to have been whitewashed

Andrew Wakefield as "activist": neither a neutral nor an appropriate description

Thanks for your note on my user page about your reversion of my edit to the lead of Wakefield's article (changing "agitator" back to "activist"). In the case of the discredited Wakefield, the description "activist" has inappropriate positive, supportive & non-neutral connotations which amounts to a violation of Wikipedia policy & guidelines on at least two grounds:

• 1) it violates neutrality (WP:NPOV) by inappropriately inflating Wakefield's status & legitimacy, contrary to the evidence of his fraud & corruption
• 2) it violates the prohibition on promoting fringe ideas (WP:FRINGE) by supporting Wakefield's standing and (consequently) helping to legitimise his fringe, anti-vax propaganda (e.g. his deceptive movie "Vaxxed...")

The term "activist" is normally & appropriately used to describe credible and creditable individuals who advocate for legitimate reform, e.g. veterans' welfare, civil rights, etc., etc. Therefore, the use of the term "activist" in Wakefield's case is also misleading & deceptive (and therefore non-neutral) given the evidence of his fraudulent actions and corrupt motives, as comprehensively documented throughout the article & its citations. I tried to summarise these reasons in the original edit summary, but obviously it was not as persuasive as it needed to be. :-)

If you want to consider an even more clear-cut example of how the term "activist" has been abused in a non-neutral way, please look at the article about the Sutherland Springs church shooting mass-murder, & the political extremists & vicious conspiracy-theory pushers who were originally described as "activists" until I corrected this to "agitators" (at this edit here). There's been no substantial dispute about the legitimacy of this correction so far. If you believe this needs further work, then I'm keen to see what you propose.

All of this is a tiny part of a much wider problem in Wikipedia that has resulted in the whitewashing of far too many articles about dubious & corrupt individuals & organisations using loaded language, peacock terminology, & strangely absent details & context. The subtlety & pervasiveness of this in scores of articles is quite sinister. This amounts to a form of dishonest distortion & censorship (WP:CENSOR) which is yet another violation of Wikipedia principles that must not endure. I hope we can all agree on that.

If you want to get some third-party opinions on this I'm fine with that, because there's lots of articles where this is an issue. You've said your open to trout-slapping but in this case that response seems a bit rude & over-the-top. What's wrong with debate, or just a chat? :-) Cheers! Bluevista99 (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Open this sandbox page in edit mode to access the properly formatted template.

N.B. This template text must be added immediately after "|-" (marking the end of a table row) N.B. Comments are tagged by

- | | | | | | | |