Talk:Vaccine debate

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 20 November 2019. The result of the discussion was Move without redirect to Vaccine debate.

probably needs a better name now it is not a sub-page.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5243a4.htm

Was there a-v activity or success there? Midgley 11:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this article should be merged back with anti-vaccinationists. Andrew73 14:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly part of the same thing. Is a-v short enough to take it? Midgley 20:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the anti-vaccinationists article can handle incorporating the material into the article. At least this way, there will be a central area for discussing the vaccine "controversy." And avoid the whole issue with "forking." Andrew73 21:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection. It was created as a sub-page, but not really a temporary one, rather a single chapter, which I see is not a WP policy. Someone else can move it. Midgley 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

harm comes as part of increases in infection, some increases in some infections have followed some reductions in some vaccines some of which have been partly as a public response to information some of which has been presented with care and effort by some people who some people regard as conveniently labelled by "anti-vacinationists". Midgley 19:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not NPOV unless you want to put a page to "alleged harm done by vaccines". john 20:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a page whose title indicated it was good claimed to have come of a-v's successes. In the same minute as I created that one, if I recall correctly. I had thought it might get some content. I think that those two are the opposites apposite to this page, the other one is something else, and doesn't bear on what a-vs have done and achieved. Midgley 01:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is obviously a Fork. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WeniWidiWiki 19:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not, the intention was to split the excessively long and argumentative page anti-vaccinationists into sections on some of which it would be easy to achieve NPOV. My remark above may have been insufficiently clear - is this NPOV applies not to the page, but to the single statement immediately following the question. That was taken from the talk page of anti-vaccinationists. It can all be merged back in, but it would be nice if it was possible to agree some NPOV text on what is said to be both bad and due to teh success of anti-vaccinationist argument. A corresponding page or section on things that have happened which are agreed or asserted to be good, and which are agreed or asserted to have come from a-v sucesses exists, or if it has gone away perhaps should again exist. I'm assuming there are hany people who will assert it has content... Midgley 20:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]