Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-vaccinationists

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. I'm closing this early per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Early_closings because it's clear that there is a consensus (I count 17 Keep, 4 Delete) to keep. Moreover, it's seems inconceivable to me that the tide could change so drastically that a consensus in the other direction could possibly evolve. On top of all that, the debate has turned into a nasty brawl, which is never a good thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-vaccinationists

POV fork, undefined term — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifern (talk • contribs)

  • Delete - this article is based on a premise not in evidence, namely that there is a unified movement called "anti-vaccinationists." There isn't even a single mention of the term in a Google search. The editor is trying to cram every single objection to vaccinations into this article, thereby burying these objections under a blanket category that isn't even exist. --Leifern 03:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They were called anti-vaccinists in smallpox days. john 14:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Smallpox days there was only one vaccine. Midgley 17:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness, what was the Google search that was made, please? Midgley 18:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page is being used as part of a POV war by a group of medical contributors - a partial list found here [[1]]. It is their latest tactic. They are at present hoovering up numerous Wikipedia pages containing information they do not agree with, dumping it here to marginalise it. A recent example which is a safety issue and is not "anti-vaccine" but a concern to protect infants and children worldwide is the demand for the complete removal of the mercury neurotoxin thiomersal/thimerosal from childhood vaccines - see [[2]].
They have invented a broad definition of "anti-vaccinationist" to catch anything that remotely could be considered critical of the medical profession and harm caused by their use of vaccination - see [[3]] and the agenda.
Here are recent page deletion attempts (another new tactic to strangle Wiki pages almost before they have emerged from "stubdom") [[4]]
This critique exemplifies how they use RfC's and suchlike to attack users who contribute to pages they disagree with [[5]]
Here are examples of edit histories showing a small number of the kinds of pages where some of the people identified here [[[[6]]]] are active on these issues:-
This kind of activity is an anathema to Wikipedia and is extremely damaging to its concept as an encyclopedia and the objective of NPOV. It can also be seen from the above and the deletion of the information from the Thimerosal page that the following comment by one of this determined band of individuals is not true:-
Strictly, at least in my concept of the article, which is subject to change in the wiki, it isn't about the objections to vaccinations! It is about the people making them, how they are made, and less about the relationship of the objections to truth than the behaviour of the people and the torpes or memes when it is demonstrated sufficiently clerly for most people that an objection is not grounded in objective reality (usually that is it scopied a few more hundred times and not corrected anywhere) Midgley 04:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following comment moved for continuity of response - posted regarding paragraph above commencing "Here are recent page deletion attempts "
The following comment will be about other pages and other requests for deletion, and will say the author knows what the comment to be made next will say, and that it won't be true. I have been editing WP for only half a year and am unaccustomed to reversed timelines. Midgley 15:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining that. It is most helpful and enlightening and will be borne in mind on future occasions, should similar circumstances prevail. The Invisible Anon 21:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of this writing my user page is included in the list of users that this anon claims are a group of medical contributors engaging in a POV war. This represents a big presumption of bad faith on the anon's part. I sort of think I should complain to someone about his assertion, but it is such an outlandish claim I cannot think anyone would take it seriously. What should I do? Steve Kd4ttc 18:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not enter into dialogue with me on my talk page and we can discuss what is troubling you look at the evidence and see how we can resolve it by mature dialogue? The Invisible Anon 21:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The anon is advised that references to groups or cabals of Wikipedia editors in a fashion that attributes a bad faith intent is not in keeping with traditions established on Wikipedia. Your behavior can result in sanctions against you. You should take steps to eliminate you accusations. Kd4ttc 16:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate forum to deal with this in on my talk page. I invite you again to please discuss the matter in the appropriate forum - on my user page. This is an RfD and does not therefore appear to be the appropriate forum. I also came across this comment from Kd4ttc by chance, having been waiting for a message to appear on the talk page. The Invisible Anon 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite have contructed a nice nickname, this user (86.10.231.219) is not registered and the closing admin may want to keep this in mind when tallying. JFW | T@lk 11:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Votes of anons do count. Need strong evidence of bad faith not to count them. See [Rough Consensus] ".... administrators can disregard opinions and comments if ... strong evidence ... not made in good faith ... "bad faith" opinions include those made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." Check my edit history for evidence of good faith and do not presume bad faith. The Invisible Anon 11:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin, please note as possible evidence of bad faith The Invisible Anon(86.10.231.219)'s deletion of two opponents' votes (see here).David Ruben Talk 15:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin, please also note explanation [[7]], acceptance of explanation [[8]] and further dialogue to take place on David Ruben's talk page. The Invisible Anon 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but they are not a unified group, and many of those who are opposed to one vaccination policy are not against another. --Leifern 03:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
could you give an example of that? Nobody else has, in the large discussion. Midgley 03:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See here [9] among many many others. --Leifern 17:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People can be vegetarians for many reasons. Some oppose killing animals for food. Some believe that grazing cattle for food is an inefficient use of natural resources. Some feel that a meatless diet is healthier. Some have discovered that vegetables are less expensive. Still, we have an article on vegetarianism. This doesn't rule out the creation of subarticles to discuss the different aspects of vegetarianism—indeed, as the main article has grown, many articles describing various aspects of vegetarianism have been spun off. A similar process has taken place at conservatism, with appropriate subarticles addressing the many disparate social and economic philosophies that can fall under the 'conservative' banner.
Perhaps move this stuff over to anti-vaccination movement and parcel it up from there, but I think it's quite appropriate to have an article on this topic. That there are different philosophies and degrees of opposition to vaccination should not preclude Wikipedia from discussing the forest as well as the trees. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent example of the idea, es, but I actually wondered if anyone would produce a particular person or group who goes to the trouble of broadcasting that they are against vaccine A but for vaccines B C D E F G H I and J. I'm sure there are plenty of people who hold those views on their own, but is what was asserted demonstrated, that that viewpoint is pressed upon others. Midgley 21:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To discuss all skepticism to vaccines under one category is misleading - there is an Anti-Vaccination League, but it is not clear or documented how many of those who perhaps oppose thimerosal, or combining multiple vaccines, or innoculating against every childhood disease would sign up with the Anti-Vaccination League. --Leifern 04:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify or document part of that, please? Midgley 17:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but it is a fallacy to assume that all skepticism to thimerosal or a particular vaccination schedule, etc., is caused by individuals who are categorically against vaccinations, as the editor and title seems to suggest. Vaccine controversy is framed as a neutral description of the controversy with plenty of space for both sides of the issue. This article commits several rhetorical fallacies. --Leifern 03:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A reason to edit it - not to delete it. Michael Ralston 03:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the criteria for describing a group of people, and labeling it as such, is that one can carefully define who they are, ideally that they self-identify using a label that is similar to the title used in the article, and distinguishing them from others is meaningful. I am not opposed to presenting the content that is jammed into this article, but it needs to be presented where it makes sense. --Leifern 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • TenOfAllTrades, is that a keep, redirect or merge vote? JFW | T@lk 11:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Yes it is. :D It strikes me as reasonably obvious that at this point the page in question isn't going to reach a consensus for deletion, so I'm trying to move on to some sort of sensible discussion of what should happen after this nomination closes. AfD is supposed to be about more than votes; there's good information in the article; as the article stands it needs some serious refactoring and possibly renaming; the closing admin for this AfD isn't going to be able to fix everything magically at the end of the discussion period, so we're going to have to talk about this; you can take those points in any order you like. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of evidence, including on Wikipedia, that opponents of vaccination have organised themselves and have a collective viewpoint that can be dealt with in an encyclopedic fashion. A paper in the BMJ and numerous extant organisations most eloquently argue against Leifern's assertions. The main representatives of this movement here on Wikipedia (Ombudsman, Leifern, Whaleto, 86.10.231.219) will have various claims but none stand up to serious scrutiny. JFW | T@lk 11:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The allegation that I represent an anti-vaccinationist movement is false and unfounded. Please retract. --Leifern 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I retract that you represent the movement, I do not retract that you have consistently come to the defense of said representatives. JFW | T@lk 03:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also false and unfounded. I have simply tried to make sure that their side is represented accurately. --Leifern 13:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: This article's development has been afforded a great deal of latitude, with relatively gentle suggestions to tone down the rhetoric rather than wholesale content deletions, but little has been done to deliver even a modicum of npov. With all due respect to those who have made good faith efforts to establish a viable article, the pov seems to have worsened, the discussion veers away from the anachronistic 'anti-vaccinationists' toward attacks on modern vaccine critics, and even the dispute tag keeps getting removed. Although there is a place for both 'anti-vax' and 'vax critics' articles, this particular article can be described by a singe word: unsalvageable. Ombudsman 12:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: But first: why isn't this AfD listed under Feb 2 Leifern? I can't find it on that page. Second, why have the keeps and comments of DavidRuben and Midgley disappeared? Third, "The Invisible Anon" (86.10.231.219) is pretending to be a registered user (why, for the love of God, why??!!?), and is a sock puppet for all intensive purposes. This article is in desperate need of a very thorough NPOVing (and cleanup); I haven't done anything since it would turn into a three way edit war between NPOV, the anti-vax POV and the anti-anti-vax POV. Since all the articles John (Whaleto) has been creating about anti-vaxers have been essentially one-liners (created for the purpose of smearing the practice of vaccination) and no other bio info can be found, this article needs to incorporate all those bios. Does nobody read about the proper way to create articles and behave anymore?? --CDN99 13:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what happened - I followed the directions scrupulously. My suggestion for the Invisible Anon is that we don't count his/her vote, but we should certainly take seriously his/her arguments. --Leifern 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"'The Invisible Anon' .... is a sock puppet", "is pretending to be a registered user",
This is 1) presuming bad faith when none 2) alleging fraudulent behaviour when none and 3) no 'strong evidence of bad faith presented (there is none and plenty of good faith - see edit hist) - and which is required otherwise the vote counts. The Invisible Anon 13:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid. Source. 1) your opinion is being voiced anonymously, 2) your opinion is being voiced anonymously and 3) your opinion is being voiced anonymously. You are an IP, there is no way to tell if that "good faith" was presented by you or someone else. --CDN99 13:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anon Votes Count. Haven't you noticed, practically everyone on Wikipedia is anonymous? Have you put your real identity on Wikipedia? If not then are you saying your vote does not count too?
There has to be strong evidence of bad faith, not lots of good faith like I have here.
The Invisible Anon 14:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly, "everyone on WP is pseudonymous" is more nearly correct than "everyone... is anonymous". Usernames secured by passwords and logged provide fairly strong evidence of continued identity, whereas an IP address does not. Ross Anderson (Cambridge U) and others have written a lot about that and discussion on the UK-Crypto list has turned to it from time to time. It is relevant to medical records and communications, that's why I'm able to make this small digression. Midgley 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might wonder if The Invisible Anon(86.10.231.219)'s previous deletion of the votes of two opponents counts as evidence of bad faith? (see here).David Ruben Talk 15:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin, please also note explanation [[13]], acceptance of explanation [[14]] and further dialogue to take place on David Ruben's talk page. The Invisible Anon 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just an attempt my Madge to delete by merger all my vaccine critic pages into one dog's dinner he created to push his POV. He has kept out one of my main assertions, for example. A vaccinator creating an anti-vaccine page, says it all. And a big cheek considering this was my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_critics Click on that. john 14:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my link. Midgley 17:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please review Wikipedia's policy on article ownership—while contributions are welcome from everyone, nobody owns the pages that they work on. As it says under the edit window, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Please work this out through discussion rather than namecalling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Important Point - Summary john's concern is valid in general regarding page hijacking:-
This is an untrue assertion, unbacked by any indication (eg from the page history) that a page existed which I hijacked. It is probably a lie, but could in other people be a misapprehension due to not understanding how to read the history of a page (which Ombudsman has effectively pointed out, I am not perfect at, yet). I started the page. John has made significant additions to it which are definitely of value in teh article that is evolving. Without re-reading the history, my recollection is that Ombudsman's (a bad name offering a false impression of offical status I deprecate) contributions have been restricted to adding tags and barracking on the talk page. I assert bad faith.
  • a strident pro-vaccine editor Midgley, who with support from an identifiable alliance of editors, has been scurrying around Wikipedia deleting anything in sight to do with what he calls anti-vaccine information and takes over a page originally intended to set out the view of vaccine critics;
This is simply a lie. I created the page de novo. Other pages have existed, one probably was created to set out hte view of a group who the author asserted were not "anti-vaccinationist" but "critics" and was deleted after WP procedure. (After several references to vaccine_critics and Ombudsman's changing the name of the existing page to vaccine_critics, I attempted to resolve this in a helpful fashion to anyone who wanted to read about vaccine critics by making a redirect to the page in question. Redirects are cheap. Anyone who wants to write vaccine_critics as vaccine critics and demonstrate a distinction is perfectly at liberty to actually do so, just undo the redirect.)Midgley 13:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • vaccine critics are predominantly not anti-vaccinationists;
THis is discussed on the talk page, and is an asertion that could be tested by demonstration of the separate populations, which might well make a good addition to this or an article. Ombudsman asserts that he knows about this... but doesn't actually write about it or provide references. I think that it is untrue, but that it is possible to believe that he believes it himself Midgley 13:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • he then turns the page into a page about anti-vaccinationists - a movement which appears from what he has put on this page, to have died out in the 1800's;
Untrue see above. Midgley 13:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is no page suitable for setting out the views of the modern day vaccine critics;
write, then Midgley 13:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • he then hijacks material which is not anti-vaccine but about ensuring what is in the vaccines are safe (removal of thimerosal/mercury vaccine additive), and dumps it here together with lots of other information which does not seem to naturally belong here;
That is another page. It is now two other pages. Both of them are IMHO quite good pages, Thimerosal was poor before and is now an unremarkable page giving a good account of a chemical, Thimerosal controversy is pretty good also, and gives an account of the controversy. Leifern, whom I regard as unduly hasty, rude and insufficiently careful in rawing conclusions, as well as clearly having a deep personal feeling about THimerosal, did a good bit of page creation, which I believe he would not have done without my beingbold. Credit me with an assist on that goal, and the paragraph and links the edits distilled into on the article in question is I think quite good. Credit for that to one of the commentators on the Talk:Thimerosal page.
I can only laugh at your characterization of my personality. You deleted an entire section of a relatively stable though highly controversial article, stuffed it into another article with a misleading title. That is far far far from the outcome. As for my feelings and motivations, I can only note that they keep being mischaracterized constantly. What I have made abundantly clear to you is that I believe the public has a right to make an informed judgment on thimerosal by understanding the full controversy. Any responsible physician would agree with me both out of moral conviction and legal necessity. It amazes me that you are indicting my motivation on that basis. --Leifern 13:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a responsible physician. Your version of an article would be along the lines of "Thimerosal is bad and does harm in teh following ways. BTW, here is somethign abu its chemistry." We now have an article about its chemistry, which is quite good, we also have an article about the arguments over how bad it is and whether it does harm, which is an argument which has been assimilated by a population of people who wish to abolish all vaccination for a disparate overlapping collection of reasons, as well as - I think, and Leifern asserts - being used by people who are in favour of some vaccinations, or even all vaccinations, except if they contain deliberate or perhaps molecule-couting traces of Thiomersal. THe world is complex and fluffy - Lefern displays a tendency to being concrete. And should not assume that any Physician who disagrees with his ordering of data is not a responsible one. Not publicly. Not in WP. Midgley 17:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would thank you, Migdley, not to put words in my mouth. And the controversy about Thimerosal is not about "molecule-counting." If the world is complex and fluffy (notwithstanding your baseless allegation of my "tendencies" - one of several ad hominems against me by you and others, I might add), then we owe it to our readers to present accurately the state of various controversies. Lumping all reservations against all aspects of vaccines under an article about anti-vaccinationists does not accomplish that. --Leifern 17:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every part of this process is entirely innocent of any improvement by Ombudsman or the possibly distinct 86.10.231.219, as actually is any argument about the relationship between vaccine protests and protestors and complaints about Thimerosal. Restored froamtting. Edit carefully please. Midgley 17:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: this page is a fraud and cannot possibly remain on Wikipedia. The anachronism of the alleged "anti-vaccinationist" movements of the 1800s have nothing to do with the concerns and criticism about the harms associated with the explosion in use of vaccines in the past 20 years for infants and under 5's. It is a gross mish-mash and babel.
THere is a challenge and response - one can't say a dialogue - on the talk page headed "historicity". THere is a point in there. THe assertion above is not supportd by fact, and derives from the BMJ paper and other material. It would be possible, and perhaps interesting, to argue that there is a clear discontinuity - that argument has not occurred some people, having learned nothing from history, wish to condemn us to repeat it(mashing some quotations there.). Midgley 13:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As CDN99 said above "I haven't done anything since it would turn into a three way edit war between NPOV, the anti-vax POV and the anti-anti-vax POV." It is difficult to see that was anything other than the intention of Midgley and it is inappropriate for Wikipedia pages to be created and used in that way. It must go. No one should be expected to try to get this page into NPOV shape in such aggressively antagonistic circumstances, seemingly created intentionally.
The Invisible Anon 15:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative conclusion: this response is a tissue of deliberate lies. Midgley 13:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but this assumes that vaccine detractors only have concern for a single specific issue, rather than jumping on every possible theory (whether conventional conjecture/hypothesis or new-age alternativism) to dismiss vaccinations, micro-organisms as cause of disease etc. It also assumes that vaccines cause 'harm', something that the overwhelming majority of doctors, researchers, statisticians, epidemiologists, health policy advisors and governments across the world find no evidence for.
- The meaning of 'harm' is here used to imply a generalised nature inherent in the procedure, rather than any specific individual's mild reaction, or very rare more serious reaction - one can reject a blanket view that 'antibiotics are harmful' (I've seen a couple of children nearly die from cellulitis due to parental disbelief of conventional medicine/antibiotics vs homeopathy) as separate from 'some people experience discrete allergic reaction to individual drugs'
- The proposition initial use of the phrase 'a group of medical contributors' might imply some equivalence in the numbers of people on each side of a debate. However anti-vaccinators are numerically a tiny minority view-point. Were it not for how vocal & strident they were, nor the media's fixation with sensationalist reporting, then their views would not be notable to the vast majority and would be denied credence under WP's policy of not accepting trivial minority view-points. However this is clearly not the case and the media-sociological 'controversy' is notable and therefore should be noted within WP.
The vocal detractors do form an anti-vaccine (and anti-medicine) sentiment, even if one accepts that some only have single concerns rather than accepting entirely the general conspiracy belief. However the various web sites duplicate unverifiable, poorly cited non-evidence based references and manage to confuse journalists, and thus the public, neither of whom have a responsibility for critical-reading of pseudoscience's obscurification. Yes people are entitled to good quality information (after all it is reasonable to ask if everyone else is vaccinated what is the utility in the remaining individuals having a vaccine ?) but this is what pier-reviewed journals, governments & medicine generally seeks to do. With UK official estimates of over a hundred children dying as a consequence of poor uptake of Pertusis vaccine with no eventual proof found for the assertion it causes neurological damage, anti-vaccination movement is clearly real and posses a threat to societies wellbeing, however well intentioned individual anti-vaccinationists are. David Ruben Talk 16:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How dare you The Invisible Anon(86.10.231.219) delete two opponent's votes, see here. Thanks CDN99 for spotting this. I re-post both votes below:

Thank you for pointing this out, but it is a nonsense and instead of levelling accusations you should have sought explanation.
Contrary to your allegation, shooting first and then asking questions, you presume I have intentionally deleted text. If you take another look at the text you will see that there is a stub of text which would not be left by someone intentionally deleting votes:-
"- :::A reason to edit it - not to ..." from a posting by Michael Ralston 03:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
You will also see that I had been editing the page at the time.
I regularly copy and paste the text from the window as I edit to save it and can have several windows open at once. It is quite clear to me that a chunk of text has been deleted from a window with nothing intentional about it. Take a look elsewhere through all my edits and see if I have done anything like it. You will not find it because I have not. If I had deleted text intentionally, I would not have been banging on about my good faith.
Also, no one would deliberately delete for example Midgley's vote, the chief protagonist in the matter. That would be so obviously noticed and there were very few votes in any event and people will have pages on their watch lists.
You might like to look at this text of mine [[15]] deleted in its entirety by Midgley. Are you going to accuse Midgley of deleting it deliberately so that my vote would not be counted? No you will not. So kindly afford me the same courtesy and do not be so quick to accuse. It is done with monotonous regularity in these pages and it is so unnecessary.
The Invisible Anon 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your explanation & apology (I think) regarding the deletion, however:
-I can't engage in dialogue if you are an anon user without their own user page/talk-page.
-WP normally posts a warning if I inadvertently engage in an edit conflict, does being anon alter how WP works for you?
-You had edited 4 times after CDN99 had pointed out the deletions without identifying your role in this and correcting.
I'm sure we can both accept we are never likely to agree on the topic of vaccination, but both 'sides' exist and can't in truth dismiss the existence of the other. Other topics are strongly argued over (eg Electroconvulsive therapy, but there is no denying that the detractors highlighted a very badly referenced article, and the debate improves the discussion of both sides, even if no final consensus yet reached). Is not POV/NPOV debate something for a talk page to reach a consensus (or at least agreement on where to disagree, e.g. abortion or contraception pages), rather than outright deletion? I think some of 'detractors' comments in the talk page have been very constructive, even if they clearly dislike having in principle an article that focuses on a (loose) movement. David Ruben Talk 16:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
David, thank you for the professional and helpful tone of this posting. I will respond to your talk page, hopefully without inadvertently deleting anything else on this page. The Invisible Anon 17:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is an interesting topic with ramifications, which would not be better dealt with by spreading it out into each and every article that mentions vaccines. Midgley 03:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- :Comment: It is not based on a premise as given in the delete header. Leifern has not had sufficient time to read teh large collection of material already there, which probably accounts for that false meta-premise. It does assert that there is a commonlaity, a thread in history, and a collection of unifying themes whisch make this a social phenomenom of some note. It is interesting that some vry clearly identified members of the class are resisting attempts to describe the tendency they put signifciant effort into, and asserting that things are unknown or material does not exist, rather than adding or finding any. I'm impressed with Geni's demonstration fo good material in moments, if not with Leifern's apparent Google search - perhaps it was an inadvertent miskeying. Midgley 04:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this is a real movement (albeit perhaps loosely co-ordinated) as witnessed by any health worker who daily comes across the fear & rejection of generally safe & effective vaccinations by parents who are understandably reacting to the cynical nonsence targeted at them. To see the distress of a child then going through 3-months of whooping cough, or suffer perminant hearing loss that could have been prevented by MMR vaccination is an outrage, however some in alternative medicine would dispute that microorganisms cause diseases at all. Then again its only doctors/schools/health departments/researchers/government health-policy that try to be proactive and prevent this, but they are all in a financial conspiracy according to anti-vaccinationists whose concience need not be troubled by having to take responsibility.
Whilst I agree that vaccine controversy links with this, the overall subject is too large for one article. Vaccine controversy should discuss the overall subject matter and the major controversies (pertussis and now currently MMR & thimerosal), whilst this one explores the individuals, movements and specific arguments raised. As will be seen in this article, the point-by-point demolishing of the anti-vaccinationists' pseudoscience requires great detail, that has been carefully collected cited and verified in this article. Unfortunately I suspect that the complexity of the subject matter will probably preclude it from every being a FA.David Ruben Talk 04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We assert that all of your above points are 100% untrue. Over 100 children every year are killed by vaccines in the USA, which is just the tip of the iceberg. This is pseudo science by the bucketload [[deprecated source?] john 20:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was quite surprised by finding out that there is an identifiable and articulated world view underlying what seemed to me to be total incoherent rubbish (note that this is complimentary and indicates an improvement in both understanding through researching and writing this and an increased iota of respect for the people with it). Given this underlying framework which I do not think is laid out anywhere in a form easy to understand even that it exists, it is to be presumed there is a common ancestral viewpoint back at perhaps the time of Pericles to pick a random historical figure who might believe in spontaneous generation of life from rotting meat etc.
In order to understand the present day, and interpret the actions and beliefs of some people of a group which is definable though not crisply enough to saitisfy those here who behave as members of it, it is necessary to consider the past, in order for others later to understand it is useful to lay out a trail for them, and that looks to me like one of the better articles to come out of the one being discussed.
I do claim that the Thimerosal controversy article is a good one, as is Thimerosal and that they are each and both better as a result of the fission and fusion of this and the previous version of the Thimerosal article. Midgley 16:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: wow. that's a discussion and a half. no wonder it was orphaned. RasputinAXP talk contribs 16:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ditto. As to the background, I think this situation needs admin attention. As JFW says, there is a group of editors (mainly Ombudsman, Whaleto, and 86.10.231.219) who concentrate strongly on adding anti-vaccination and other anti-mainstream medical material to Wikipedia. This is fine; it's a notable topic, historically and currently. What's not fine is the basis of those edits in frequent personal abuse, breach of NPOV, and openly stated bad faith assumptions about editors who disagree with them. For instance, check out the lists at User:Whaleto and User:86.10.231.219. Tearlach 16:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree per JFW, Tearlach, et al. This situation should be dealt with harshly by admins. Deleting people's keep votes on AFD is unconscionable. I agree with Tearlach; this is part of an ongoing campaign to eliminate criticism of pseudoscience throughout Wikipedia. Skinwalker 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of this writing in a section above my user page is included in the list of users that an anon (The invisible anon he calls himself) claims are a group of medical contributors engaging in a POV war. This represents a big presumption of bad faith on the anon's part. I sort of think I should complain to someone about his assertion, but it is such an outlandish claim I cannot think anyone would take it seriously. What should I do? Kd4ttc 18:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I have suggested above where you posted the identical remark, "Why not enter into dialogue with me on my talk page and we can discuss what is troubling you look at the evidence and see how we can resolve it by mature dialogue?" The Invisible Anon 21:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - who among those who voted Keep agrees with the following statement: While all "anti-vaccinationists" are critical to vaccines, not all those who are critical to vaccines are anti-vaccinationists? This should really determine the future of this article. --Leifern 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a piece of logic, I would agree with you. The problem is that many (I logically can't claim all) who present as raising just a single critism have as their agenda outright banning of vaccinations, but realise that they are more likely to succeed by advancing in more reasonable-sounding small steps. Or to put it another way, for each point that one might argue against, another and then another point will be raised. Over the decades there has been concerted attacks against (?all) vaccination programmes with each 'supportive' study dismissed as being misinterpreted, biased or part of some corrupt government-medical-pharmaceutical conspiracy, and so the appearance is of a anti-vaccination agenda even if one accepts some individual detractors truely have just a single area of (reasonable) concern David Ruben Talk 04:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposition above can be improved upon. Try: " While "anti-vaccinationists" are critical to (substantially) all vaccines, not all those who are critical of some vaccines are anti-vaccinationists? " but I'd suggest inverting it - "While some people individually have criticisms of some aspects of some vaccines, vaccination in some circumstances, or aspects of vaccination policy, there have also been since 1798 and still are at the present day some people who work, commonly in concert against all vaccination with all vaccines in all circumstances. A factor frequently found among the latter is that they present their opposition as to some aspect or subset, whereas by their behaviour its scope is as described. Other common factors include the types and quality of argument advanced." I think that one is quite good, actually. Midgley 17:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Be very careful about what you imply here, lest it sound like a conspiracy theory. There is no question there has been an anti-vaccination movement that categorically rejects the benefits of vaccinations. But to imply that all skepticism toward some aspects of vaccination is part and parcel of that movement is a fallacy - it would be like saying that those who were against Thalidomide were against medicine. The article - which looks like it will survive - should limit itself to discussing the movement itself and contain links to articles about the specific controversies. Anything else would be redundant to Vaccine controversy. --Leifern 13:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You mean say something like "some people individually have criticisms of some aspects of some vaccines, vaccination in some circumstances, or aspects of vaccination policy," as part of it? I'm sure we should all be careful what we imply. Midgley 17:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Written in English, something along those lines - but let's be clear: the article must be about anti-vaccinationists, not about people you might think might be anti-vaccinationists, and not about at length about the various issues. --Leifern 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I quoted a phrase which is already in the proposition you are criticising. It is in there because when I wrote it I worked out what it needed to say. It isn't a simple specification, but neither has the world. That was a poor criticism. Midgley 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The page should be called Vaccine critics like I suggested before you hijacked it, as anti-vaccinists (a better term, and used historically) are a subset of the larger group of vaccine critics, eg Edward Yazbak is not anti-vaccine. And unless you have a page to vaccine critics there is no place for them on an anti-vaccine page. Was that your design, to eliminate 90% of vaccine critics? Also few want to be labelled "anti-vaccine" as it a label similar to "kook", so I can't imagine anyone saying they are anti-vaccine, even if they were. We can see your POV leading to that ie marginalising the radicals--- "The first step in his strategy is to isolate and marginalize the radicals. They're the ones who see the inherent structural problems that need remedying if indeed a particular change is to occur. To isolate them, PR firms will try to create a perception in the public mind that people advocating fundamental solutions are terrorists, extremists, fearmongers, outsiders, communists, or whatever."--John Stauber. In summary your page is another kook page that suppresses the majority of vaccine critics. We can see your true motives exposed in your deletion-by-meger tactics [17], [18], [19], not forgetting your attempt to delete the number one medical anti-vaccinist Dr Mendelsohn [20]. A good move for a vaccinator. john 00:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
john, are you saying that being "anti-vaccine" is the same as being a "kook"? Andrew73 23:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your articles, John, are being attacked not because of their topic, but because they are selective and biased, and show you're making no effort to create the kind of broad-based biographies suitable for an encyclopedia. You merely pick the bits from articles favorable to your beliefs floating around on the anti-vaccination circuit, and make no effort to find other details (even simple stuff like birth and death dates that you can often find via Google) that fill out the biography in areas not related to your idee fixe about vaccination. If you started doing this, you'd be amazed at how rapidly the heat on you would diminish. 213.130.142.10 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • John's comment makes little sense:- 1) The page did not exist before I started writing it - I did not and obviously could not have hijacked it. 2) If John believes there should be a page called vaccine critics it is ridiculously easy for him to remove the redirect and start writing it. If he writes about the larger group that criticise vaccination while regarding some vaccination as good, then we can see how the material sorts itself out and who remains in the smaller group who are against all vaccination and describe themselves variably as a tactic in argument. Come on John - there are two people here writing thousands of words many of which are about there being a group identifiable as vaccine critics - why not put a few on the page you say is needed? Midgley 23:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite convinced that the explanation of the Kano activity is actually anti-vaccinationism. It may be, but I suspect it is itself being used as a small ploy in a much wider dispute and conflict over power and influence - possibly along the lines of the West is bad: the vaccine comes from the West: therefore the vaccine is bad. To join that into a seamless whole with the current western anti-vax (if that is an uncontroversial label, of what is it a contraction?) would require exploration of the world-views - being done - and a demonstration that a substantial proportion not only retain an 18th century view of why milk goes sour and grapes become more interesting which is possible, half-asserted by John, but undemonstrated and gives me for one trouble swallowing since Pasteur's work is so easy to duplicate in the kitchen, but crucially have a burning and possibly "religious" desire to spread this to the rest of us. It is an interesting part of a topic, and if the roots of that have to go back to Pericles and his cohorts, then I hope scholars of that era will render assistance. Midgley 13:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, anthing except anti-vaccine, as I said above, it is just a ploy to elinminate 90% of the vaccine critics. Anti-vaccine is a kook term in general usage. If there was a page to vaccine critics or opposition to vaccination then anti-vaccine could be a sub page, but by itself it is being used to marginalise the radicals into a pen labelled kook, which is an old ploy. If that wasn't the game why did they change the name Vaccine critics into this page? That was an obvious name but they couldn't label us with the kook tag [21], and it eliminates 90% of vaccine criticism from Wikipedia. john 00:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A point for negotiation, perhaps? If you find "anti-vaccine" etc pejorative, people might be more receptive to finding a mutually acceptable term if you stop using the term "allopath" that others find pejorative. It cuts both ways. 213.130.142.10 00:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The viewpoint of the vast majority (medical, health policy) is of the terms anti(-)vaccination(ist)(s) (over 68,000 hits on Google.co.uk search for permutations) and my preference is for the term, in the same way one describes 'vegitarians' rather than 'opposition to meat eating', or 'pacifists' vs 'opposition to taking up arms'. The semantics are difficult here, for each choice has some POV behind it, and I am not sure are necessarily precisely the same things (eg concerns for excess red-meat eating as a risk for cancer is quite different from ethical/moral approach taken by vegitarians or vegans).David Ruben Talk 04:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we consider copyright of one's materials, then the very large degree of replication of essentially identical text across large numbers of websites with no indication of objections suggests the owners of those sites are unified in some respects. (By contrast, national authorities generally restrict copying of their information and prohibit refactoring it - this reduces their visibility vis a vis the highly interlinked subset of the Web whcih we are discussing.)
No, editing other people's comments is a big no-no. --Leifern 13:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is detailed, coherent, well-written, and a few minutes on the internet or medline will demonstrate to anyone that this is topic worth an article. The nomination for deletion is an extraordinarily bad faith motion. alteripse 14:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take that as a personal attack - there is no basis for such an allegation. --Leifern 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Leifern it was an attack on your action, not your person. This is another example of you not understanding (or misusing) the basic definition of important terms around here. This article did not meet any of the AFD criteria even remotely. It was a detailed, coherent article about an encyclopedic topic that other people have written articles about in the medical literature. It was not original research. It is hard to come to any other conclusion than that you nominated it for deletion because you disagree with some of its interpretations of fact-- precisely a bad faith nomination. alteripse 00:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is such a coherent account and so well researched that:-
  1. Midgley cannot provide a references for the source of his definition of "anti-vaccinationist" and
Here's a reference for the term "anti-vaccinationist." It's described in the August 24, 2002 issue of the BMJ [22]. Andrew73 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a term in current coinage. This article contains no definition of the term. It is not exactly an independent or impartial source - written by a vaccinator in the in-house journal of the British Medical Association. This source has already been cited several times suggesting there is a lack of sources to justify the use being given to the term on this page.
Also, interestingly, I have searched multiple dictionaries and that includes a medical dictionary and, whilst struggling hard to find even one definition of "anti-vaccinationist" "vaccinator" does have a dictionary definition [[23]]
The Invisible Anon 10:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Invisible Anon, I agree with you that "anti-vaccinationist" may be more of a historical term, and perhaps the purposes and the spirit of the article would be better suited with a different name. On the other hand, the British Medical Association represents more mainstream opinion than other potential sources like whale.to, etc. Andrew73 12:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it's a long-standing misconception that words are only valid if they appear in dictionaries (the long omission of c**t is a classic example). If they appear in the general corpus of written English, particular when repeatedly used in mainstream publications, they exist. As to the particular extent of "anti-vaccinationist", see here. In the Times archive up to 1985, I find 31 hits for "anti-vaccinationist" (spread from 1833 to 1964) and 71 for "anti-vaccinationists" (1870 to 1962). Google Books finds more, from George Bernard Shaw to recent books. Tearlach 13:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. it has that air of pure invention about it and it is so suspiciously broad as to catch such wide a range of opinions that Midgley says on the talk page[[24]]:-
"Anyone who has real trouble working out what defines an anti-vaccinationist (and why the Chief Medical Office of the UK is not an anti-vacciantionist because he thinks that we should vaccinate against Rubella, but not, routinely against Chickenpox, in 2005) then I suggest two things:-
* 1. Look at the tables and try to match beliefs to people;
* 2. describe a person here on the Talk: page, and we'll come to a delphic concensus on whether they are, or are not."
And by Midgley's definition of "anti-vaccinationist" The UK's Chief Medical Officer is an anti-vaccinationist because, according to this definition he objects on "principled or other grounds" to some vaccinations.
As for the proposition describe a person here on the Talk: page, and we'll come to a delphic concensus? That is extraordinary. You mean it is not possible to tell from the definition? But I thought these people were identifiable and organised? And where do vaccine critics who are not anti-vaccine fit into all of this? They do not, but Midgley's definition includes them.
Further, it just will not be possible to get all relevant information onto just one page, [Article Size] but is that the idea? To restrict all further information because this is the one page for it all?
And this is not an excuse to create one page where all criticism of vaccines is to be dumped and marginalised? Difficult to agree that one.
As for accusations of "bad faith" not being a personal attack, I will bear that in mind and quote it if ever anyone accuses me of accusing them of "bad faith". However, I do not rate my chances of success too highly with that one.
The Invisible Anon 01:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-awareness should include understanding that when people come to conclusions, even wrong ones, there is usually some basis. I could suggest as a possibility that if someone has a hissy fit in public, issues threats and asserts another editor of a page one has a clear and declared personal interest in is a vandal, and then instantly lists for deletion a page of that editor when it is, to quote an also experienced editor above here "obviously not going to reach a consensus for deletion" that there is a risk that any or all of it may be taken as prima facie evidence of bad faith. If Leifern prints that out and hangs it on his monitor he will have a reminder of how a proportion of the human race think, and what conclusions they may draw from some possible acts. Now, as to the actual motives and degree of accuracy of the suggested deletion I think that is best left out of here, becuase it isn't relevant to the advice above. In the course of work I often find myself giving similar advice to people whose lives are less happy than many bystanders think they could be, and it is often rejected. Midgley 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can only judge the actions that I observe on Wikipedia. Now, let's take your accusations:
  • Blanking entire sections of articles is listed as vandalism in WP:Vandalism. There are ongoing debates as to whether it is vandalism only if there is evidence of bad faith, but I find it very hard to ascertain motivation here on this medium and in general. So I issued a warning that such behavior does amount to vandalism, and that it would be reported as such if it was repeated.
  • There is a policy in Wikipedia also against POV forks and articles with titles that beg the question. In your original version of the article, both these were fulfilled.
  • "Prima facie" means, quite literally, "on its face." In no way can my conduct be viewed as prima facie evidence. It could, I suppose, and with some imagination and ill will, be construed as "circumstancial evidence," but that is the exact opposite of prima facie.
  • I think the debate about this article has been useful and probably led to some improvements in the article itself. I don't know how many articles that are put up for deletion get deleted, but the advice of one "experienced editor" is not going to dissuade me from doing what I think is right.
  • As for what most of the human race thinks, I think our work here is to overcome prejudices and fallacies that we all succumb to every once in a while. A common one among mediocre physicians (as well as a few other exposed professions) is that they have a superior intellect to others, or that medical science has answers to most things. --Leifern 19:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is less than complete and accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leifern&diff=prev&oldid=37935853 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Midgley&diff=prev&oldid=37946791 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Midgley&diff=prev&oldid=37936290 "My son was poisoned by thimerosal and is only now starting to recover. I don't expect everyone to believe me, but I want people to be aware of the specifics of the controversy. Readers of Wikipedia have a right to make informed consent. --Leifern 00:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)" "Are you a sockpuppet for Geni? --Leifern 01:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)" Chill, boy. Midgley 20:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is entirely consistent with what I have said all along. I have a son who I believe was poisoned - I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I think parents have a right to make an informed decision based on full knowledge of the controversy. This is an entirely rational point of view. I made it clear why I thought your deletions were vandalism, and I warned you that they were. Because both you and Geni have a problem with orthography and remarkably congruent views and similar ways of expressing yourselves, I thought it best to ask. Geni has already had a (fully disclosed) sockpuppet before. Other than that, addressing me as "boy" is pretty disgusting, isn't it? --Leifern 02:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I make that 15:3 and rising for keeping it. While I suspect that some participants would like to spend as much time on this rather than writing the article as possible, do we actually need more? Can we call this to a conclusion, and get on with refactoring it, now, please? Midgley 17:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a certain amount of time has to pass. --Leifern 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had the impression, but I can't find it in WP policy..., that once the result was clear nobody was obliged to wait longer. The converse doesn't seem so sensible. Midgley 18:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except under the most unusual circumstances, we let AfD discussions run for a full five days—you're looking for Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Just continue work with and on the article–since it seems very unlikely to be deleted–while leaving the AfD notice in place; the notice will be removed in due time. At this point I would encourage anyone who would like to discuss the content, name, scope, etc. of the article to move their discussion over to Talk:Anti-vaccinationists. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-vaccinationists&oldid=1116279839"