Talk:National Vaccine Information Center/Archive 1

Archive 1

Needs Revision

This article seems very close in language to the org's About Us section on their Web site. There are absolutely no references at the time of this writing. This article is little more than a stub. --Dwcsite (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Their site make its clear they are advocates of "choice" and education on the matter of mandated vaccinations not merely "anti-vaccination" as you have claimed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.182.83.4 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

See the below section #NPOV Concerns for an extensive discussion on this. Likewise, Mercola is only "sharing knowledge and information", and the KKK would have you believe they are advocates of love and non-violence. Maralia (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"Anti-vaccination" is intended and is used as a perjorative label. Since advocates of vaccine education in the instance of NVIC do not refer to themselves as so, the label is loaded with straw man implications. A more neutral and accurate designation would be "vaccine skeptics", if I may so suggest an alternative unloaded with oppositional presumptions. schaferatsprynet (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)schaferatsprynet

External links

I've trimmed the list because there's nothing about the Simpsonwood conference or the other two links that makes them more relevant to our article on the NVIC than any of the other (scores of) articles on list of vaccine topics.

It slants our coverage to single those articles out as particularly relevant or important with respect to the NVIC when, frankly, they're not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

It seems odd to me that there is not a criticism section of this article, especially considering that some of this organization's major concerns (autism as a result of vaccines) have been debunked (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008131852.htm). I will be adding this section unless someone can show that there is no criticism of this organization or its views.OngoingCivilUnrest (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems an odd section - what does it mean? Midgley 23:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. It seems odd that the president would be criticising the org for its aims... and it is totally unreferenced...

"

Criticism

Critics contend that the organization represents industry interests rather than consumer interests. Most prominent among the critics are Harris Coulter, Ph.D., and Barbara Fisher, who coauthored DPT: A Shot in the Dark (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1985; Warner, 1986; Avery, 1991). [1] " Midgley 08:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

http://health.consumercide.com/vacc-cameron.html (the reference above) has a bit of everything...

"Coulter's premise that overcoming childhood diseases constitutes important stages in the development of a robust, adult immune system and that bombarding an infant's immature immune system with live viruses actually can do more harm than good."

IE natural viruses like Measles are beneficial - an argument that embarasses even some antivaccinationists - but the attenuated, less virulent virus is harmful.

This seems intrinsically unlikely, on the one ground that it would be very improbable that if one virus is good and another similar one is bad we manage to always get the vaccine virus to be bad when the wild virus is good; and on the other that we are not offered any indication of who the poor unfortunates are who naturally failed to catch the disease and this progress in their development. The science fiction author Larry Niven posits in his novel Protector that there is a third stage to homo sapiens, but that this relies upon genetic material only found in a virus. It is a good story. While some viruses may be descended from us, and other be bound into our genome, and retro-viruses and Herpes can build themselves into our cells and persist, there is no indication that those who are not infected by them are missing out on anything. Midgley 09:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Measles is a virus, natural Measles would consist only of the virus. In contrast, the vaccine's "attenuated Measles" goes accompanied by a host of other molecules (culture media, adjuvants, animal cells, human cells, etc.) some of which are intended and some of which are not. Each one of these molecules induces its own unpredictable immune response. The outcome is a total gamble, but it's plausible that some of these random antibodies ends up attacking the patient's own tissues, what's known as "autoimmune diseases". It's very difficult to diagnose them because they mimic lots of illnesses and, "coincidentally", incidence have been on the rise since mass vaccination begun. 82.161.30.183 (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"Coincidentally", car accidents have been on the rise since mass vaccination began as well. Presumably the measles vaccine is responsible—I mean, that's just Logic 101. We just need an Andrew Wakefield to provide a scientific link between the two. MastCell ^Talk 00:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Coincidentally", the incidence of measles has been on the decline since mass vaccination began. Presumably the measles vaccine is responsible—I mean, that's just Logic 101. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.64.134.241 (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent POV edits to lead

I've reverted the changes to the lead that violated NPOV. I've extended their belief that they are not anti-vaccine and fact tagged the antivaccine description, although I do know they have been described as such in mainstream publications. "Vaccine safety" is too weaselish and self-serving for a description, as no one is against unsafe vaccines. "Antivaccination" may certainly be debatable, but I can't think of a better term that doesn't violate NPOV. Auntie E. (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Third-party descriptions from reliable sources are preferred; I've added one from the New York Times. My recollection is that other reliable sources - for example, Autism's False Prophets - draw a sharper connection to anti-vaccinationism, but I don't have that book in front of me so can't verify details at the moment. MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Much better wording for now until that source can be found. Thanks. Auntie E. (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There still is a problem in the body with a good deal of unreferenced material that sounds a bit self-serving in toto. I tagged it, perhaps inline attribution would help: "according to their website" or something less ugly? Auntie E. (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm very interested in understanding why anybody would consider Paul Offit a reliable source for describing NVIC. He is, unquestionably, a leading expert on vaccines, immunology, and virology. But he also has an ax to grind and a case to make. In fact, Offit is terrified of highly-educated, affluent parents who think for themselves.

Mastcell, are you interested in explaining? Seems to me that Offit's views on NVIC belong in a section that describes the raging vaccine controversies. You might as well draw from Ken Starr's writings to describe Bill Clinton or vice versa. How can that possibly be NPOV? - Cdowney (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd also respectfully challenge every editor here, especially MastCell, to provide a clear and detailed definition of what is meant by anti-vaccine or anti-vaccination.

• Are parents who selectively (partially) vaccinate anti-vaccine?
• Are people who prefer to take no medicine anti-vaccine?
• What about popular doctors with best-selling books like Robert Sears who believe vaccines are important but have concerns about their safety and support alternative schedules?
• Are people who decide they aren't afraid of getting the flu and decline to get a flu shot even in pandemic years (more than 1/2 the population) anti-vaccine?
  

The very label "anti-vaccine" is so loaded that its more of a weapon than a concept. What specific criteria must be met in order to actually be anti-vaccine? Where are the facts about NVIC, not opinions in the mainstream press, to support your contention? - Cdowney (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I'm surprised, and disappointed, that nobody has addressed this yet. Why the reluctance to take on these questions? Some editors here have been using the term "anti-vaccine" and drawing from sources who believe NVIC to be "anti-vaccine" - the time is now to stand-up, define your terms and support your POV with facts (instead of just other people's opinions.) Thank you.

Contrary to Auntie E.'s view, the term vaccine safety is not at all "weaselish and self-serving". It is a complex and important subject that NVIC has focused on for almost 30 years. Indeed, the University of Michigan recently did a survey of parents and found that 90% cite vaccine and medication safety as their top health concern for children.

I'd like to add a quote from Bernadine Healy, M.D., former director, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and current health editor, U.S. News & World Report - that I think will add some weight to the importance of what I'm asking: "There are unanswered questions about vaccine safety. We need studies on vaccinated populations based on various schedules and doses as well as individual patient susceptibilities that we are continuing to learn about. No one should be threatened by the pursuit of this knowledge. Vaccine policy should be the subject of frank and open debate, with no tolerance for bullying. There are no sides—only people concerned for the well-being of our children." (This is from a book review for a book not yet released... I will update with a reference once its released on Amazon.) Cdowney (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We report what reliable, secondary sources say about the NVIC. The quote from Healy doesn't address the NVIC, so is irrelevant to this discussion. Yobol (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI

According to the last page of this document [2] on [3], User:Cdowney seems to be associated with the NVIC and is using the lede to advertise his institute. I have reverted to the previous lede to enable him to explain these changes. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mathsci, for pointing out the COI policy and creating this section for discussion. The next thing I'll do is to create a user page that shares my NVIC-related volunteer work and then get into explanations of my edits. - Cdowney (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In those circumstances, it is probably best that you do not edit the article directly, but suggest improvements here on the talk page. Seasons greetings, Mathsci (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that's moving a bit too fast with assuming that I actually have COI. An association with NVIC does not automatically mean one has COI. COI is defined as "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I worked very hard for NPOV and to meticulously cite reliable, third-party published sources - but more about that later. Furthermore, as soon as the COI policy was pointed out to me, I openly declared my association without hesitation or reservation. - Cdowney (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not wait to see what other editors like MastCell and Brangifer have to say? Both are involved in healthcare in different capacities. In addition MastCell is an experienced administrator. They can advise you far better than I can. Mathsci (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm all ears. Interesting, but not surprising, that they are involved in healthcare. Have they shared in what capacities? - Cdowney (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think that's relevant. Mathsci (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. But if it's not relevant, then why did you bring it up? Cdowney (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Cdowney, have you read the WP:COI information? I suggest you do so and just follow it. This is a somewhat related essay: Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of.

As an NVIC insider you can no doubt provide us with valuable information, some of which might deserve inclusion in articles here. To avoid COI problems, just make concrete suggestions on the relevant talk pages and let other editors decide what to do with them. As an aside (no problems yet), note that I address you by your username, not by your real name, since outing is strongly forbidden here, even when a person's real name is readily available. I have no problem with you editing here as long as you are collaborative, follow our policies, and learn from the advice of other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. I'm working my way through. Also bought a useful book (Wikipedia: The Missing Manual) that explains these issues in a way that I can grok faster. Excellent book, BTW. - Cdowney (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've updated User:Cdowney in way that I think addresses WP:COI, especially this: "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested." I am requesting that interested editors please review.

BullRangifer, important to note that I am not an NVIC insider; I am a volunteer. I cannot provide any information that is not already public. - Cdowney (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks. --Brangifer (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Loe Fisher page redirect

This edit is a good example of why I believe a redirect is not the best way to go and shows how the actions of a public person as a private citizen are being merged with the organization with which she is associated. In other words, it gives the wrong impression. NVIC did not sue Paul Offit; Barbara Loe Fisher, as private citizen, sued Paul Offit. I am requesting that interested editors please comment. - Cdowney (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I know you'd like to preserve a separate article for Barbara Loe Fisher, but in this case the edit you mention above was only made to document her alternate name and it doesn't imply that NVIC sued Offit. BTW, what's the story behind that name? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the story. - Cdowney (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to make other arguments to support your case for a separate article for her. I suspect you can do that, possibly in a convincing manner. I'm not totally opposed to the idea of a separate article, but am opposed to edit warring over the redirect. That's not the proper way. This is the best place to discuss the matter because far more editors watchlist this talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll give this some thought and present a case soon. - Cdowney (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not absolutely opposed to a separate article on Fisher, but neither have I been able to find material to support a well-rounded article. Whenever I have tried in the past, all I get is restatement of this article + resume + incidental personal details; as far as the encyclopedia is concerned, I think that at present we are better off with one good article here. I could certainly be convinced otherwise, but as BullRangifer says, edit warring over the page is pretty much the worst way forward. I would also like to leave a pointer to the Biographies of living persons policy, which details the enhanced sourcing standards for articles on living persons. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to Biographies of living persons policy. Very helpful. This isn't as simple and as clear-cut as I originally thought. I'm thinking that it makes the most sense for me to go-with-the-flow of the more experienced editors here and stick with the redirect. Maybe I'll revisit it in the future with intelligent questions and suggestions, once I understand the dynamics and policies better. Cdowney (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

NVIC's Mission

I respectfully propose to put NVIC's mission, as documented on their Form 909 and submitted to the IRS, in the NVIC page non-profit infobox, which has a field for a non-profit's mission. Their mission, as reported to the IRS, is: promote and encourage the health and welfare of American children and adults through research and education-oriented programs to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths and to assist individuals (both children and adults) who have been vaccine injured.

I am requesting that interested editors provide comments. Thank you. - Cdowney (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections. It should be in quotes. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just added it, in quotes. Cdowney (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

NVIC lead section (vaccine injury/death and founders)

I'm proposing a change to the lead section that will replace "at some point" with specific details. What follows is, IMHO, a more accurate and documented lead that builds from the existing lead. I respectfully request that interested editors provide comments. Thank you. Cdowney (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a private non-profit 501(c)(3) advocacy group which questions the safety and efficacy of commonly used vaccines. The group was founded in 1982 by parents of children who died or became ill after undergoing routine vaccinations. Jeffrey Schwartz, a lawyer and founder of NVIC, testified before the Maryland legislature in 1983 about the grand mal seizures his daughter, Julie Middlehurst-Schwartz, began having on July 1, 1981 within hours of receiving her third DPT vaccine. At three years of age, Julie died in status epilepticus March 1984. Michael Specter has described NVIC as "the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children."
Cdowney (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Summary of changes: adds sources Burke (2004) and Allen (2008); removes at some point after who died or became ill; removes which they blamed for their child's sickness after after undergoing routine vaccinations; adds sentence starting Jeffrey Schwartz, a lawyer and founder of NVIC; and adds sentence starting At three years of age. Is that all of them? I need to review the sources before making an actual comment, but as a minor stylistic point we should not be linking directly to Google Books. Instead, use the magic word ISBN; personally, I use Magnus' reference generator for filling the templates. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is not linking to Google books widespread practice or policy? (Sorry! Newbie question.) It seems really useful because the link goes directly to the source page. Cdowney (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

First pass: neither of those sources are throwing red flags for me, and the removed clauses were a bit awkward, so that is good. The proposed phrasing definitely implies that the routine vaccinations in fact caused illness or death, which I do not believe was actually established (please correct me if I err, here). Suggestion: The group was founded in 1982 by parents who blamed routine vaccination for the illness or death of a child. I think there is some danger of topic creep here - we should link to Vaccine controversy, but otherwise focus narrowly on describing the organization and its history. The next two sentences I think are a bit too tangential for the lead, but I think could be expanded to make a nice paragraph in the body, perhaps at #Background. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at page 280: "She had an uncontrolled seizure disorder that her pediatrician said was linked to the DTP shot" - and later she died from a seizure. I don't think that "blamed routine vaccination" accurately captures an undisputed (per Arthur Allen, page 280, "there was no question") diagnosis from her pediatrician. Your point about topic creep makes sense, but I wouldn't link to vaccine controversy for something that isn't disputed. What do you think about keeping The group was founded in 1982 by parents of children who died or became ill after undergoing routine vaccinations and then, as both you and BullRangifer suggested, move the next two sentences from the lead into the body? Cdowney (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

2/0, I like your suggested wording. It avoids the problem described at "correlation does not imply causation" quite nicely. It doesn't deny the possibility either. I don't know the details, but the lawyer's child could have been one of the rare victims of an allergic or other unfortunate reaction. All medication that has real effects also has real side effects, and vaccines are no exception. It's just that these activists constantly fall into the correlation=causation trap mentioned above and try to convince people that the rare exception is the rule. The next two sentences should be in the body. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I'm hoping that my suggestion (above) meets your concerns. Cdowney (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer 2/0's wording. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I Added the suggested wording about the founders. I think we are also in agreement about adding some more detail about the founders and the founding to the body - Cdowney, do you want to take care of that? Or I can get to it in a day or three if we are still in agreement. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do some work on that. The edit by 2/0 is an improvement, but shrouds the fact that, according to her pediatrician, Julie was injured and killed by the DTP shot. That is a really important fact to get across in order to understand the dynamics of NVIC's founding. Its not that the founding parents just "blamed" the vaccine. Cdowney (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

NVIC and vaccine safety

I propose changing "questions the safety and efficacy of commonly used vaccines" to "supports more research into the safety of vaccinations" per a recent article in US News and World Report (http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2011/01/20/slightly-more-than-half-of-americans-say-vaccines-dont-cause-autism-poll)

I request that interested editors please provide comments. Thank you. Cdowney (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversy over NVIC advert on Delta Airlines flights

This needs to be covered in the criticism section:

• American Academy of Pediatrics on the Delta Airline Video.
• Pediatrician Group Slams Delta Airlines For Running Video Made By Vaccine Skeptics. Forbes, Matthew Herper, 11/07/2011
• Delta In-Flight Ad Spurs Backlash From Flu Vaccine Advocates. ABC News, Lara Salahi, Nov. 11, 2011
• change-dot-org petition: Health Petition: Tell Delta to Stop Putting their Passengers' Health at Risk.]

Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

The article currently describes the NVIC as "private" but I cannot find any substantiation of this. In fact, the IRS lists the NVIC as a public charity IRS Exempt Organizations Select Check. Also, the Wikipedia page on 501(c)'s points out that there are two types of 501(c)(3): public charity and private foundation. The NVIC is not a private foundation, it is a public charity per the IRS. Would editors please comment on why the NVIC is described here as private? RockRollOver (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I propose changing the lead from describing the NVIC as "private anti-vaccination advocacy group which questions the safety and efficacy of commonly used vaccines" to "a nonprofit organization that questions the safety of vaccination" The proposed change seems to cling closer to NPOV by carefully citing an academic article with multiple authors, some of whom are well known and very influential within the realm of vaccine policy, such as Neal Halsey. The change removes the error of classifying the NVIC as "private." Are there any comments, questions, concerns about this change? RockRollOver (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

References

I think we should just replace the word "private" with "public charity",ref and leave it at that. You could also add the ref to the IRS for that wording. The lead is a summation of the content of the article, which is why we shouldn't disturb or change it any more than absolutely necessary. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll make the change. I do have some NPOV concerns about the lead, but will bring that up later in a separate section. Did you notice that the NY Times article does not describe the NVIC as anti-vaccine? The NY Times described the NVIC "an advocacy group that questions the safety of vaccines" -- the use of "anti-vaccine" in conjunction with the reference seems misleading to me. But I will start a new section to discuss. Thanks for your input. RockRollOver (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the "anti-vaccine" wording is because of other sources. Numerous other sources describe the real nature of the NVIC as "anti-vaccine". They are essentially an American version of the Australian Vaccination Network. There isn't much difference between them. I'm going to add a ref for your edit. Thanks for finding this info. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see a problem in describing an anti-vaccine group as an "anti-vaccine group". The word "private" indicates the fact that the NVIC is not (despite its name) a governmental organization. It's not "private" in the sense of a privately held corporation with shareholders etc., but it's "private" in the sense that it's non-governmental. MastCell ^Talk 01:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Concerns

I'd like to start a discussion about NPOV as it specifically relates to the claim that the NVIC is anti-vaccine. Please see the Dubious section of this talk page to see how this concern began and the first few comments about it.

The more I look into this, the more it seems to be an opinion. Wikipedia is clear that the best reliable sources are "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."

A peer reviewed article whose authors include Neal Halsey and Daniel A. Salmon (who was Director of Vaccine Safety in the National Vaccine Program Office at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and who is now the Director, Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins, referred to the NVIC as "a nonprofit organization that questions the safety of vaccination"

The NY Times article that is used as a reference for the entire lead sentence refers to "anti-vaccinators", the "anti-vaccine movement" (three times), anti-vaccine groups, "an anti-vaccine advocacy group" - but does not refer to the NVIC as anti-vaccine. This article specifically refers to the NVIC as "an advocacy group that questions the safety of vaccines". Thus, it is clear that the NY Times does not view the NVIC as anti-vaccine or part of the anti-vaccine movement.

I'd like to find a way to bring the lead into conformance with Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. I think that we can say that it is a fact that the NVIC questions the safety of vaccines. But it appears to be engaging in disputes (instead of describing them) to claim without adequate substantiation that the NVIC is anti-vaccine. Indeed, the Specter quote in the article is clearly quoted in the Wikipedia manner so as to be clear that this is his opinion. I suspect that it may be a violation of NPOV to use a quoted opinion to establish something as a fact. The use of the Institute for Science in Medicine press release appears to be engaging in a dispute. Press releases by advocacy groups are not in the list of Wikipedia reliable sources.

I am interested to hear more comments about this. RockRollOver (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't see the problem with calling the NVIC an "anti-vaccine group". It is an anti-vaccine group. I think that's obvious to anyone who spends a moment looking at their material. But OK, since this is Wikipedia we can't state the obvious unless we can find it expressed verbatim in reliable sources. So let's see... ABC News calls the NVIC a "non-profit, anti-vaccine organization". In his book Denialism, Michael Specter describes the NVIC as "the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America". (Specter is quoted in the interest of attribution, but that doesn't lessen his book as a reliable source. The "opinion" is that the NVIC is the most powerful anti-vaccine group, not that it is anti-vaccine). And so on. It violates WP:NPOV to ignore these sources and to pretend that the NVIC isn't an anti-vaccine group. MastCell ^Talk 06:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Like Yes, it's definitely seeking to hide it's real status as an anti-vaccine group, but RS expose it for what it is, and we quote them. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Brangifer, do you have any references for your claim that the NVIC is "seeking to hide its real status as an anti-vaccine group"? I'm not seeing this in the small number of sources referenced thus far. RockRollOver (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I just read the rest of this thread, and I think User:Maralia has pretty much answered that question. NVIC has always claimed to be about "vaccine safety", but they went much further and opposed vaccines at every opportunity. Many news sources (like the NY Times you mention) have been fooled by this and have not discerned their real nature, while skeptics and others who understand these things have described them by their actions, which are the actions of anti-vaxers. As far as content goes here, we quote their own description, and we quote what RS say about them. The discrepancy then becomes clear. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, thanks for explaining your view. I especially appreciate that you found a reference to the popular media that describes the NVIC as anti-vaccine. When ABC news refers to the NVIC as anti-vaccine, but the NY Times writes an article about the anti-vaccine movement and yet doesn't describe the NVIC as anti-vaccine, I think we might have a dispute that we have a responsibility to more accurately and carefully describe rather than taking sides. It is not my intention to take a side. Please note that refraining from making a claim that the NVIC is anti-vaccine is not the same thing as making a claim that they are not. RockRollOver (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, thank you again for finding the ABC ref. As Wikipedia explains the neutral point of view, "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." I think we need to treat the claim that the NVIC is and the claim that the NVIC is not anti-vaccine as opinions. Is there any disagrement about this? RockRollOver (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you (both MastCell and Brangifer) would be interested in helping out with gathering more reliable sources so that we can work together on examining and discussing the evidence? What do you think about restricting the reference documentation to the talk page until we have a chance to work through our different perspectives more thoroughly? RockRollOver (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Some sources in books and popular media:

1. "By the early 1990s, Dissatisfied Parents Together had changed its name to the National Vaccine Information Center, the single most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America."(Offit, Paul (2011). Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All, p. 8.)
2. "To be sure, Barbara Loe Fisher and Kathi Williams defined themselves as consumer safety advocates, denying they were "antivaccine." But this self-definition was problematic, because they viewed mass vaccination itself as a dangerous process of questionable value."(Allen, Arthur (2007). Vaccine, p. 330.)
3. "Although Fisher and Williams welcomed mainstream science when its findings supported a critical view of vaccines, they never broadcast good news from the vaccine front. (Allen, Arthur (2007). Vaccine, p. 331.)
4. "Barbara Loe Fisher, by contrast, is indisputably the [anti-vaccination] movement’s brain. Fisher is the cofounder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center in Vienna, Virginia, the largest, oldest, and most influential of the watchdog groups that oppose universal vaccination."(Wallace, Amy (October 19, 2009). "An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All", Wired.)
5. "Though many of these organizations would not define themselves as such, these are the most active organizations and websites in the current battle against vaccines: National Vaccine Information Center..."(Swaby, Rachel (October 19, 2009). "What’s the Real Story on the Vaccine Debate?", Wired.)
6. "Anti-vaccination groups have popped up like toadstools after rain... while older ones such as the National Vaccine Information Center were reinvigorated." (Fumento, Michael (February 5, 2010). "The Damage of the Anti-Vaccination Movement", Los Angeles Times.)

And a sampling of scholarly papers which discuss NVIC as an anti-vaccine organization in the context of the anti-vaccine movement:

• Wolfe, RM; Sharp LK, Lipsky MS (June 26, 2002). "Content and Design Attributes of Antivaccination Web Sites", JAMA, 287(24):3245–3248.
• Shetty, Priya (March 20, 2010). "Experts concerned about vaccination backlash", The Lancet, 375:9719, 970–971.
• Hobson-West, Pru (Mar 2007). "'Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all': organised resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK", Sociology of Health & Illness, 29:2, 198–215.

The prominent science blogs use the same terminology; see for example Ben Goldacre's "Vaccinations? Yes, please" ("NVIC is an anti-vaccination organization masquerading as a credible source of information about vaccines."). A particularly illuminating read on the subject is David Gorski's "What Does Anti-Vaccine Really Mean?", which explores this very issue: the dubious practice of claiming a 'vaccine safety' platform despite effectively practicing denialism. Maralia (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

These blogs are self-published and carry little weight on Wikipedia. Moreover, being a surgeon (for example) has nothing to do with understanding federal vaccine policy. RockRollOver (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Denialism, by Michael Specter: a reliable source?

I'd like to open a discussion about the appropriateness of using Denialism as a reliable source. Wikipedia lists the term "denialist" as a contentious label that "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject." I'm thinking that while Specter's book could be useful to help describe one side of the dispute regarding whether or not the NVIC is anti-vaccine, it cannot be considered a reliable source when trying to establish verifiable facts about the NVIC. The very use of Specter's Denialism as a referenced source suggests to the reader that the NVIC is, in fact, engaging in denialism. Per Wikipedia's policy, opinions are not to be treated as fact and contentious opinions are best avoided unless we can show that it is "widely used by reliable sources". Any thoughts about this? RockRollOver (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you here; are you actually suggesting that we should reject Specter's book Denialism as a source specifically because merely stating the title—that one word—in the References section casts aspersions on NVIC? Maralia (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The full title of Specter's book is Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives. A book that puts forth the argument that an organization is engaging in denialism, hindering scientific progress, harming the planet and threatening our lives, in my view, falls under the Wikipedia contentious label policy if it is going to be used as a reference to establish a fact. The burden of proof is upon us as editors to show that Specter's view of NVIC as denialist is widely used by reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources that support Specter's view? Do you consider Specter's view of NVIC as engaging in denialism to be fact or opinion? Why so?

Maralia, its important to make the distinction here between fact and opinion. I'm not saying that Specter's book should be entirely tossed out. It might be useful to help describe the dispute as to whether or not the NVIC is anti-vaccine. What I am saying is that when I read Wikipedia's NPOV policies, it's clear to me that Specter is expressing his opinion and that opinions cannot be used to establish facts.

Does this help to answer your question? RockRollOver (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no "dispute" about whether the NVIC is anti-vaccine. They are. Reliable sources (including Specter) routinely describe them as such. Now, some of these sources use terms like "questioning the safety of widely used vaccines" while others simplify this formulation to "anti-vaccine". But that's not a "dispute" among reliable sources; it's simply a minor semantic difference. The only dispute is the one being manufactured here on the talkpage. MastCell ^Talk 03:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, it may be your opinion that "questioning the safety of widely used vaccines" is the same as "anti-vaccine", but it is not your job to put your opinion into Wikipedia. As editors, we are to describe what we find without adding interpretation. For a referenced source to be counted as describing the NVIC as anti-vaccine it must actually do that, otherwise it is not verifiable. Wikipedia is clear that "Sources must support the material clearly and directly" RockRollOver (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute. It's my opinion that sources clearly and directly support the term "anti-vaccine". It's your opinion that they do not. This talkpage exists to resolve that difference of opinion. But please don't pretend that your view is factual while mine is simply personal opinion - that's silly and self-serving. MastCell ^Talk 20:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, what do you think "Sources must support the material clearly and directly" means in relation to this difference of opinion? RockRollOver (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought I'd made that clear. I believe that any objective person reading the available reliable sources will conclude that they support describing the NVIC as an anti-vaccine organization. Really, this discussion is starting to reek of soup-spitting. MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, I think we need an authority outside of ourselves (maybe some other editors who have many years of experience in unrelated areas) to help us figure out how to better handle this controversial subject. When I read the policy that "Sources must support the material clearly and directly", it seems pretty clear to me that we should not assume anything beyond what is "clearly and directly" said by the source. What do you think about the idea of reaching out for some guidance? RockRollOver (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You've already had a number of veteran editors with many years of experience comment on this talkpage, and all of them have tried to tell you that you're off-base here. There's an consensus here that reliable sources do indeed support a description of NVIC as "anti-vaccine". Why are you unwilling to accept that consensus? MastCell ^Talk 04:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm open to accepting that I might be wrong, but I'm not convinced yet. I'm going to continue gathering data (sources of variable reliability) in order to really understand what is going on here. It would be great if you would help populate that table. If you don't want to, but have some more refs that I could use, please toss them out and I'll add them in due time. RockRollOver (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm still having a hard time following you. Citing the Specter book in the article about NVIC would not contravene WP:LABEL just because the title of the book is Denialism. Take a look at the three statements sourced to Specter: none of them uses the word "denialism", and in fact two of them are the same quote, repeated. The assertions of the two distinct statements are that NVIC is "anti-vaccination" and "the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children". The first statement, and at least the first half of the second statement, are echoed in the many citations I offered in my previous edit here. Maralia (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

RockRollOver, that the title happens to use the word has absolutely ZERO to do with our policy or guidelines on the word as used here. It's still a RS and can be used, irrespective of the title. These are two very different matters. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, for now lets just agree to disagree regarding Specter. I think we need to compile some data because we have hit a point of disagreement where we need to go lower-level beneath our assumptions and biases. I'm giving it a quick start in the section below. Please make suggestions for improvements and add your refs. RockRollOver (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Descriptions of NVIC in sources of variable reliability

The intent of this section is for the editors to work together to go beyond making assertions about whether "NVIC is anti-vaccine" is a verifiable fact or better described as part of a dispute. The idea is that for each source, the editor who provided it will summarize how the article describes the NVIC. If we all agree with the type of source and that the description is what the article actually says, then we can put YES in the agreement column. If we do not agree, then lets put NO and find a way to briefly describe the disagreement. Please note that the # column data should be a link to the reference table (just haven't created that yet) RockRollOver (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

To offer judgments on what sources say, you must read sources more carefully than just searching for a convenient quote. While the NYT article you keep linking to does not offer a simple, definitive quote when you search the words "anti-vaccine", it absolutely characterizes NVIC as an anti-vaccine group. I can't imagine how one could read, for example, just paragraphs 3–5 & 14–15 of that article and come away with any other understanding. Maralia (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You could just as easily read those paragraphs and interpret it to mean that the author is distinguishing NVIC from anti-vaccine groups by describing NVIC differently. It's also true helpful and interesting that this article exposes your bias and my bias, which are different. I'll mark the article that editors do not agree. I noticed above that you know how to do some interesting things with this Wiki language, which I'm still getting the hang of (I'm thinking of that neat line that swings from one paragraph to another. Do you have an idea about how we can put some type of pointer next to the NO in the Editor Agreement column to make it easy to refer to your reasons here? RockRollOver (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Maralia and other editors: do you agree or disagree that the CNN Money article entitled The Lethal Dangers of the Billion Dollar Vaccine Business does not describe the NVIC as anti-vaccine and that I have accurately captured in the description column how the article actually describes the NVIC. RockRollOver (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This peer-reviewed, multiple-author (from academia and industry) article is particularly important because the authors include Neal Halsey and Daniel A. Salmon (who was Director of Vaccine Safety in the National Vaccine Program Office at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and who is now the Director, Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins, referred to the NVIC as "a nonprofit organization that questions the safety of vaccination." IMHO, we really need to clearly establish whether MastCell is right or wrong that any objective reader of RS will see that "questioning the safety of vaccines" is anti-vaccine. And we must document this in detail for the reader with many reliable sources. Thank you all for your help thus far in identifying some sources. Its a great deal of work to pull all this together. I'll keep working on the data table. RockRollOver (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources of variable reliability and how they describe NVIC

#	Source	Type	Description of NVIC	Editor Agreement that the Description accurately captures how the NVIC is described
	New York Times	newspaper	"an advocacy group that questions the safety of vaccines"	NO
	JAMA	medical journal	NVIC classified as anti-vaccine for an April 6, 2000 press release entitled "Parents and researchers call for action to end gaps in knowledge about autism and the vaccine connection"	?
	CNN Money	news	"nonprofit educational and support group for parents whose children have been harmed by vaccines"	?
	CNN	news	no description provided (not referred to as anti-vaccine)	?
	Advances in Preventive Medicine	medical journal	"a nonprofit organization that questions the safety of vaccination"	?

Leaving aside whether or not it is a good idea to rely on CNN Money to guide our description of a purportedly scientific or medical organization – and whether or not it is wise to lend it equal weight to, for example, a qualified expert publication like JAMA – I can't help but notice that Rock's Money article is from 1996: closing fast on two decades old. I'm not sure that it makes sense to evaluate an organization on the basis of a (single) 17-year-old article, particularly given that there appears to be more recent information in better-qualified sources. (I mean, there's a difference between endorsing Andrew Wakfield and his findings in 1998 and endorsing Andrew Wakefield and his findings in 2010. The former is just poor judgement; the latter is shameless anti-vacccinationist paranoia.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not claiming anything about the relative weight of sources. I'm just deep in the source gathering stage. Please note that the part of the title of this section is "sources of variable reliability." I'd like to see many, many sources from all the areas that Wikipedia considers RS. RockRollOver (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"By the early 1990's, Dissatisfied Parents Together had changed it's name to the National Vaccine Information Center, the single most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America." Deadly Choices - How the anti-vaccine movement threatens us all - Paul Offit 2011 Basic Books page 8. It doesn't get much clearer than that and source is RS. --Daffydavid (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

When Paul Offit writes about the science of vaccines, I have no doubt that he is RS. As somebody who has dedicated his career to creating and promoting vaccines, and whom believes deeply in the power of vaccines to save lives, I think we need to consider what his bias against the NVIC might be. The book Deadly Choices is described as "In Deadly Choices, infectious disease expert Paul Offit relates the shocking story of anti-vaccine America--its origins, leaders, influences, and impact." Clearly, this is not a book of science. Its a description of what Paul Offit refers to as "a silent, dangerous war going on out there." I think MastCell hit the nail on the head pretty good when claiming that questioning the safety of vaccines is anti-vaccine. That is the core of the dispute. Paul Offit is a key player in that dispute. RockRollOver (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I see multiple experienced editors (MastCell, Bullrangifer, TenOfAllTRades, DaffyDavid, Maralia, and now myself) that have no problem with the use of the phrase, and one new WP:SPA account that does. Just to add to the list above by Maralia, this scholarly article also directly calls NVIC anti-vaccine. I think it's time we find more fruitful use of our time; when high quality scholarly articles call it antivaccine, it's time to accept it and move along. Yobol (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have full access to the article and thus don't see the NVIC listed. Could you add the specific ref w/ quote to the table please? Do you know of any other sources that put forward their definition of anti-vaccine as this author does? Having more would be helpful. RockRollOver (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the consensus of experienced editors on this talk page is that describing NVIC as anti-vaccination is reasonable based on the sources – particularly on the highest-quality sources – that we have available. RockRollOver, it appears that you would like to characterize the group differently, but you have so far been unable to find superior – or really even good-quality – reliable sources that explicitly support and endorse your position. In the absence of such sources, you're asking us to pretty-please have a debate between the existing sources and RockRollOver's personal opinions (and to go looking for evidence to support your opinions and beliefs), which doesn't seem like a constructive use of anyone's time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources for NVIC as anti-vaccine organization‏

Here are a few RS which make it clear that NVIC is anti-vax.

BOLD emphasis added.

• Pediatricians decry in-flight vaccine-questioning ad on Delta. Amina Khan, Los Angeles Times, November 16, 2011

"The NVIC is a notorious anti-vaccine organization, whose name and website are designed to give the impression that they are a legitimate government agency," the petition reads. "However their 'vaccine information' is designed to frighten the public and encourage individuals to opt out of protecting themselves and their children through immunization."

• Delta In-Flight Ad Spurs Backlash From Flu Vaccine Advocates. Lara Salahi, ABC News, Nov. 11, 2011

"A video commercial sponsored by a non-profit, anti-vaccine organization now playing on Delta flights has come under fire by a pediatrician organization, prompting the airlines to review its approval process for in-flight programming."

• Delta’s Decision Doesn’t Fly with Us. Airline Continues to Show Anti-Vaccinationists’ Ad. Institute for Science in Medicine, November 17, 2011

"The Institute for Science in Medicine (ISM) has warned Delta Air Lines today that continuing to show an in-flight video promoting the views of a prominent anti-vaccination group, is “indefensible from a public health perspective,” and has called for immediate cessation of the advertisement as an act of “responsible corporate citizenship” by Delta.

"The 3-minute paid ad, being shown on Delta west-bound flights in the US during the month of November, was produced by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), a powerful, non-governmental group that has opposed vaccine campaigns for decades. The NVIC video emphasizes some self-care measures, which are reasonable but insufficient to prevent influenza. It falsely claims that vitamins C and D are "natural preventatives" that play a role in preventing flu. This film downgrades the role of vaccines to "another option" in avoiding influenza – a serious disease that claims thousands of lives every year. Even more alarming, the film leads Delta's passengers to the NVIC website, which spreads misinformation and unfounded fears about vaccine safety and effectiveness....

"The NVIC ad is, as one commentator aptly observed, a Trojan Horse. Delta passengers in November are being directed to the website of a prominent anti-vaccination organization, one that has tried to thwart national vaccine campaigns for three decades. Moreover, NVIC has the sort of name that sounds like a federal agency, one that passengers might mistake as a source of reliable information."

• The ad that could help fuel a health crisis. Rahul Parikh, Salon Magazine, April 25, 2011

"Anti-vaccinationists took out a billboard in Times Square. How can they do that, and why aren't we fighting back?

"Founded in the 1980s, NVIC is the granddaddy of anti-vaccine groups (though they go to great lengths to claim they are not). In the words of Michael Specter, journalist and author of “Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet and Threatens our Lives,” NVIC is “the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children.” Taking what NVIC says about vaccines at face value is akin to believing Joe Camel when he tells you that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer. The ad was created in conjunction with mercola.com, the website of Dr. Joseph Mercola, another anti-vaccinationist who espouses other out-of-step ideas...... The NVIC isn’t the first anti-vaccine organization to leverage Madison Avenue. The Jenny McCarthy-fronted anti-vaccine group Generation Rescue has taken out in-your-face, full-page ads in USA Today and the New York Times with its own anti-vaccine tag lines."

• Pediatrician Group Slams Delta Airlines For Running Video Made By Vaccine Skeptics. Matthew Herper, Forbes, 1/07/2011

"Fisher and the AAP have a long and charged history. In his book on vaccine scares, The Panic Virus, author Seth Mnookin refers to her as “the grande dame of the American anti-vaccine movement.”"

• Craziness: 69 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18. The Chiropractic Journal, July 2012 (This is the journal of the World Chiropractic Alliance, an anti-vaccine chiropractic organization.)

Barbara Lowe Fisher: "She became a leader in the anti-vaccine movement when her son suffered a neurological reaction to his fourth DPT shot at age two and a half ..."

• Should Doctors Fire Their Anti-Vaccine Patients? Steven Salzberg, Forbes, 2/25/2012

"Parents can be utterly convinced by the misinformation they find on the Internet, which is all too easy to find. (For example, Googling “vaccine” brings up the National Vaccine Information Center, a hotbed of anti-vaccine propaganda and pseudoscience, on the first page of hits.)"

• Keep In Mind...Priorities of Anti-Vaccine Groups. Every Child By Two Newsletter

"As we continue our work in protecting children from vaccine-preventable diseases, we feel it is important to note what the priorities of the anti-vaccine groups are.

"According to the National Vaccine Information Center's (NVIC) 2000 Annual Membership Drive NVIC's priorities are as follows:..."

Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It basically comes down to this: We have the NVIC's self-description, and some RS parrot it. Other RS don't buy it and describe it by its actions. They are clear in their descriptions of it as an anti-vaccine organization, and not just any, no, they call it "notorious", "prominent", "grandaddy of antivaccine groups," "a hotbed of anti-vaccine propaganda and pseudoscience," and other strong descriptions. We just need to have both types of descriptions, making it clear who says what. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Article needs deleted

The article about International Public Conference on Vaccination should be deleted or combined into this one but I do not know how to do it.

Merger Proposal with International Public Conference on Vaccination

I propose that International Public Conference on Vaccination be merged into this article. As a stand alone article it is at risk of deletion due to a lack of information. As this is the organization that organizes and funds the conference it makes sense to move it to here. --Daffydavid (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Just make it a section here, and we can then pare it down to the essentials. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Although I created the IPCV page, I agree merging sounds like a good idea mostly because it seems like the IPCV is not independently notable. Everymorning talk to me 12:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have merged it here. Everymorning talk 04:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Circular Reference

The claim that the founders' children were damaged by vaccines was referenced by the organization's own website without second or third party corroboration. Therefore, claim removed from article. Tapered (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: also changed last sentence of "Background" section from "critized...for lacking informed consent," to "criticized...as lacing informed consent." For semantically creates definite impression that consent is lacking, while as creates a neutral impression, that the organization makes this claim, but without endorsing or denying the claim. This organization isn't allowed to present its opinion here as fait accompli. Tapered (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Reversion issue

I see McSly reverted my recent changes, first off the extra paragraph I added to mission statement was a accident, I meant to hit preview not save, so I hadn't added the citation yet(it came from the mission statement on NVIC's site), so it's fine McSly removed it . But is it not considered appropriate to include the entire mission statement in an article about an organization if properly cited? I meant to have it in quotes. Also yes, the quote I deleted was properly sourced, but it already appears in criticism, so I didn't think it was helpful to have the same quote twice. While not false, I deleted the phrase anti-vaccine from the first sentence because as far as I can tell they claim not to be and have never stated total opposition to the concept of vaccination, and I think NVIC's anti-vaccine tendencies are clear from the rest of the article, it just seemed slightly POV to use this phrase in the first sentence.I was new when I did this and didn't understand WP:LEAD. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

After McSly reverted my changes I again deleted Specter's quote assuming McSly did not realize it was already in another part the article, if you want to put this back I won't revert you without discussing first as I don't want to start an edit war. I have not reverted any other part of McSly's reversion. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Conference

NVIC has held a conference at times, mention of the conference has been removed and put back a few times. Some editors have argued that is is non notable (I am inclined to agree, as I couldn't find good secondary sources about this) but both removing and putting back info about the conference has been called anti-vax POV (how can both removing and adding the same material be biased in the same direction?) so just wondering what the consensus was on whether the section on the conference should be included. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: I reverted your edit solely on the grounds that it was a revert without an edit summary, I don't care much if the section on the conference stays or not, but as it has been disputed, I thought it shouldn't be changed without an edit summary. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

reference issue

@JzG: Why are you removing the citation for this sentence: "NVIC was founded in 1982 by parents who blamed the DPT vaccine for the illness or death of a child."? I agree that third party sources would be better, but isn't the primary source with a tag better than leaving the sentence unsourced? I removed this sentence due to the sourcing issues, but I think it is relevant to any article about an organization to say how the org was founded. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Because it is a page on their website that proselytises their "achievements" and states their aims without the context that they are, bluntly, lying. Self-published sources are fine for uncontroversial facts, but not fine for contentious claims. The idea that they are somehow not anti-vaccine is contentious, since all the reality-based sources say they are. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@JzG: Right now I am just referring to this sentence: "NVIC was founded in 1982 by parents who blamed the DPT vaccine for the illness or death of a child." not the stuff about wheather or not they are anti-vax. Is the founding of NVIC disputed or contentious? Tornado chaser (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, why did you restore the mother jones ref? I added that ref to cite the sentence: describes itself as the "oldest and largest consumer led organization advocating for the institution of vaccine safety and informed consent protections", you said it was fine for me to remove the sentence, but restored the ref, so now that ref has no content cited to it. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable independent sources that discuss their origin narrative without promoting their "achievements". We can and should use those. The Mother Jones source also covers the general content of that paragraph. It contains the following:

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), which describes itself as the “oldest and largest consumer led organization advocating for the institution of vaccine safety and informed consent protections,”

So, it's a useful third-party source for NVIC's self-identification, and it's much better than the NVIC self-published source because it puts NVIC's claim in context. It's important to remember that the whole "vaccine safety and informed consent" thing is a lie. They are anti-vaccine, they know that being anti-vaccine is a lunatic fringe view, so they pretend they are for "safe" vaccines, advocating an impossible standard for safety that everybody knows would change in a heartbeat if vaccine manufacturers ever achieved it. They are anti-vaccine, everyone knows they are anti-vaccine, they know they are anti-vaccine, and their self-description should not be cited without context, ever. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this sentence needs to be moved from the first to maybe the second or third sentence. The first sentence should define the subject, not give a quick account of its founding. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

These edits look good to me as far as fixing the sentence order in the lede goes. Thanks! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Mission and aims

It seems to em that we should not be giving undue weight to NVIC's self-described mission and aims, given that numerous reliable independent sources definitively establish that these claimed aims are bogus. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think editors should try to judge the mission statement and slogan in nonprofit infoboxes, as long there is no dispute about what the organization's slogan and mission statement are, they should be included. The rest of the article makes it clear that the mission statement is misleading, as it should, but the mission statement is presented as a statement from NVIC and not as fact, so it does not impair the accuracy of the article. Imagine the POV minefield that would result from a policy of excluding the mission statement of any organization with a misleading mission statement, since any mission statement is self-promotional, but as long as it is not presented as fact, how the group describes themselves is relevant to the article.

As for the slogan, a slogan is not even a statement, so I'm not sure what claim you think this gives undue weight to? Tornado chaser (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This group would not be a nonprofit in most jurisdictions. They exist for the exact opposite of public benefit. They say they are "dedicated to the prevention of vaccine injuries and deaths through public education and to defending the informed consent ethic in medicine", but the reliable sources unambiguously show that most of the "vaccine injuries" they discuss are not caused by vaccines and the "information" they provide is misleading and false, so is antithetical to the whole concept of informed consent - actually what they want is misinformed dissent, which is not the same thing at all. We can't point that out in the infobox, which is designed for real nonprofits not propaganda outfits, so we should omit it.

The slogan is similarly problematic. It's not just your family (they work tirelessly to undermine herd immunity so its not just the unvaccinated who get caught up in outbreaks of preventable disease), it's not your health, it is child endangerment, and it's not your choice, because endangering your children based on lies is indefensible. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

NVIC counts as a nonprofit under US federal law, in all 50 US states, so I have a hard time seeing how an infobox on the english wikipedia would not be designed for nonprofits in the largest English speaking nation in the world. Also, even in other countries where they would not be tax-exempt, they would still not be for profit, and while I would agree that they are not benefiting the public, they think they are, so they still fall into the category of nonprofit advocacy groups and I have a difficult time seeing how it is a good idea to have editors judge whether an organization actually benefits the public or not. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, their "mission" is a lie and their motto is a lie, but I strongly suspect you don't actually accept this fact. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No it is a mistake, to be a lie they would have to know (and I do not think there is evidence they do) know they are talking rubbish.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

jzG The fact that they lie is well-documented, but I'm not completely convinced that they don't believe their own crap in general terms. I think it's not demonstrable that their motto is a deception, but more easily attributable as a delusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, I am certain that at some level they do believe it. Their talent for wilful ignorance is remarkable, as is their skill in motivated reasoning, but they are still liars, because they sustain their belief only by deliberately discounting all contradictory data. They are liars n the same way that climate change deniers are liars. At some level they believe it, but at another, it is entirely deliberate. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely with that. The only thing is that I think our inability to precisely define what they're delusional about and what they're deceptive about means we shouldn't be relying on our judgement to inform which claims are deceptive, and which are delusional. I think we should presume that any claim they make is delusional until an RS labels it deceptive. But since we're not going to be presenting their slogan as a fact or even one of those claim, but rather as a slogan, I don't think any judgement of its nature should enter into our decision whether or not to include it. Which just leaves the community norm of including such things. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I've been adding sources clarifying, for example, the false basis of their conclusions and the reality-based view of their actual activities. I even went and dug out my copy of Deadly Choices :-) Guy (Help!) 22:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I actually gave my copy of that book to an anti-vaxxer mother, a friend of my wife's. She thanked me a couple months later, after getting her kids vaccinated. There's plenty of articles and books out there saying you can't change someone's mind with evidence and argument, and to them I say "shenanigans". One of the few things I've done of which I'm particularly proud. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You are right that I don't accept this as fact, because as slatersteven stated above it is a mistake, not a lie, and please remember to comment on content, not contributors. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no issue with including their aims, it is not for us to judge their veracity (that is for RS to do). As long as we make it clear this is what they claim.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Slater. It's fine to put this info in the infobox, we just need to ensure that the article and the lede both correctly summarize the nature of the org as a deceptive advocacy group that promotes pseudoscientific claims with falsehoods. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy's edit summary here that we can leave this info out until we come to a consensus. I believe the consensus will be to include, but there's no rush. Guy might very well change my and Slater's minds with some well-constructed arguments or the threat of being blocked. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Pressure group vs advocacy group

@JzG: what is wrong with calling NVIC an anti-vaccine advocacy group? that is what the source cited says, I see no reason this is not a good description, they advocate against vaccines. How is it a good idea to use different labels for activists based on whether we believe their activism to be beneficial or harmful?. Also please remember to WP:AGF, this edit summary[4] looked to me like implying bad faith. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You can be a public health advocacy group, but you can't advocate anti-vaccine because it makes no sense gramatically. They are a pressure group exerting influence against mandatory vaccination, and they are propagandists. They don't advocate anything of any objective merit. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I was about to disagree with Guy (Again! This is like, the weirdest day...) because I thought that "pressure group" wasn't a recognizable term. But then I found this. Since "pressure group" is more accurate, I say we use it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Advocacy group does make sense grammatically (why would it not?) and is also accurate [5] and is the word in the source[6] @MPants at work: what is more accurate about "pressure group"? Tornado chaser (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Advocating anti-vaccination is grammatically bonkers. Pressure group is what they are: a core part of their mission is to manipulate their followers into pressuring state governments not to mandate vaccines. Search their website for SB277, for example, or look at www.nvicadvocacy.org/members/Resources/NewsletterArchives/TellCAAssemblytoVoteNOonSB277andSB792.aspx. As an incidental benefit this will also show you the extent to which they lie and distort facts. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain how "Advocating anti-vaccination" is "gramatically bonkers"? Tornado chaser (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Tornado chaser: What, exactly are they advocating for? One advocates for something, not against something. See here. For another thing, "advocacy group" implies a level of respectability that this group doesn't have. There are "cancer patient advocacy groups", "gay rights advocacy groups" and other such legitimate organizations using that term. It strikes me as disingenuous to say that a group peddling incredibly harmful (fatal, even) pseudoscience is in the same category as those groups. EDIT: Hopefully, this answers your question to Guy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Right. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

One thing they advocate for is laws allowing exemptions to vaccine requirements, also, they indirectly advocate for not vaccinating thought their misuse of statistics.One advocates for something, not against something. what is the difference between an anti-segregation pressure group and a pro civil rights advocacy group?

Also, if advocacy group and pressure groups are the same, why are you so against calling it an advocacy group? If these terms have different meanings then why are you choosing to use a different term than the source says (and I am unaware of any anti-vax bias in the nyt, which is an RS) based on your judgement of the groups "respectability" or "legitimacy"? If a consensus is reached that we should use different words to describe activists based on our judgment of the groups respectability this will cause problems, I can see this leading to unnecessary disputes such as "it is not a pro-choice advocacy group, they advocate murder, they are a pressure group, no way are they as respectable as a civil rights advocacy group" ect. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Two sides of the same coin. Advocacy is the positive side, pressure the negative. I suppose it would be fair to call them a preventable disease advocacy group, since that is what they promote, but it would be potentially confused with legitimate groups that advocate for cures to preventable disease, rather than pressure groups who try to resist prevention of disease. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

"Advocacy is the positive side, pressure the negative" seems to be contrasting quite different things. I took a quick look at the usual synonym lists, and didn't find anything better. (Condemnation, criticism, denigration, denouncement, denunciation, disapproval, disapprobation, discouragement, dissent, dissuasion, impugning, objection, opprobrium, opposition, protest, rejection...). --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

So you are trying to use an unsourced term with negative connotations based on you judgement? how is that consistent with WP:NPOV or WP:OR? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I already added a source. So: No. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You added an opinion piece that dosen't call them a pressure group. How about just saying activist group?. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Advocacy is a type of activism, advocacy group is better, although activist does avoid the good connotation you are concerned about in "advocacy" and the bad connotations I feell you are trying to add with "pressure". Tornado chaser (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Antivaxxers are described with negative language on Wikipedia, because that is how the vast majority of reliable sources call them. Our policy on this is at WP:PSCI. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The term "pressure group" was in the source. And yes, it matters. See, for example, [7]. Antivaxers are parasites who prey on vulnerable people. The founders of NVIC were themselves victims of such manipulation, but they have in turn become perpetrators. It's a cult. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

MY bad: this source does not have it. Copy error.

They mean the same thing. So why not go with campeigh group as a compromise (which aslo means the same).Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that they are nt a vaccine safety advocacy group, as they claim, they are antivaxers. The name is deliberately chosen to appear like a credible source of information ([8]). Parents of unvaccinated children almost all got information from NVIC, parents of vaccinated children almost never did. It is ground zero for anti-vaccine propaganda, it's the site quacks like Mike Adams and Mercola recommend. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

We should find a term that has no negative or positive connotations, and see if any RS use that term. Where is pressure group in the source? JzG, This[9] is the source you added, I did command F and typed "pressure" the only place it say "pressure group" is in the comments section, and even then the comment is calling AVN a pressure group, not NVIC (not that a comment is remotely RS anyway). Guy macon, you said "Antivaxxers are described with negative language on Wikipedia, because that is how the vast majority of reliable sources call them. Our policy on this is at WP:PSCI" Yes, we do say their claims are false, and describe them in the context of mainstream science, which is why most of the article is a criticism section. What we don't do is try to find words with the same meaning but a more negative connotation than the words in the source (unless the source is biased in the groups favor, which the NYT is not). Tornado chaser (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

So? as far as I am aware Advocacy is not synonymous with "truth" or "accuracy". You can be an advocate ans still be totally wrong (and even dishonest). I really do not see how calling them a "Pressure group" makes it any more or less clear they are pushers of doddgey science.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

How about "vaccination opposition group"? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

So it will read "is a U.S based nonprofit anti-vaccination vaccination group", really? I really fail to see why "anti-vaccination advocacy group" is an issue for you, it says they advocate against vaccination, that is what they do.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but actually it would read "U.S based nonprofit anti-vaccination vaccination opposition group". Tornado chaser (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Cut and paste error.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I do't actually think we need to use any of these, I think we could just say: "The National Vaccine Information center (NVIC) is an American anti-vaccine organization". I don't see why we need to polish the turd by adding qualifiers, and I only changed to pressure group because advocacy has positive connotations that are wholly unwarranted in this case. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Because "I do not like it" is not a valid objection. I also fail to see how Advocacy has any positive connotations, it just means they advocate (which they do). I really cannot understand your objection, it neither tallies with any definition of Advocacy I am aware of, and...I cannot think of a way of putting this that would not be a PA. I just find you objections to this bizarre and unfathomable. Please can you just stop this, it is illogical, maybe a breach of policy and just makes this article look bad. No one is going to read "advocacy group" and thinks it means anything positive, they will read your objections and think that maybe it does.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is indeed irrelevant. What matters is the reliable independent secondary sources. These identify NVIC as an anti-vaccination group that promotes dangerous falsehoods leading to serious and fatal illness in children. Some assert that they are America's leading anti-vaccinationists. Some note their deliberately misleading name. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have changed "pressure group" to "organization", as a compromise, but "advocacy group" is more specific, and I agree with Slatersteven that many of the objections sounded more like WP:JDL or WP:OR than a policy-based argument. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it would amount to resume-padding. This is an anti-vaccination propaganda outfit. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No it is not, the word does not confer any credentials or authority. They may well be a propaganda outfit, like a hell of a lot of other advocacy groups (such as the tobacco lobby advocacy organisations). Here is a little help

advocacy

NOUN

mass noun

1 Public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy.

Now we can ignore two as we are not trying to claim they are a legal advocate.

What about this implies any thing other then what they do?Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me see if I can explain my issue here. The original version was:

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a U.S based nonprofit anti-vaccination advocacy group

In fact, at one point it was:

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a U.S based nonprofit advocacy group ()

The article has the nonprofit infobox, and included their motto and slogan.

The overall effect is to make them look like a genuine nonprofit which exists to promote vaccine safety. And that is how they present themselves.

However, numerous reliable sources show that this self-characterisation is unequivocally false. Their name is deceptive and almost certainly deliberately so (again, we have RS for that).

I think it is important that we are not complicit in their efforts to paint themselves as a legitimate source of information about vaccines. And let's be clear: people are fooled by this all the time. The BBC recently quoted NVIC in a case of a mother suing over vaccination, the journalist was unaware that they are antivaxers and the article had to be corrected after complaints.

In short, this group's website is the vaccination equivalent of Stormfront.

And we have a long-term problem of people removing important information showing NVIC's propaganda to be false (e.g. [10]).

This article is a locus of anti-vaccination POV-pushing and needs to be carefully managed to ensure that we do not obscure the vital fact that this group offers dangerous disinformation. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

"The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a U.S based nonprofit anti-vaccination advocacy group" I see no issue with this, as it says that they are anti vaccination (not vaccination safety awareness). Nor is it out place to right the wrongs of the world, just to report what RS say, do any RS contest that they are an anti-vaccination advocacy group? We have material that points out what they really are, leaving our one word does not change that (and including it does not undermine it, but arguing to exclude it in this way does). Frankly you are in fact undermining the credibility of the case you want this...now theres a thought.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I think "advocacy group" is superfluous and probably actually inaccurate since their primary purpose is not advocacy but publication of anti-vaccination materials. Their founding purpose was as a support group for people who had decided to blame vaccines for their children's illnesses. Advocacy is a secondary purpose, and they have a secondary website to promote it. However, you make an interesting point re RS. We have many RS that say they are an anti-vaccination group, but none which say they are an anti-vaccination advocacy group. I am looking now to see if I can find one. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: First 20 pages of Google hits don't find one. In fact I don't find any RS that call them an advocacy group, other than copied or quoted from Wikipedia, apart from one book that is inconsistent (starts with the Specter quote then calls NVIC an advocacy group as if it's a different group, in a separate sentence, not sure what's going on there and I am trying to get the original). Guy (Help!) 19:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Update 2: Spoke too soon, HuffPo calls them "Anti-vaccination advocacy group" ([11]). Very dependent on the search terms - this did not include the abbreviation NVIC. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is the source we were using for "advocacy" [12] so now we have 2 for "advocacy" and 0 for "pressure". Tornado chaser (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

And most sources say neither, so I suggest we omit it altogether. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Although I did find more sources for "advocacy", the Washington post[13], Newsweek[14], and I don't know is this source is good but if the Specter quote can be confirmed it would be a third source[15]. We don't need every source to use certain wording for that wording to be well sourced. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

See confirmation bias (ironic, given the article). As above: most sources don't use it, so let's omit it altogether. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

If other users agree oK, but I have to say that the argument "most sources do not use it" is not valid unless we have some that specifically oppose it. If any RS call them an advocacy group there can be no valid objection to us calling them one. Otherwise this is making a controversy that RS do not appear to have engaged in, they do not have an issue with calling them an Advocacy group, why should we.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

While I agree with the comment above, I think it would be a reasonable compromise to just call them an anti-vaccine organization, I think the difference between an organization and an advocacy group is too small to really be worth debating. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

They actually have a separate website for their advocacy activities, so I don't think it's a stretch to assume that they don't consider themselves as - categorically speaking - an advocacy group. They present their primary mission is providing information, albeit that most of that information is misleading or false. In fact their advocacy is primarily political (e.g. against SB277), which would lose them 501(c)(3) status, so they probably can't afford to be an advocacy group as such. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

OR, Ohh and "NVIC advocates for protection of the human right to freedom of thought and conscience and supports the inclusion of flexible medical, religious and conscientious belief exemptions in vaccine policies and laws." so yes they say they advocate.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Or we could omit it as most sources do. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Because most sources omit something does not mean we should not say it. This really is not a valid argument for omission, if some RS contested it then there might be a valid reason. The only person who seems to disagree they are an advocacy group is you, and you are not an RS. I think we may need an RFC at this point. It is clear that the majority here have no issue with the word, so we need outside input.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Or, to turn that around, because a few sources do say it doesn't mean we should. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

OK I have not got the time now but this is going round in circles (purely based upon "I do not like it arguments", an RFC is the only way forward.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear here, "most sources do not say it" is not the same as "I don't like it". If you want to start an RfC fine, but please don't mischaracterise other people's positions. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

1. When discussing competing alternative terms that are all justified by the sources, ILIKEIT is a perfectly reasonable argument. For the record, I found no definition of "advocacy group" in Merriam Webster online. They do have a definition for "pressure group", which does not even list "advocacy group" as one of the synonyms; most likely because the term doesn't exist in the dictionary.
2. One of these terms is more accurate. Admittedly, that's based on OR. But remember what WP:SKYBLUE says; the obvious doesn't need a source. It's obvious that this groups exists only to exert pressure, and if you disagree, there's another page to address that issue.
3. Remember when trying to argue against non-policy based reasoning that WP:IAR is a policy. If a sufficiently good argument is made that the change would improve the project, then it's a policy based argument by definition.
4. All that being said, omitting the term entirely is a solution which has been indicated as acceptable by both sides of this argument. Therefore, that should be the preferred route forward, not continued argument over which of the original two terms is preferable. The current version "The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a U.S based nonprofit anti-vaccination organization." should remain. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Would there be any objections to this edit[16]? Tornado chaser (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It would remove factual, verifiable, true and highly relevant information from the lead, so.... Yeah.

I'd not be opposed to moving their retort about not not advocating "for or against" vaccines to right after the text you removed, but I am 100% against replacing the text as you did with that edit.

I really appreciate you using a sandbox to show off "test" edits, however. It's a wonderful idea. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC){

(edit conflict)The purpose of which would be to reduce redundancy (right now we say "NVIC describes itself as the “oldest and largest consumer led organization advocating for the institution of vaccine safety and informed consent protections”,[10] though it promotes false and misleading information including the fraudulent claim that vaccines cause autism.[11][12][13] While NVIC says that it "does not advocate for or against the use of vaccines", it's campaigns portray vaccines as risky and encourage people to consider "alternatives".[14]" basically going back and forth like "here is what they say here is what RS say, here is what they say hear is what RS say" my goal is to condense that into "here is what they say and here is what RS say")

My proposed edit would also remove the forbs ref, as it don't support the content source to it and we already have 2 refs that do, and add a citation for the fact that they say they are not anti-vaccine. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Where did I remove facts? Tornado chaser (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I misread part of it. You didn't remove information, but you summed it up in a way that takes away from the meaning. "False and misleading" is much more accurate (and better supported by the sources) than "inaccurate". I did notice that you describe the vaccines -> autism bit as false, but the way the NVIC works is by deliberately misleading people. A variation of your edit that I could get behind might be:

...and says that it "does not advocate for or against the use of vaccines". However, NVIC's campaigns promote false and misleading information, including the fraudulent claim that vaccines cause autism.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, there would be objections. Thanks for asking. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I am planning on doing this edit[17] does anyone think this will be controversial? (and if so, suggest tweaks). Tornado chaser (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I object to it on the grounds that objecting to it is funny. (Obviously, I'm not being serious here. I'm fine with it.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

So everyone else is fine with the removal of [ https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/02/03/sears-and-gordon-should-misleading-vaccine-advice-have-professional-consequences ]? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

What article content did this ref support? The content cited to it was the fact that NVIC "promotes false and misleading information including the fraudulent claim that vaccines cause autism" but this ref doesn't mention NVIC except for a brief mention that they are anti-vaccine, it said nothing about NVIC's falsehoods. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Since the claim is about the nature of NVIC's claims (those claims being the topic of the article) and not about NVIC itself, it doesn't need to go into detail about NVIC. If NVIC says "X" and this article says "X is bad" then we can use this source to say "NVIC says X, which is bad" so long as we have a source for the "NVIC says X" bit, which we do. I'll admit it edges close to SYNTH, but only due to the peculiarities of English writing and sentence structure. Each clause in the sentence ("NVIC says X" and "X is bad") are supported by separate sources. So please, restore the Forbes ref and then the proposed edit should be perfectly fine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That is not a good edit, as it replaces content sourced to an independent ref with content sourced to a SPS. This is classic advocacy editing. WP content should be sourced independently as much as possible. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The only content I cited to an SPS was the fact that the NVIC says they aren't for or against vaccines, which previously was not sourced, citing a biased unreliable source is ok as a source for their own statements. I did not remove any content. The reason I removed the forbs ref is that we alreasy have 2 refs there, each of which both say "NVIC says this" and "this is bad", we don't need 3 refs on every sentence, that just makes it hard to read. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

when making a change to a big block of text, as you did here, please don't do things that move it. By adding the editors note, you shifted the whole thing down, making the actual content changes not show up in the diff. I started copy/pasting it into Word and comparing and then showing that here but I am not going to waste my time representing your edit. You can propose it here. You did more than what you proposed above tho. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

we don't need 3 refs on every sentence, that just makes it hard to read. It's normal practice here to overcite blunt statements of fact that a significant number of people might object to. It may make it harder to read, but it also makes it harder to argue with, meaning the well-meaning randos who periodically show up to complain about the bias here will be less likely to do so, leaving us only with the true believers, who are more easily dealt with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That is true but then we need clearer sources, I'll put the forbs ref back but I don't see the point. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

If I did more than I proposed it was a copypasta error, anyway this [18] is the edit I would like to make. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I will also add the forbs ref. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think we put their bullshit "I'm not anti-vaccine but..." in the lede like that. NVIC is anti-vaccine. They pretend not to be only because they know being anti-vaccine is toxic. If you can find a single unambiguously positive thing they have ever said about vaccines, I will donate ten dollars to the anti-vaccine "charity" of your choice. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

They are, and we have a wealth of RS to show this, but for neutrality's sake, 1 mention of the fact that they say they are not is needed when we first describe them, but note that I say "However", and talk about how they promote misleading and false info(with a lot of RS), so it is still clear what they are.

P.S, if you give me $10 it will be a few more gallons of gas for my next storm chase, I have never donated to antivaxxers and have no desire to, you shouldn't try to (falsly)imply that I am anti-vaccine. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not "neutral" to promote the self-serving lies of charlatans. See false balance. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

But it is not "promoting" to mention something once, and then talk about why it is false. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced thing that was concerning you. I do not support adding content sourced to the organization itself. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

In this case the content meets the policy for content that may be cited to selfe published or questionable sources[19], which requiers that:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; Since it is portrayed as "nvic says this but.." it is not too self serving since it is not presented as fact, and is contradicted by the rest of the article.

2. it does not involve claims about third parties; It is just about nvic and no one else, so it meets this criterion easily

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; Again, it is just about nvic and no events are mentioned, so it meets this criterion easily

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; Since it is portrayed as a statement by nvic and not a fact, how could nvic's website be lying about what they claim to be? they could be lying about what they are, but if they claim something, surely they must be a reliable source for the fact that they claimed that? (unless their website got hacked or something, which I see no evidence of)

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. This requirement is met , as the vast majority of sources in the article are third party. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If there are not independent refs that say this, it is a very good sign that we should not be saying it, per WP:UNDUE. Continually trying to give UNDUE weight to FRINGE views is something that we TBAN people for, under the DS. You will do as you see fit going forward of course. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You have a point about the lack of other sources that mention this, although the article does give far more weight to the mainstream view, even with my proposed edit, so I am not convinced that this violates undue. The motivation for my edit is that there are some who are outright against the concept of vaccination, so by stating that NVIC is anti-vax, I am afraid we are implying that NVIC is explicitly against the concept of vaccination, and I think it is most accurate to say "they say they are not for or against but they mislead people into thinking vaccines are dangerous" this seems consistent with NPOV, UNDUE, and RS, althought I am open to suggested wording changes.

A TBAN is for disruptive editors, are you really saying that engaging in a content dispute on the talk is disruptive? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

In general, the community considers persistent advocacy for UNDUE content to be disruptive. This is actually the main kind of disruption that we get on pseudoscience topics - people who just will not relent doing things like citing primary sources to elevate some fringey perspective, even when everyone else is saying "umm no". Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• If we can't independently source the NVIC's claim about not promoting antivaxxer stuff (even as just a claim), then it's probably not WP:DUE, and shouldn't be included. We can source their slogan and mission statement to them, but random declarations that are likely false shouldn't be sourced to them. That being said:

Jytdog and Guy; you two are getting awfully aggressive. Tornado looks like an editor who might have a more forgiving approach to WP:N than us (or to put it another way, they're less devoted to debunking woo with facts), but I've yet to see them do anything or suggest any edit that's overtly anti-vaxxer, or which would justify speculations about sanctions and behavior problems. You both know that I have a great deal of respect for you, so keep that in mind when I ask you to kindly knock it the fuck off.

There's no obvious POV pushing here, except for the sort justified by WP:FRINGE and coming from the three of us. Tornado's continued argument is just human nature: people argue back when they're argued with. It's not evidence per se of an agenda. If Tornado is an antivaxxer who's trying to get a wedge in on this article by softening the tone, then that's a setup for future POV pushing, which will be obviously more overt. In that case, we can deal with that then. Until then, let's try to remain relaxed about this. This is a hobby for all of us, lets not make it a chore.

And Tornado chaser, please understand that articles like this do get a ton of POV pushing, and it comes from people who would happily let children die to pursue an agenda that ultimately results in nothing more than making them feel superior to the rest. To those of us with a lot of experience editing fringe articles, this particular brand of fringe is an understandable hot button. Without a reputation for editing in these circles, it's to be expected that any pushback from the anti-fringe-theory crowd will be hard. You've remained quite civil thus far, but if you can keep it up in the face of behavior you don't believe justifies civility in return, that would be best for you, and this article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

N has nothing to do with this; we are not talking about deleting anything. Most of your comment here is not appropriate for an article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NEUTRAL, I meant. Ditto for your response, by the way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes that N. :) Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Re "I've yet to see them do anything or suggest any edit that's overtly anti-vaxxer", see [20][21][22][23] They look like a WP:CPUSH antivaxxer to me. That isn't necessarily a bad thing; having someone who forces the editors who work on a page to dot every i and cross every t can be quite beneficial. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that first one does look really bad. The others, not so much. As I indicated above, putting their slogan and mission statement in the infobox is fine by me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually adding the mission and slogan is typical advocacy. We don't have fields for it at the template:infobox company and I have had a thread open there to have the fields removed from template:infobox organization for the same reason. you can see Template_talk:Infobox_organization#Mission,_slogan and the links there if you like. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If a consensus forms to remove those fields from template:infobox organization then of course, we should remove them here. But as long as it's normal practice to include them for reputable orgs, then I say we should include them for disreputable orgs, as well. We have the entire rest of the article to show what crap orgs like this are, we don't need to slant the infobox contents against them, as well. It's all just encyclopedic content, anyways. For the record, I'm on board with removing them from the template, for pretty much the reasons you gave in that link. I'll let my voice be heard there, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

My issue is that the NVIC article has been edited over time in a way that makes it - and especially the Google thumbnail - look like a real nonprofit health charity. So I started looking in depth at the article and found a whole lot of what looks to me to be other subtle bias. This is like creationism or climate change denial: neutrality is not the halfway point between what they say and what the scientific community says. neutrality is what the scientific community says. For example, they give a platform to Andrew Wakefield, the disgraced and struck-off former doctor and research fraudster responsible for what has been called "perhaps the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years". When you promote Wakefield as an authority, as they do, you forfeit the right to claim you're just telling people the facts. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I am devoted to debunking falsehoods with facts, my concern is that "anti-vaccine" is not an unambiguous factual term, when I here it I think "against the concept of vaccination", while some would call opposition to mandatory vaccination anti-vaccine, it isn't like you can do PCR testing and say "this organization tests positive for anti-vaccinationism", I am not entirely sure what nivc's real mission is, they seem to think vaccines need to be made safer or something? or maybe they are completely against the concept of vaccination and are pretending not to be. If RS call them anti vaccine we should to but if there is an element of opinion to what is anti-vax why should we not briefly mention their denial in the context of "but they mislead"? even a convicted murderer we would mention their denial? Tornado chaser (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(this [24] edit was 9 months ago when I was new and haden't read WP:LEAD, now I would not support removing "anti-vaccine" from the first sentence, the Specter quote I deleted appeared in the body too, this is not a big article and it was quite small then, so having this quote 2X (so that much of the article was the same quote twice) seemed silly) The other 3 diffs are me filling in standard infobox parameters, which it appears that the developing consensus will likely be to include, so how does this make me a pov pusher? I understand you concern about POV-pushers, and if consensus developes that nvic's denial should not be included that I will accept that, but I would hope everyone makes well constructed arguments about the content, rather than accusations of disruptive editing and suggestions that I be banned for a talk page discussion. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is all water under the bridge. Now the article is returning to a reality-based focus rather than NVIC's fantasy world where vaccines are murder, so it's all good. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

So the question becomes? Can the current lede be improved? I, for one, don't really think so. I'm sure there's something we could do to make it better, but I've no idea what. So the question remains; what should we do with the rest of the article? Guy, you say you've seen a CRUSH going on in this article slowly, and I trust your judgement on that. For now, I'm withholding making suggestions of my own because I still need to give the whole article a good, thorough reading. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The lede sets the tone. Right now I think the article is OK, but it needs careful copyediting. For example, text like "Each of them had observed the health of one of their children deteriorate after receiving a round of the DPT vaccine" strongly implies that the vaccine caused the deterioration, whereas that is in fact just the post-hoc fallacy and the basis on which that claim was made (a propaganda film on TV) is demonstrably incorrect, a fact which I added in context. So the important thing is to use reliable independent sources that analyse the correctness of statements by NVIC and never to cite NVIC directly. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that is what happened. yes they did the "correlation is causation" mistake for sure. That was sourced to Offit's book actually. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup. And it's fine to include it as long as we also include the fact that it was fallacious - explain why they are wrog and how they got there, but don't under any circumstances leave the reader in any doubt that wrong is what they are. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Speaking somewhat generally here, I would really like to make sure we get the weight right in terms of verbiage and readability. i.e. the following is no good:

"The NVIC said X caused Y, and published Z which contained arguments A, B and C, and made claims D, E and F based on work done by discredited former physicial G. They used this to support mother H, whose daughter was diagnosed with Y following her X vaccination. Skeptic J later pointed out that the evidence of correlation was insufficient to demonstrate a causal relationship, and disassembled the fallacious underpinnings of the published arguments."

There's too much description of the NVIC's actions in that, and the description of the skeptical response has too many "big words" in it. I'd rather see something like this:

"The NVIC published X which argued against vaccinations. They referred to mother Y, whose daughter was diagnosed with Z some time after her A vaccination. Skeptic B later pointed out that the evidence claimed by the NVIC wasn't enough to establish that the vaccine caused the diagnosis, and went on to point out that the publication was full of false claims and fallacies, and further pointed to the NVIC's history of promoting false claims."

I know I'm arguing for "dumbing down" certain passages, and that has it's own problems. But I'm concerned about how we do this because it's well-documented that expositing false claims and then debunking them often has the opposite of the desired effect, and much of that is due to the debunkings being difficult to follow, whereas the false claims "make sense" as it were. We can present accurate, verifiable information all day, but if the reader walks away believing untrue things, we haven't properly done our job. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I generally support bringing refutations closer to claims, obviously. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I read the lead again and it actually looks OK, I still would not mind adding the denial, but I am ok with the consensus that this would be UNDUE, I looked and you are right about the complete lack of third party sources. The one thing I would like to change is "fraudulent claim" which I would like to change to "debunked notion", as "fraud" is a legal term with a specific meaning and NVIC was saying this well before wakefield's fraud. (unless someone comes up with an neutral RS that explicitly says NVIC committed fraud). Tornado chaser (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The one thing I would like to change is "fraudulent claim" which I would like to change to "debunked notion", as "fraud" is a legal term with a specific meaning and NVIC was saying this well before wakefield's fraud. Well, it also has a non-legal meaning, which fits. It's lying for personal gain. In this case, NVIC lies in order to convince people to donate, and help them push their agenda. It may not be fraud in the legal sense, but it's fraud in the colloquial sense. So as long as we're not implying that it's criminal fraud, I don't see a problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is a page on the NVIC site citing Andrew Wakefield as if he was a legitimate researcher and not a fraud who is now barred from practicing medicine in the UK.[25] Here is a facebook post from the NVIC which does the same.[26] Can you find any place where the NVIC repudiates Wakefield? If they continue to tout Wakefield's research then in my opinion that meets the legal definition of "fraudulent". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"Evidence has been documented that measles infection as well as the MMR vaccine may be involved in the development of a syndrome involving both inflammatory bowel disease and regressive developmental disorder in children (Wakefield et al, 1998)" Reading that bit made me want to punch somebody. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize they were promoting vaxxed, "fraud" can stay. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh it's much worse than that. See for example www.nvic.org/about/conference.aspx - not just Wakefield but also Mark Geier, struck-off for using chemical castration to "cure" autism, and Walter Kyle, who makes a lovely living out of vaccine "victims". Guy (Help!) 20:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Clarification needed

The article states that the "vaccine roulette" film dew an erroneous causal link between the two, but it is not clear what it drew a link between? Tornado chaser (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Between DTP and the deterioration of the health of her child. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The film she saw could not have asserted that the vaccine made her individual child ill, I assume you mean that the film claimed that the vaccine causes the health problems her child had, but that is not how the article is worded and since I don't have access to the source I don't know how to fix this. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC) updated 19:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

hopefully someone who has the source in question ( the book Deadly Choices, by Paul Offit) can fix this. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

this was not hard to fix. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Category

@SkepticalRaptor: I don't understand why you consider adding NVIC to the category "vaccination-related organizations" to be an anti-vax edit[27]. Antivaxers like NVIC are related to vaccination because they oppose it. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

NVIC are not scientists, they have no valid input into the vaccine debate, and they have chosen an Orwellian name in order to try to position themselves alongside reality-based organisations. Once again, your desire to show fairness to antivaxers does you credit, but once again, it goes too far here. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This edit was not about fairness, and I did not think that adding a group to the the category "vaccination-related organizations" gave them any legitimacy, it just means that the group has to do with vaccines, weather they promote bullshit about vaccines or science about vaccines. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You have a bit of a reputation issue, in that most of your edits to vaccine related articles come across as sympathetic to antivaxers. I would support adding this article to Category:Child endangerment but it is already in the correct categories in relation to vaccines. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There are some other anti-vax groups in "vaccination-related organizations", should they be removed? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. They should be on the category for anti-vaxers instead. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

SB277

This source[28] mentions NVIC opposing SB277, Normally I would think it UNDUE to mention one specific bill that NVIC opposed, but given the substantial coverage of SB277 in RS, I would like to know what other editors think about including this is the article(don't have a strong opinion on weather to include or not, just curious what others say). Tornado chaser (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I only see a namecheck and a false claim that their astroturfing is a "grassroots campaign". Guy (Help!) 08:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of source and "though for unrelated reasons"

I made this edit [29] because the text said DTP is not used in the US "for unrelated [whether unrelated to autism or unrelated to adverse effects in general is not clear] reasons", but the source said is was due to adverse effects. Also, the source was written before DTP was phased out, and was primarily talking about Canada not the US. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: Pinging as you have reverted the above edit without sufficient explanation. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The "unrelated reasons" comment is necessary to avoid giving the misleading impression that NVIC were right, as stopped clocks occasionally are, but in this case they were not. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Unrelated to what? adverse effects in general or autism in particular? Right now it looks like it might mean unrelated to adverse effects in general, which is false. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

DTP was discontinued in the US due to safety concerns[30][31]. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

... not related to NVICs campaign. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Who is Wallace?

This line Fisher and Williams each called the television station after the broadcast, and Fisher was given Wallace's contact information by the station is the only mention of anyone named "Wallace" in the entire article, who is wallace? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the whole line to avoid confusion, feel free to put it back along with a mention of who Wallace is (I am thinking it was supposed to say "Williams" and that "Wallace" is a typo, but I don't have the book that this line is cited to). Tornado chaser (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This guy? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

501(c)(3)

Tornado Chaser has edit-warred the 501(c)(3) status into the opening sentence. The long-standing version was:

• The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is an American anti-vaccine organization which has been widely criticized as a leading source of misinformation and fearmongering about vaccines. [...] NVIC has 501(c)(3) nonprofit status.[15]

Tornado Chaser's preferred version is:

• The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is an American 501(c)(3)[1] anti-vaccine organization which has been widely criticized as a leading source of misinformation and fearmongering about vaccines

This, I would say, violates the principle of minimum astonishment. It implies that anti-vaccine advocacy is a charitable purpose. Basically "it's an anti-vaccine charity". How many anti-vaccine charities are there? The sentence as written makes no sense as it juxtaposes two mutually incompatible things - charitable status and being a health menace. Now, the incompatibility is, for sure, a real-world thing: they do indeed have this status, but the sentence is so jarring that it makes much more sense to put it lower down in the lede. The main function of putting this in the opening sentence is to make the Google graph look better. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: The main function of putting this in the opening sentence is to make the Google graph look better No, the purpose just to condense the lead so we don't have little standalone sentences at the bottom. I have heard "appeals to the google summery" before, but the thought of google's summery of the lead rarely crosses my mind when editing, if someone isn't going to click on the WP page, I can't see how we can expect them to be perfectly informed by googles little tiny summery. But anyway I just googled "NVIC" and this is google's summery:

The National Vaccine Information Center is an American 501 anti-vaccine organization which has been widely criticized as a leading source of misinformation and fearmongering about vaccines.

I really don't think I have made NVIC look good in google, and it would be great if you could stop trying to insinuate that I am an NVIC supporter. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

That may not be your intent, but it is the main function. And as I stated, this is the difference between saying "X is an anti-vaccination charity", which gets a resounding WTF, and saying "X is an anti-vaccine organisation that has charitable status", which is slightly less baffling. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't find this baffling, I'm no lawyer, but in the US I think any nonprofit advocacy group can be tax exempt regardless of what side they take on an issue, as the first amendment prohibits the government from taxing groups differently based on their point of view. Although I believe some countries like Australia can and have removed charitable status from antivax groups.

I also see no distinction between "X is an anti-vaccination charity" and "X is an anti-vaccine organisation that has charitable status", other than the awkward wording in the latter. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Anti-vaccine charities are not a thing. Anti-vaccinationism is not a charitable purpose. There are a small number of organisations that are anti-vaccine and also have charitable status. This is pretty much the only organisation primarily devoted to the spread of infectious disease which has charitable status. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no contradiction whatsoever between being 501(c)(3) and being a menace for humanity. That's just a personal opinion. Let's not project our own personal preferences and opinions into other editors' presumed intentions. Nemo 10:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

JzG, I agree with Nemo, please stop trying to base article content on your opinions, you have made it clear that you believe NVIC should not have tax exempt charitable status, but that is your opinion and is not justification for changing the article. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

See above. Please list all other anti-vaccine groups (as in, whose primary focus is promoting the spread of preventable disease, rather than groups devoted to some other purpose that are also anti-vaccine) which are charities. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is a "vaccine choice" 501(c)(3)[32], while some other "vaccine choice" groups appear to be 501(c)(4)/political action committees[33][34][35]. Generation rescue is also a 501(c)(3)[36]. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Jesus wept. The IRS needs to clamp down on this. Advocacy for the spread of preventable disease is not a charitable purpose. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Motto

@Roxy the dog:@JzG: I understand that you don't like NVIC (I don't either) but that is not reason to remove their motto, selectively removing mottoes because you don't like a group or their motto is pure POV. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the page I am seeing two competing claims:

• "(Marketing slogans (mission statements etc) are deprecated and being removed."

• "The 'motto' parameter, has NOT been deprecated, and there is no consensus on the RfC at Talk:infobox organization to remove it."

The above claims cannot both be true.

May I please see a link to where mottos were deprecated? If it exists, may I see a link to where it was asked whether mottos should be deprecated and the result was "no consensus"? If this has never been discussed, is the "motto" parameter new or has it been in use for a while? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is the RfC I started[37] in response to JzG's opposition to mottoes. "Mission" and "slogan" were removed[38] with a "consensus" of 2 editors, but I don't know where JzG gets the idea that mottoes are being deprecated, given that the RfC has been going for a month and has 3 "keep" plus 1 "weak keep" and 3 "remove" !votes. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

"Motto" has been in the infobox for 11 years[39] Tornado chaser (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, the RfC is one day old, so of course no consensus yet, and per WP:STATUSQUO I have put the motto back in for now. This may change if there is evidence of a consensus to deprecate mottos. Anyone providing such evidence is free to revert me without it counting towards 3RR. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: the RfC is actually 31 days old. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Note to self: Next time, smoke crack AFTER editing Wikipedia... --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: The reasons for removing the mission statement parameter and so on apply to the motto here: it's a marketing slogan, and in this case an Orwellian one since NVIC primarily advocates for the spread of preventable disease, so it needs to be out per WP:PROMO and WP:FRINGE. I'm also becoming somewhat tired of Tornado Chaser buffing up articles on infectious disease promoters. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: Please keep the discussion here only about NVIC, the other articles you reverted me on I was going to add the stuff back in secondary sources, the goal wasn't to remove it permanently. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Idea: How about discussing changes before you make them, since many of the edits you may to stable articles on charlatans turn out to be controversial? Guy (Help!) 23:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion here to whether or not to include the motto, so far your argument seems to be "NVIC promotes misinformation, so mentioning their slogan is misinformation". But unless someone only reads the motto and not even the first sentence of the lead, I can't see how they will think anything NVIC says is legitimate. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

So, my argument for removal is based on WP:FRINGE (policy) and WP:PROMO (policy). Your argument for including it is WP:ITSAPARAMETERTHATEXISTS, which is not policy. Kindly remove this self-serving Orwellian bullshit which, and I hate to have to remind you of this, you reinserted, since it has been absent for most of its recent history for exactly those policy-based reasons. And that was your foruth revert, you already noted you are at 3RR. Self-revert now, please. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I am at 3rr now, how does this violate FRINGE or PROMO? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Could we slow down the back-and-forth commenting, please? It isn't productive. Also less heat and more light, please.

I am interested in making this right, but I am so far unsure what is best.

Re: "The reasons for removing the mission statement parameter and so on apply to the motto..." May I see a link to where the community decided to remove mission statements?

I may end up posting an RfC on the general question. Certainly some corporate mission statements are just public relations bloviating -- and boring as hell ("Our worldwide operations are aligned around a global strategy called the Plan to Win, which center on an exceptional customer experience--People, Products, Place, Price and Promotion."), but some ("Don't be evil", "No animals were harmed" "Free minds and free markets") are quite notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The "motto" parameter is only on the infobox organization, not the corporate infobox, so we shuldn't have an issue with the boring corporate mottoes. The RfC I linked above has no consensus for removal of "motto", but mission and slogan were removed here[40] based on 2 editors voting to remove(1 of with has now been indeffed by arbcom for unrelated reasons), and nobody voting keep, hardly anything that can be considered community consensus. My concern is that JzG's reasons for removing NVIC's motto have mostly been criticisms of NVIC's motto, and if removing the mottos we don't like becomes accepted, it will damage the neutrality of the encyclopedia and likely spill over into other areas. I agree that NVIC promotes a lot of nonsense(will they ever learn to stop conflating correlation with causation?) and I am tiered of being called a fringe pusher for insisting that NPOV is still applied to fringe topics, I remove antivax POVs on sight too.

What do you plan to post an RfC on, given that an RfC on removing the "motto" parameter was started a month ago? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I am still thinking about it, and I may decide not to post an RfC. If I do, It won't be about removing the motto parameter but rather guidance on when to use it and when not to -- including asking whether the reasons (on both sides) given here are valid. I am on a hot project, so expect my responses to be slow for at least 5 days. --Guy Macon (talk) 0. 1:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: That shouldn't be necessary. In as much as anybody mentions this at all, Google identifies this as a slogan, not a motto. A motto is a phrase to live by, as it were (e.g. Scouts, Be Prepared) or a component of a coat of arms. A slogan is a marketing device, and you'll note that the slogan parameter was removed for exactly that reason. I'd also note that most (a supermajority in fact) revisions since the infobox was added, do not contain the slogan. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Google also identifies "slogan" and "motto" as synonyms, so I doubt that the distinction matters here. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I have struck my vote on the RfC, and changed it to remove, so now there are 2 keeps, a weak keep and 4 removes. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: "A slogan is a marketing device, and you'll note that the slogan parameter was removed for exactly that reason." may I have a link to the discussion where it was decided to remove the slogan parameter, please? Some here may see a pattern; whenever anyone claims that the Wikipedia community has decided something, I ask for a link and then carefully read the discussion in question. It would save effort if the link was posted with the original claim. There once was a Quaker with a reputation for not making any claim that he could not personally verify. Someone asked him "well, would you agree that the sheep in yonder field are white?" He replied "of the sheep I can see, the side facing me is white". --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Here is where the slogan was removed[41]. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed solution

I have been studying the former discussions on various pages, and after a lot of thought I propose the following solution:

Proposed: Slogans, Mottos, Mission Statements, and all similar infobox parameters should only be added if they are [1] discussed in at leas one reliable secondary source (actual discussion, not just a mention in passing) and [2] discussed in the body of the article (which they shouldn't be unless they are discussed in a reliable secondary source.)

Is this a compromise that everyone can live with? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a consistent standard not based on our opinion of the organization, so that works for me. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

As long as when we say "discussed" we mean substantive discussion, which in this case necessarily means noting its Orwellian nature, then it can certainly be included in the body, but I would never advocate including the marketing slogan of a public health menace in an infobox, that is a terrible idea on multiple levels. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

No, "discussed" means discussed by reliable sources, not necessarily discussed in a way that you agree with. Also what do you mean by "Orwillien"? I don't think NVIC is trying to become big brother and spy on us or otherwise impose authoritarian rule, do you? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

See WP:PROFRINGE. Yes, we require discussion of the Orwellian nature of the slogan. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:PROFRINGE requires that we don't self source fringe theories, but only include them as discussed in RS, it does NOT say the the RS must agree with your opinion that the motto is "Orwellian". Also, NVIC's motto isn't a fringe theory, it's more of a statment of opinion, as it contains no objective claims of fact. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard discussion

I have taken the motto dispute to NPOVN[42] Tornado chaser (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

accuracy of nvic representation

i speak truth101 edited the nvic wikipage because the information was completly bias & did not accuratly represent nvic, there was a lot of dogma associated with it, i took out the biasness and inserted facts- and provided citations, why has this been censored, i will continue to re edit this and have my statement saved.-talktruth101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speaktruth101 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Speaktruth101: What parts of the article do you consider biased? If you think an article is biased, the thing to do is use this talk page to discuss the issue with other editors to try and come to an agreement on the article's wording, rather than continuing to change the article back to the way you want it. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)