Talk:Alternative vaccination schedule

"tolerate" sentence

@BullRangifer:@Calton: The sentence "Even pro-vaccine parents often tolerate other parents' decisions to adopt alternative vaccine schedules." seems to imply that pro-vax parents shouldn't tolerate those who use alternative vaccine schedules. BullRangifer has suggested changing it to "The tolerance of pro-vaccine parents may encourage anti-vaccine parents to continue in their vaccine denial." This is possibly an improvement NPOV wise, but I am not convinced that this sentence accurately reflects the source I don't have access to the full text, but the abstract seems so be saying that parents who use alternative vaccine schedules themselves self-describe as pro-vaccine rather than that the ones who fully vaccinate tolerate those who don't. Either way, I struggle to see how the thoughts of upper-middle class parents in Philadelphia really belong in this article at all. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

References

@Natureium: See my reasoning for removing it above. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

This is unrelated to the edit I reverted. Natureium (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Your right, I didn't realize which edit of mine you reverted. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The sentence "Even pro-vaccine parents often tolerate other parents' decisions to adopt alternative vaccine schedules." seems to imply that pro-vax parents shouldn't tolerate those who use alternative vaccine schedules.

That's your projection, not mine. --Calton | Talk 04:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: I already know you don't see this as non-neutral, I am asking whether you think this needs to be in the article at all, and If so, could we try to come up with wording that we all can agree on. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Calton that the current wording is fine. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: Um.. doesn't Calton support the way it was before I changed it? Tornado chaser (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I still am not sure how this is WP:DUE and I am not convinced it reflects the source well, I have been reverted by 2 editors now without anyone addressing the source or UNDUE concerns. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I see you just removed this disputed sentence, I like your edit, but thought you should be aware of this discussion. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@LeviaThinMint: fix ping. Tornado chaser (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, i saw the conversation - i think it's a silly sentence, unless we're trying to imply that there's some sort of secret pro-vaccine parental mafia that visits vaccine-skeptical parents in the middle of the night to pressure them into giving their kids MOAR SHOTS. "tolerate" is just a bizarre word (& yes i know it's in the original source - it's weird there too) to describe the phenomenon. i was going to substitute "understand" but that changes the meaning somewhat so figured nothing was lost by removing the sentence entirely. LeviaThinMint (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: It doesn't even matter how much sense this sentence makes, the citation is a study of upper-middle class parents in Philadelphia, hardly a broad enough sample to make a general statment like this, it's just UNDUE. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

No, really? Upper middle class parents? The kind of crunchy moms who are antivaxers? Fancy. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence in question as it is based on a primary source, and fails WP:MEDRS. I'm not opposed to making the point that anti-vaccine parents are often enabled by others, but that needs to be based on compliant sources. Bradv🍁 21:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

"This experience also generated sympathy for and tolerance of vaccine hesitancy in other parents." The paper is in the peer reviewed literature, and primary is not an issue here because it's not a medical claim it's a societal one. What's more important in that paper is that the root cause is the confusion caused by antivax disinformation. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

While you are right that MEDRS doesn't apply because it is a societal issue, it is still UNDUE to take 1 survey of 1 economic class in 1 city and use it as a source for a general statment about society beyond that city. It also sounds a little editorial-ish with the wording that BullRangifer added on. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

In your opinion. As an editor with a long history of edits sympathetic to antivaxers. There is actually a lot of research out there on this subject and the sentence could probably be expanded. Parents who have a reality-based view of vaccines will nonetheless be sympathetic to alternative schedules, due to the sheer volume of bullshit put out by antivaxers. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

In your opinion. As an editor with a long history of edits sympathetic to antivaxers. this part of your argument is an ad hominim and can be disregarded.

There is actually a lot of research out there on this subject and the sentence could probably be expanded. Maybe there is, but then find a better source/more sources.

Parents who have a reality-based view of vaccines will nonetheless be sympathetic to alternative schedules, due to the sheer volume of bullshit put out by antivaxers. Needs a source. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

this part of your argument is an ad hominim and can be disregarded.

By you, maybe, but since it's descriptive of your consistent editing behavior, I'll just call it "self-serving logic" and NOT disregard it. Calton | Talk 04:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You commented here just to leave a second ad hominim? Tornado chaser (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You really do need t start accepting that the multiple comments you're getting about your sympathetic approach to antivaxers are not personal attacks, but serious and important criticism of your approach tot he subject. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of what you and Calton think of my editing, dismissing my argument on talk page based on my(alledged) pattern of editing without addressing the substance of the argument is not legitimate reasoning. It is not that hard to refute the central point of antivax POVs, so if you really think I am an antivaxer, why do you feel the need to sink to the second weakest form of argument? As I have said before, I am pro-vax and open to constructive criticism, so if you think there is a problem with my editing feel free to explain the issue on my talk page. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand the issue here. The source is respectable and our text here faithfully summarizes the key point it makes. Isn't this what we're meant to be doing? Alexbrn (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, my issue with the sentence is that it is a primary source referring to one particular study in a specific geographical area. I think the point may be worth making, but the word "often" certainly is not supported by the source. We need better sourcing for a general statement like this. Bradv🍁 17:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I see. I think we could summarize it a bit better. How about "Even parents who are ostensibly pro-vaccine can be misled by disinformation, and this can lead them to delay having their children vaccinated, and to tolerate such delay in others". Something like that? I think this is a fairly unexceptional point so it would be good to have something on it. Alexbrn (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, that could work nicely. While looking for more sources for this, I came across a study that discusses the impact of pediatricians dismissing parents who refuse to vaccinate, thereby clustering anti-vax parents in sympathetic clinics. This may be worth adding to the article as well. [1] Bradv🍁 17:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not against having some mention of social influences on parents' vaccination decisions in the article, but we need sources that are much broader than just Philadelphia. Also, I find the part about tolerating such delay in others odd, as proposed this makes it sound like parents are generally expected to somehow police each other's vaccine decisions. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The study is not contradicted by findings elsewhere. It is consistent with the facts as observed in antivax hotspots. Looks fine to me. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The study is not contradicted by findings elsewhere A single study of 1 city cannot be generalized to the country/world as a whole, even in the absence of other sources that contradict it.

It is consistent with the facts as observed in antivax hotspots. Either you are engaging in OR or you are aware of other sources for these findings, if you have better sources you should add them, if you are engaging in OR you should realize that everything needs sources. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Once again, you are digging in to defend antivax-friendly content. Experience indicates that further discussion is a waste of time. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I have not seen 1 comment in this discussion where you argue that that this is not UNDUE other than by saying "it is in the peer reviewed literature" or what it says is true" both terrible arguments. What I have seen is repeated ad hominims, I do not mean to accuse you of personal attacks, but to point out that if your best arguments are ad hominims, "its DUE because it is peer reviewed" (ironically this argument could be used to insert a lot of antivax crap) and "I agree with its conclusions" you are likely wrong. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarification

What is meant by "tolerate"? This should be clarified, as it stands this sentence sounds like parents are normally expected to police each other's vaccination choices, if this is the case, how parents are expected to police each other should be explained, if not, then what does it mean? Tornado chaser (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The usual plain-English meaning, as per wikt:tolerate. Please stop sealioning. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I know the meaning of tolerate, but in this context it doesn't make sense, hence my request for clarification. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, and others here, so maybe the problem is your end? Guy (Help!) 15:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, what don't you understand? Tolerating anti-vax nonsense weakens an entire society (see herd immunity), so discussing that impact as part of this article makes perfect sense to me. Bradv🍁 15:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: Vaccine requirements are enforced by the states, not other parents, so it's not clear what parents could do to avoid tolerating those who don't vaccinate? Tornado chaser (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Ever heard of peer pressure? Guy (Help!) 16:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, that doesn't add up. It's possible to tolerate people's attitudes without the authority to do something about it. Bradv🍁 16:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I guess I see how this could just mean that people see non-vaccination as socially acceptable, but as written it sounds like there is something parents are supposed to do about other parents who don't vaccinate. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Scope of study

Would others be ok with this proposed edit[2] to clarify the scope of the study? Tornado chaser (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Not unless Philadelphia has been moved to some country other than America. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The current wording implies a representative sample of well-off families across the country, despite the fact that the study only looked at Philadelphians. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

That is the impression I get when I read it, and I doubt I am the only one. Even if you don't see it as necessary, how would my proposed edit make the article worse? Tornado chaser (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

By minimising the reality, something you have a terrible tendency to do when editing in this area, which really you ought by now to have realised is not a good fit for you, what with all the incessant drama you cause. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: There was a big discussion on my talk page (see here[3] under "Open to criticism") after I invited constructive criticism of my vaccine-related editing, I realized my editing has often been too hasty, and that this has caused problems especially on vaccine articles[4], as vaccines are the only controversial subject I edit frequently. So I apologize for the past drama and edit wars I have caused, but I will not pretend that I have always been in the wrong, there have been times where you have accused me of being antivax after I reverted edits of yours that were clearly against policy, or argued against counter-to policy justifications of your edits. But going forward can we just focus on content? I am tiered of rehashing old personal disputes on article talk pages, this leads to arguments that take forever without developing any consensus. If you want to talk about me as an editor, or criticize a general pattern in my editing, feel free to do it on my talk page, where it won't derail content discussions. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You said the current wording does not imply a nationally representative sample[5] of well-off americans, but when I propose explicitly saying that it isn't a nationally representative sample you say I am "minimising the reality". These arguments can't both be true. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:SEALION. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: You can't contradict yourself and then accuse the other person of POV-pushing when they point this out. It appears this discussion is at a standstill, so I have filed a 3O request. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:SEALION. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Study should parallel other studies cited):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Alternative vaccination schedule and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The other studies cited in this section name where they were conducted (King County & Portland). The abstract clearly notes they were upper-class Philadelphians and so it would be appropriate to do so for this study as well. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The paper studies a specific population but illuminates a general case. The general case is that "crunchies" tolerate anti-vaxers even if they are not anti-vaxers themselves. This is well documented. By casting this as just a subset of Philadelphians, Tornado chaser would have us undermine the presentation of this fact. Sadly, Tornado chaser is not well versed in antivax rhetoric and does not always understand the extent to which framing is abused by antivaxers, so has several times succumbed to the same. We don't say that new antibiotic cures streptotoccal infection in adults aged between 30 and 50 in Washington State, after all. The study population is likely to be representative, and the findings would be assumed to be representative unless there are contradictory findings in other study locations. There's no evidence that the psychology or rhetoric of vaccine refuseniks is different in Philly to that in LA. The study identified a phenomenon, set out to test it, and did so in a population convenient to the researcher. Sure, it would be worth replicating on a larger scale, but there's no need to do so. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

No amount of studies are going to convince Anti-Vaxers of this, as they might be responding to other kinds of motivations. However, studies can be used to sow confusion - something that we should not do because it would interfere with our pillars. It is certainly true we have no reason to doubt that the study would not apply to other places - but your suggestion wasn't to remove the mention from other studies, which might have allowed for you two to reach consensus. I almost included, but didn't, that I am in no position to evaluate your claim of Civil NPOV and because if it's true, this isn't the page for that anyway. Obviously you can disregard my 3PO, but using a dispute resolution method, one where there is no guarantee he would get the outcome he wanted, is not forum shopping. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that JzG keeps saying this is a representative sample and that this is well documented but does not provide additional sources, if this is "well documented" there must be more sources! Tornado chaser (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I used to be an antivaxer, but was never "crunchy", it is my personal experience that antivaxers tend to be libertarians who think "the government is pushing vaccines so they must be bad" rather than the "liberal health nut" stereotype. I would assume that in an east cost city like Phily, peoples attitudes will be different from a more politically conservative region like Oklahoma (my state), but I am no more justified in inserting my speculation than JzG is in inserting his speculation that this is a representative study. The proper thing to do (in the absence of additional sources) is to factually describe the study (including the fact that it was in Philadelphia) without trying to imply anything about whether it can be generalized to the whole country or not. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, actually he's saying something different (as I read it). He's saying we have no reason to believe that this isn't a representative sample of upper-class Americans where as you're suggesting that Philadelphians could be distinct enough in this way that their results would not apply to upper-class residents of other cities. And he's further contending that this kind of minimizing of studies happens regularly in this topic area. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly correct. A study of this type would be assumed to be generalisable unless there were some reason to suggest it would not be - and in this case there is none. In fact, rather the opposite: Parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence calls out "Further research, especially in rural and low- to middle-income country settings, could strengthen evidence for the findings where we had low or very low confidence", which strongly implies that affluent parents in metropolitan areas are the least uncertain group. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

But why are you arguing for not mentioning in the article that this study was in a metropolitan area? Tornado chaser (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to rename this article to "Vaccine hesitancy"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For a few reasons:

• Vaccine hesitancy is a term with much currency in RS[6], and which has a WHO definition:

Vaccine hesitancy refers to delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccination services. Vaccine hesitancy is complex and context specific varying across time, place and vaccines. It includes factors such as complacency, convenience and confidence.

• Adopting this new title avoids the current entirely USA-centric definition
• Our article currently contains text which is awkward in the context of its current title, for example: "A 2016 study identified five different types of alternative vaccine schedules: Sears' schedule, a shot-limiting schedule, selective delaying or refusal, making vaccine decisions visit-by-visit, or refusing all vaccines" — some of these are not "alternative schedules" at all.

An article on "Vaccine hesitancy" gives us a slightly broader and shifted scope which will allow us fuller coverage of the topic space, including "vaccine refusal", which currently has no home on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I am OK with this, both are notable and there is sufficient overlap that separate articles would introduce excessive redundancy. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sure both are notable. I think this is a case where (WP:NOPAGE) it would make sense to have alternative scheduling placed within the wider context. Alexbrn (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yup. The one is a subset of the other. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I like this idea, provided "Alternative vaccination schedule" gets its own section, as there are still plenty of relevant wikilinks from other articles to this topic. But yes, this should be discussed in the broader context of vaccine hesitancy. Bradv🍁 15:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

And now there is this Newsweek article (posted on WP:FTN) which gives a clear definition and explanation of the term "Vaccine hesitancy". Let's make this move happen. Bradv🍁 15:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I like that idea of a alternative vaccination schedule section after a page move. Natureium (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support new title. This makes sense. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.