Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:04, 27 January 2019

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

2017 May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December. 2018 January-July, August, September, October, November, December 2019 January

Open to criticism

@JzG: You have repeatedly stated that I am too sympathetic to antivaxers. I am aware that before this summer I didn't understand WP:UNDUE, leading me to support the inappropriate use of primary sources, which made me look sympathetic to antivaxers when I tried to add self-published stuff by them, but since you think that this is an ongoing problem, I would be interested to know how you think I should be doing things differently now. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It would be trivially easy to establish that you are not too sympathetic to antivaxers. Simply indicate that you fully agree with all of the following statements without reservation or qualification:

• While nothing in life is without risk, vaccination is far safer than remaining unvaccinated.
• Vaccines are one of the most successful programs in modern health care, reducing and in some cases even eliminating serious infectious diseases.
• Vaccines do not cause autism. Mercury does not cause autism. Aluminum does not cause autism. Formaldehyde does not cause autism.
• Andrew Wakefield was a fraud. At the time he published his discredited study he was being paid by a group of parents of autistic children seeking to sue for damages from MMR vaccine producers and he had applied for patents for an MMR vaccine substitute.
• There is no scientific evidence for the existence for "immune system overload".
• There is no need for any alternative vaccine schedule. The existing MMR (mumps-measles-rubella) vaccine schedule isn't broken and doesn't need fixing.

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

+ + + Hands out popcorn. + + + -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, the only qualifications being that there has been some speculation that rubella infection during pregnancy could cause autism, so I think it is conceivable that live rubella vaccine during pregnancy could cause autism in rare cases, but the CDC warns that pregnant women should not get MMR, so this is not a disagreement with the CDC's vaccination recommendations. MMR saves many lives, and should be given before pregnancy becomes possible anyway. Also, we need RS for any statment of fact, so I will not support adding something like "X doesn't cause autism" with no source, or with a bad source, even if I think it is true, see WP:TRUTH. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Natureium (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you are of the opinion that any vaccine could possibly cause Autism -- even if you limit yourself to live rubella vaccine during pregnancy -- you are rejecting what virtually every WP:MEDRS compliant source tells us, and in my opinion The Other Guy is 100% right about you and antivax. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a note about general principles.... Many laypersons don't realize that brain damage and autism are not the same things. On very rare occasions, some vaccines can cause encephalitis, leading to brain damage, and they think the bad reaction to the vaccine caused autism. No, it didn't. I still haven't heard of any mechanism by which a vaccine could cause autism, whereas anything, including vaccines, which causes encephalitis can cause brain damage and/or death. So far, genetic factors seem to be the biggest causes of autism.

Also, one of the effects of some childhood diseases is encephalitis, which a vaccine could have prevented. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by this. Tornado chaser is suggesting that we need to prove a negative, and that he is open to "speculation" that the rubella vaccine could cause autism. That's a problem. Bradv🍁 17:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I was asked my personal views so I stated them, I am absolutely not open to speculating in my edits, everything must well sourced, and I did not say you need to prove a negative, nor have I ever made an edit to suggest that vaccines cause autism. The CDC says that MMR during pregnancy is contraindicated, I had read that there was a theory that wild rubella could cause autism, I was unaware that rubella vaccine has been studied during pregnancy when I said that, and knowing this, the best evidence that vaccines cause autism is that sometimes symptoms of autism show up around the same time as vaccines are given, with only means that kids are given a lot of vaccines (a good thing as these vaccines are a lot safer than remaining unvaccinated) and that autism first shows up in childhood, not that vaccines cause autism (see correlation does not equal causation). Tornado chaser (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I will concede that you have probably learned a lot since you started editing Misplaced Pages (I know I have), but you must understand that the burden of proof remains with those who make extraordinary claims. As there is no causal link whatsoever between vaccines and autism, making edits that are sympathetic to contrary views remains problematic. Bradv🍁 18:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv:but you must understand that the burden of proof remains with those who make extraordinary claims. As there is no causal link whatsoever between vaccines and autism, making edits that are sympathetic to contrary views remains problematic. And when have I made edits that are sympathetic to the view that vaccines cause autism? The closest thing I can think of was over a year ago when I reverted an edit saying pertussis vaccine doesn't cause autism because it was sourced to a list of MMR studies. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I can think of several edits you made sympathetic to the views of anti-vaxxers, just in the past few weeks:

• The series of edits you made to Texans for Vaccine Choice trying to legitimize the organization
• The edits you made attempting to remove the word "bleach" from Rope worms and Miracle Mineral Supplement
• The edits you made at Alternative vaccination schedule trying to hide the criticism of Robert Sears

I'm sure there are other editors here that can point to more examples if you like. Bradv🍁 18:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Re the rope worms article I believe the word "bleach" is not necessary to make our point and may lead people to be less convinced that it is actually bad for you. I never edited Alternative vaccination schedule to hide criticism of sears, could you provide a diff where you think I did that?. I would like to post on the talk page of Texans for Vaccine Choice to explain why I made the edits. But now I am stuck arguing about whether I am anti-vax instead. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv:. ping Tornado chaser (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me put this another way

Let me put this another way. I count 6 editors here that have expressed concern about your editing in this topic area. Only JzG was pinged, the others were already watching your talk page. This doesn't happen by chance, so please allow me to summarize what I think are the community's concerns with the following points:

1. You have a history of editing articles at the intersection of the topics of vaccines and autism
2. You have, or used to have, views about these topics which are contrary to science, and have occasionally promoted such views
3. Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for this topic area by the Arbitration Committee
4. You have been formally warned as an arbitration enforcement action (log)
5. You have continued to display similar behaviour subsequent to the above warning, including edit warring, tendentious editing, and a battleground mentality

These concerns are sufficient to make a case for a topic ban at AE or AN, as has already been suggested by several editors. However, I personally don't want it come to that, as I feel that such effort is more than likely going to drive you away from the project rather than steer you into areas where you can be productive. You have clearly learned a lot in your time editing Misplaced Pages, and have demonstrated such knowledge of policies and guidelines that it would be shame to lose you as an editor.

I am hoping that this discussion will persuade you to volunteer to stay away from areas related to pseudoscience and fringe theories, including vaccines, for a period of time sufficient for you to gain more experience in other areas and to clarify some of your thoughts around pseudoscience and pseudomedicine. Such a decision would be in your best interest as a volunteer editor, and in my opinion would be preferable to any of the other options we could take at this time.

I've taken some time preparing this comment, and I hope that you would also duly consider your response. Bradv🍁 20:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: I have noticed this criticism from multiple editors and I have honestly thought about whether there is some mistake in my approach to these topic areas. The only major flaw in my approach has been edit warring, this was a mistake on my part, in the future I will consciously make sure to use the talk page more and revert less. Ok, I may have been a bit hasty in removing imperfectly sourced material from Joe Mercola, and was misinterpreted as whitewashing the article, which was never my intention. If there is any view I hold that is contrary to science, It will change as soon as I am shown evidence that it is false. I have never tried to promote any counter to science views, and am very curious what edits made you think I did that, could you provide diffs? Re battleground, was this separate from the edit warring? Tendentious editing is another area that I would like you to be more specific where you think I have done that, as it is a somewhat vague term. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Some of the criticism I have gotten has been invalid, for example I was told I am too antivax-sympathetic for reverting unsourced claims that a living person was an antivaxer, and I bit an IP, mistaking a large removal of non-MEDRS content edit for vandalism(I do a lot of anti vandal work and don't know if i've ever seen an IP constructively blank 6 kilobytes before), but was accused of being anti-vax for this. So it is hard to tell what accusations of being anti-vax indicate a mistake in my editing, and what are just unreasonable assumptions of bad faith, but to be clear I believe vaccines are one of the most important inventions of the last few centuries and never meant to obscure this fact. I am not planning to take a break from this topic area unless I am shown evidence of a significant flaw in my approach that I have not already mentioned, but if you respond and show me something I have been doing wrong this whole time, I will certainly consider taking some time off this topic area. Tornado chaser (talk)

Also note that I have consistently defended articles on my WL from antivax edits. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this is all a misunderstanding in which case I am sympathetic with your situation. You have to understand though that after edits like this and this all reasonable people are going to believe you are editing with an anantivax world view. The edits are objectively that bad and are minimizing an antivax crusade. Maybe this isn't entirely fair but it is what it is. There is no reason though if you take Bradv's advice and edit outside the topic for a couple months that this all can not just be an unfortunate blip.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I would also give you the same advice that AlmostFrancis and Bradv have given you; volunteer to stay away from areas related to pseudoscience and fringe theories for a couple of months minimum. There are now several experienced editors looking at those pages and at the edits you suggested at Talk:Texans for Vaccine Choice#Justification for my edits. Pick an area where there isn't so much fighting about content going on. Hit the rando page button until you find an article that interest you, check every source to make sure it says what we claim it says, then try to find better sources and to edit out the minor problems that so many articles have. The alternative is to keep editing pseudoscience articles and risk being the focus of an arbitration enforcement case. I estimate a 75% chance of you ending up with a six months to a year topic ban if that happens. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I am taking a break(maybe permanent) from[REDACTED] due the the confrontational attitude and constant assumptions of bad faith. I tried to ask for advice, instead I was basically told "your an antivaxer, go away" I will ask one more time, If I ever edit vaccine-related issues again do you have any advice for what to do differently? (I already know to stop edit warring)

@Bradv:@Guy Macon: ping. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC) @Bradv:@Guy Macon:@Roxy the dog:Template:ReJzG I normally prefer not to say anything personal on wikipedia, but given JzG's repeated statment that I don't understand antivaxers' MO, I feel the need to say this: There was I time, before started editing wikipedia, where I was an antivaxer, but I have enough background in science that I realized all the antivax talking points are bogus. I find it really disappointing that I am being told I should stop editing vaccine-related articles to clarify my thoughts around pseudoscience when my thoughts around pseudoscience are so clear that pseudoscience is wrong.

They way I was fooled into being antivax is: I have libertarian-leaning political views, so I don't think vaccination should be mandatory in most cases. The fact that so many pro-vaccine people act like being against vaccine requirements is that same thing as being antivax, and that antivaxers use libertarian talking points, confused me into thinking of antivaxers as more and more reasonable, but I eventually realized(I wish I realized this sooner) that regardless of my agreement with there politics, the science is all wrong. This is why I am hesitant to label groups antivax without clear evidence that they are actually antivax, not just libertarian, because in my experience, the conflation of libertarianism with antivax can lead people into believing antivax misinformation (now I am OK with calling TFVC antivax, because we have a lot of sources for it and they were promoting Vaxxed, which destroys any ability to claim that they just don't like government mandates). Tornado chaser (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

One take home message from all this is that the editors you have named here have decided for themselves that their efforts regarding your work here could be very robust, without bringing into question, and I'm having difficulty expressing this, the value of your overall work here. My one-off snark can be nasty, but I am aware you have a broad back. I am glad to see this post. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog:Sorry if i'm being dense, but could you clarify your post? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure. People have been hard on you because of your anti-vax stance, which I see remains; (TC:"I don't think vaccination should be mandatory in most cases.") but I want you to stoppit. It is anti everything this project is about. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think he's antivax from the statement, it looks like he's anti-mandatory vaccines. While I disagree with this, it's not the same as being anti-vaccines. Natureium (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

One word : Herd Immunity. ... um ... two words. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we're in agreement, but that's not relevant to the issue at hand. Natureium (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought I was clarifying my position to TC, whose position I see as antivax, and awfully anti social and very selfish. I don't like the death sentence hanging over my head because of antivaxxers. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I am pro vax, my political opinions re the proper role of government in encouraging vaccination are not relevant to my editing, so long as I don't bias articles in favor of said opinions. The only reason I even stated my views on vaccine laws was to explain how I was tricked into being antivax for a time(before wikipedia) by antivaxers trying to pass themselves off as libertarians. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have great sympathy for the libertarian view (full disclosure: I dislike all political parties, but would prefer to see more libertarians, greens, etc. elected just so that we can be disappointed by someone new). and I wouldn't mind seeing a well-sourced article on that view, but is is a fringe view. See for some of the political thinking on this.

That being said, Texans for Vaccine Choice is an antivax group, not a libertarian group, so you shouldn't make edits like this one which fly in the face of how pretty much every reliable source describes Texans for Vaccine Choice. On a more general note about your editing, you need to work on how you respond when the consensus is clearly against you. A personal note: there is one political area where I personally am 100% convinced that I am right and that the consensus among other Misplaced Pages editors is wrong. I even tried to convince others twelve years ago when I was still editing as an IP, and completely failed to convince anyone. So for 12 years I have chosen to never make any edits in that area, and if I am ever asked about it I will simply say "the consensus is X" and point to reliable sources that agree with X without any hint that I personally think this is one of those rare cases where the consensus is full of shit. Now I am not insisting that you go that far, but be aware that it is an option.

You ask "If I ever edit vaccine-related issues again do you have any advice for what to do differently?". I have written a detailed essay that I believe answers that exact question. My essay is at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I realize TFVC is antivax(I admit this wasn't clear to me wen I first created the article) and I am fine with describing it as such. When I have many editors who I am unable to convince I will accept the consensus and move on, thank you for the advice. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:@Roxy the dog:@JzG:@Bradv:@Natureium:@AlmostFrancis:(pinging everyone who has responded here) I have been thinking more about this whole issue, and I realized that I have become too hasty my editing(for example removing content that just needs to be reworded, skimming sources and drawing bad conclusions, ect), and have responded to confrontational users by becoming more confrontational myself(including edit warring), I recognize that these trends have made me a worse editor, and will consciously make and effort to avoid repeating my mistakes. I will keep 1AM in mind and will avoid haste, this should address any recent actions that could have been considered disruptive on my part. I plan to continue to edit vaccine-related articles (in a less rushed and more carful manner) but please if you disagree with any future edits of mine, don't just point to my past mistakes as your reason for opposing my edits, it's not that this offends me, it just doesn't lead to developing a consensus. P.S. If you have a problem with my general pattern of editing or think I have not addressed an ongoing problem with my edits, feel free to leave me a message here. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Libertarianism and vaccines

Above, TC writes

"I have libertarian-leaning political views, so I don't think vaccination should be mandatory in most cases. The fact that so many pro-vaccine people act like being against vaccine requirements is that same thing as being antivax, and that antivaxers use libertarian talking points, confused me into thinking of antivaxers as more and more reasonable, but I eventually realized (I wish I realized this sooner) that regardless of my agreement with their politics, the science is all wrong. This is why I am hesitant to label groups antivax without clear evidence that they are actually antivax, not just libertarian, because in my experience, the conflation of libertarianism with antivax can lead people into believing antivax misinformation"

Who owns the children?

Someone who values property right above all, else might respond by saying that children are in fact owned by their parents until such time as they achieve adulthood, and that, as property, children may be treated by their parents as the parents see fit. Besides the obvious problems of defining adulthood and dealing with two parents who disagree, this view implies that eating babies, keeping children in cages or selling them into slavery is OK. This is a problem. There are places in this world where parents do sell children -- especially daughters -- into slavery. That being said, this could work in some cultures. Under Roman law the father had the right of life and death over his children, but what actually happened was that on a regular basis these fathers gave their lives to protect their children.

A hardcore statist might respond by saying that children are owned by the state. Sort of "it takes a village to raise a child" on steroids. This also has been tried by various totalitarian dictatorships, and the results were not pretty. Do we really want to raise children the way the Spartans did? The Taliban say that it is the state's right to choose whether girls are allowed to learn how to read.

Although I know of exactly nobody who believes this, one might argue that children own themselves and are free to do as they please as long as they don't hurt others. Anyone who has dealt with a baby who really really wants to put razor blades in their mouth will see the problem with this view. A related issue is adults who are mentally incapable of taking care of themselves (severe retardation, advanced Alzheimers). Do they own themselves? Is a person with severe dementia free to leave the nursing home and walk out into busy traffic?

While these are all interesting moral and ethical questions, what I am actually seeing among antivaxers is a lot more self-serving. They don't like vaccines, so they say it is the parent's right to choose whether their children are vaccinated. They don't like slavery, so they say it is the state's right to choose whether children can be sold into slavery. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I don't thing it's right not to vaccinate your kids, but I think it sets a dangerous precedent for the government to force any medical treatment on a population, the only thing to do (in my opinion, and I don't want to bias[REDACTED] toward any opinion) is to try to inform people so that they will voluntarily vaccinate their children. And I agree re antivaxers pretending to be libertarians, I find this trend quite frustrating. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Peter Russell (ice hockey)

Hello, I noticed the above artice Peter Russell (ice hockey) was PROD for deletion by you because of a lack of sources. I have since now added a source under his appointment as Glasgow Clan head coach. The ref reads Braehead Clan but the appointment was made before they re-branded as Glasgow Clan. Please review the article with the ref and report back regarding acceptability asap. Tay87 (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tay87:I'm glad you added a ref, but you need refs for everything in the article, not just this one fact, let me know if you have any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: Well in regards to my role, the tag stated that all bios “must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article”, in my case being Clan head coach, and that “once the article has at least one reliable source, you may remove this tag”, which I did and reported it to you for review. If it at least stops the article being deleted in due course, I'm satisfied. As for refs, I may have Great Britain covered as well as Braehead but everything else will be a piece of work. I have so far found two refs for Russell LEAVING MK Lighting but nothing on him being appointed as yet. Tay87 (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

New Section

I know what I just did may seem to have been an edit war but it was an edit conflict mistake. I was trying to clean up mistakes I left behind in the article. I will avoid doing that again.Somenolife (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Somenolife: I did edit conflict with you, fixing the mistakes in the cites is fine, the only reason I said you were edit warring was because you changed the title back to "vaccine safety reporting". 20:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't accusing you of creating a conflict, only that I was not trying to do so with you. I hit the "edit conflict" page and use the back page to get my edits back, then hit submit which reverted the new title you put up.Somenolife (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I know you weren't accusing me of creating a conflict, I did the same thing with the edit conflict button, I understand now. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

So I have seen that you have removed most of the content I added, which confuses me. Outside of the UMass Twitter account, everything I added was reported by her in interviews that she had with various individuals; why were none of those valid?Somenolife (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Somenolife: Misplaced Pages is supposed to use secondary sources, especially for controversial claims, so just referencing someone's website for info on something controversial she said is not good. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I certainly understand the problem is 'she' said it, but in the interviews, those being interviewed are the ones making the claim. Dr. Bernadine Healy flatly says that she believed the medical officials working for the US federal government were being "too quick to dismiss the hypothesis" that vaccination could cause autism in a subset of children, as I quoted in the article. I am also confused by the removal of the Full Measure article; though she is associated with it, she doesn't have full control of the show, AFAIK. Wouldn't a report by Anderson Cooper on his show be just as valid for his talk page?Somenolife (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)