Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 4: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
LeadSongDog (talk | contribs) |
LeadSongDog (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 25:
:In short, this proposal (and the recent renaming of the ''article'') strike me as '''''an effort to rename those controversies out of existence''''' here on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the term "Vaccine hesitancy" is so new/obscure and unfamiliar as to leave the average reader bewildered if they come across it as the name of the article and/or category. Very unhelpful. [[User:Anomalous+0|Anomalous+0]] ([[User talk:Anomalous+0|talk]]) 13:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - As unfortunate as it may be, there have been controversies around vaccination at least since Jenner's time. Some argued (and some still argue) against it from the pulpit as interfering with divine will. Others oppose universal mandatory vaccinations for students as interfering with a parental right to opt-out, ignoring the [[prisoner's dilemma]]: "My child will be fine, all the others in class got the shot". Some argue that a specific vaccine might not provide the expected benefit (e.g. the 2017 influenza vaccine). Some argue they might have an adverse reaction to something in it (e.g. albumen). Some argue that an experimental vaccine, no matter the need, should not be used clinically until proven in trials (e.g. recently for [[ebola virus]]). While the specifics of each argument differ, and most have little merit in a purely medical sense, we cannot pretend that controversies do not exist. That said, specific cases of quackery, fraud and pseudoscience should probably not be in the category.[[User:LeadSongDog|LeadSongDog]] <small>[[User talk:LeadSongDog#top|<span style="color: red; font-family:Papyrus;">come howl!</span>]]</small> 16:
==== Category:Biodiversity hotspots ====
| |||