Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 4: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
LeadSongDog (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 21:
::: While a bill itself cannot be a controversy, there was most definitely controversy regarding SB 277, and court cases like [[Jacobson v. Massachusetts]] are obviously controversial. [[User:Tornado chaser|Tornado chaser]] ([[User talk:Tornado chaser|talk]]) 22:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. Not all of the articles are directly related to vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine controversies covers other forms of vaccine quackery. [[User:Natureium|Natureium]] ([[User talk:Natureium|talk]]) 21:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
:: And most of them are not related in any way to controversies. Plus, the parent article has now moved. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 09:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
*'''Keep or Rename to [[:Category:Vaccination controversies]]''' - The fact of the matter, like it or not, is that '''there have been vaccine/vaccination controversies'''. That is ''indisputable'', regardless of how one feels about it. These controversies have played out in the public sphere, largely outside the purview of the medical community. It's pretty clear from the rather vituperative discussions at [[Talk:Vaccine hesitancy]] that the nominator has very strong feelings on the subject. I think it's fair to say that he takes offense at the ''very existence'' of such controversies.
| |||