Talk:Texans for Vaccine Choice

Reference issue

I just created this article, but the reference list shows the same ref multiple times, if anyone knows how to fix this, please do (and tell me how it is done). Tornado chaser (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Justification for my edits

• [1] Nothing wrong with saying it started from a facebook group, but the first sentence of the lead should just say what it is, not how it was founded.
• [2]This edit was intended to be more specific, but I am not that attached to it.
• [3] Here I remove claims of fake news promotion that are cited to an op-ed without proper attribution, further, this op ed says the anti-vax movement in Texas is "a collection of fake news..." and while it says TFVC is part of the antivax movement, it doesn't directly accuse them of using fake news in their advocacy.
• [4] Here I remove content that blames TFVC for a drop in vaccination rates that was well underway before TFVC was founded.
• [5] This edit was a mistake, the source supports it better than I thought.
• [6] Here I remove words that don't seem to add much information to the article.
• [7] Does wikipedia normally do "here is an example of an election they influenced"? This content might be fine to include but should be worded differently.
• [8] Here I restore properly sourced content that was deleted without explanation, possibly by mistake I misremembered the source used, I am no longer arguing for this edit. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• [9] This series of edits included the previously mentioned restoration of sourced content, mistake as well as changing it to say that TFVC also promoted vaxxed. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I just picked one at random:[10] Why would we want to add a sentence that is purely promotional, and pretty much repeats that propaganda that is in the title "Texans for Vaccine Choice". Every reliable source says that they are anti-vaccine. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

If the leader of a group disputes the group's characterization, and RS mention it, why wouldn't we? We quote the statments that RS deem relevant, not just the ones that we agree with. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized that is cited to SBM, which I am not sure about for BLP content, although consensus at RSN seems to be that it is an OK source for BLP[11]. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"Texans for Vaccine Choice" isn't a person, living or otherwise. --tronvillain (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No but the quote I was originally trying to include was attributed to Jackie Shlegel, who is a living person. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

[EC] I just picked another one at random:[12] I have to agree with TC here. the source clearly links the decline in vaccination rates to Wakefield in 2000, and it says that TFVC (founded in 2015) has had effective lobbying, but I don't see where it links declining vaccination rates to TFVC lobbying. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC) Looking at the arguments below, I am now unconvinced that the date of incorporation is as significant as I had though ot was. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: What makes you change your mind? I am open to changing my position if shown that sources that support this content. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Asked and answered by User JzG below. Reread those comments for details. I read your arguments. I read his arguments. I found his arguments to be more convincing. In short, the group isn't really a separate entity. It is part of a larger antivax movement in Texas that existed long before the group incorporated. They all work together, they all post to each other's facebook pages, are all in general agreement on vaccines, and they all sing the same "we aren't really antivax" song. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like OR to me, I will wait to see if any consensus develops before making any changes though. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Could I remove this? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• [13] If the group lasts another 10 years then I could see downgrading this information but for now it should stay as it gives proper context.
• [14] No strong feelings either way though trying to improve instead of remove would have built some good will.
• [15] I disagree, the path their anti-vax work commonly takes is important. AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I still don't see the point of "promotes exemptions especially personal belief exemptions" and I am not sure how I could "improve" on something that is not supported by the source other than by deleting it. The first diff you show has nothing to do with how long the organization has existed, did you copy the wrong diff? Tornado chaser (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

So, let's work on the assumption that you are unaware of the antivax culture's MO.

Facebook is very much a gathering place for antivaxers, and a focus for their activities. There are other Facebook groups dedicated to collecting and publicising their vicious attacks on prominent vaccine supporters such as Richard Pan, Peter Hotez, Dorit Reiss and of course the antivaxers' antichrist himself, Paul Offitt. Facebook group turned PAC is a pretty singular thing. It's an interesting turn of events and possibly sets a precedent for other antivax groups. It's mentioned in two solid sources (Texas Tribune and a published peer-reviewed paper) so I think it passes any reasonable test of truth, significance and relevance.

The figleaf of opposition to mandatory vaccinations, or support for exemptions, or whatever, is exactly that: a figleaf. Multiple sources describe this as an anti-vaccine group, and Wikipedia does not Bowdlerise. There's academic work published on the way antivaxers use terms like "pro-choice" in order to avoid openly admitting to being anti-vaccine, because the public understands pretty well that anti-vaccine is objectively wrong.

Claims of fake news, propaganda etc. are made by multiple sources. You claim this is cited to an Op-Ed, but the author is a highly regarded infectious disease specialist, so this is much more than op-ed, and other parts are supported by other sources. Multiple sources identify TFVC as promoting propaganda and false claims.

The link between TFVC and reducing immunisation rates is made int he sources, and remember that TFVC started on Facebook before they incorporated. The drop in immunisation rates is 100% due to antivax propaganda.

The emphasis on personal belief exemptions particularly is hugely significant, since that is one of their major campaign focuses. California SB277 is the antivaxers' nightmare scenario and TFVC claim credit for preventing similar measures in Texas to address falling immunisation rates.

Does Wikipedia normally do "here is an example of an election they influenced?" You'd have to ask the editor who originally added that race, albeit without the somewhat important context that the candidate lost. Go, on, see if you can guess who it was.

Schlegel says TFVC is not "anti-vaccine" but "pro vaccine-choice", for exactly the same reason Steve King insists he is not a racist. Sel;f-descriptions of loons are not im,portant, the reliable sources unambiguously call TFVC anti-vaccine, so we do as well.

I would be fine with mentioning that TFVC is also featured in Vaxxed, as long as whatever consensus text we use is correctly spelled. "A film with also promotes TFVC" doesn't cut it.

Far and away your best course of action is not to edit these articles directly, because your edits are not well informed by the history and status of anti-vaccine propaganda, leading you to continually making naive errors and reflecting their counterfactuals as if they were real. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The 2 edits I think are most important to make to this article are [16] and [17], because in both cases the source doesn't support the text, you say that this is supported by multiple sources, but in that case you would need to cite them, not just claim that more sources exist. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

"Number of children exempted for nonmedical reasons has multiplied to 45,000 - a 19-fold increase", with "Harris County's overall conscientious exemption rate is still relatively low, just 0.62 percent, but it's doubled in the last five years. So has Montgomery County's, now 1.73 percent. Brazoria County has gone from 0.30 to 0.80. Gaines County in West Texas has the state's highest conscientious exemption rate, nearly 5 percent."[18] So you're right that doubling in seven years is probably the lowest available estimate - I will change it to more than doubling based on the other sources. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is not the exact rate of increase in nonmedical exemptions, but that this increase started before TFVC was founded, how can we attribute a trend that has been ongoing for 5-7 years to an organization that has only existed for 3.5 years?. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That is when they incorporated. They existed before that. But why would that be relevant? They are a prominent part of the pro-disease movement in Texas, and this establishes why that matters and what the pro-disease movement has "achieved". Guy (Help!) 23:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

But why would that be relevant? The way this article is worded it sounds like TFVC was responsible for the increase, but the sources cited don't say that, this source[19] never mentions TFVC, and this source[20] attributes the increase in exemptions to Wakefield, not TFVC. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

They absolutely were responsible for it, along with others. The sources establish that unambiguously. You seem to have fallen for the classic fallacious argument of crazies everywhere that they may not be criticized for participation in a social ill unless you can prove that they are solely and entirely responsible for it. For a start, they are identified as the loudest voice opposing the equivalent of SB277, which would have addressed the rise in bogus exemptions. I realise that you are unfamiliar with the world of infectious disease promoters. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

They absolutely were responsible for it, along with others. The sources establish that unambiguously. How? one source attributes it to wakefield, and the other never mentions them. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, you demonstrate your lack of familiarity with the antivax cult. I'd love to teach you but I simply don't have time I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not as unfamiliar with antivaxers as you think, and regardless of my knowledge of the antivax movement, you need sources that support the claims in the article. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

So your support of antivax bullshit is deliberate? That's not actually good, you know. Guy (Help!) 01:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I am pro-vaccine, why are you focusing on me as an editor rather than addressing the sourcing issue? I am not the only one who thinks this is not supported by the source. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Because you, as an editor, make and then endlessly defend edits that make antivaxers look good. Guy (Help!) 02:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Please address the content issues, the are 3 editors who think this is not supported by the sources Guy Macon has changed his mind, and your attempts to distract from this by criticizing the editor not the edit make a poor argument. This is not the first time you have criticized me as an editor to distract from the fact that you are engaging in OR. Failure to engage in consensus building (such as by criticizing the editor to distract from the content issues), misrepresenting sources, and manufacturing original research are all WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, please stop. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

No, there are three of us who are quite content to reword it, and one, you, who wants to remove it. Those are different things. You always take it personally. Please see WP:NOTTHEM. The disruption is not from the reality-based community here, you seem to cause drama whenever you turn up at any antivax-related article, and always for the same reasons: your idea of what constitutes neutrality appears to be consistently different from that of others with more experience and knowledge of the field of charlatans, quacks, cranks and the like. Think on that a bit, eh? Guy (Help!) 10:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not personally offended, I am trying to refocus this discussion on the sourcing issues at hand, where was rewording proposed? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

What you appear to be doing, consistently, is trying to water down any and all material critical of antivaxers. You may well not perceive that as your intent, but it is what is happening. When this is pointed out you cry NPA and the word salad of Wikipedia ETLAs, and you never seem to actually engage in any self-criticism. It is this last that is the problem. That and the fact that your response to rejection of any of your proposed edits is always weeks of argufying. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You removed my attempts to water down material critical of antivaxers. Prepare to be talked to death.[21] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

How about: “There are some scary trends we were able to identify,” said Dr. Peter Hotez, a Houston vaccine scientist and one of the study authors. “They’re a sign that anti-vaccine groups, such as Texans for Vaccine Choice, have been very successful at lobbying efforts — both of the Texas legislature and through social media and other advocacy — to convince parents not to vaccinate their kids.” --tronvillain (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

References

That could go in the body, but it's an awfully long quote for the lead. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Moving the goalposts? Not your best strategy. --Calton | Talk 02:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not trying to move the goalposts, it is not normal to have much of the lead of an article taken up by one quote, is it? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The amount of space taken up by the current quote is pretty normal as such things go. The one suggested by tronvillian should be condensed a bit. Perhaps Anti-vaccine groups, such as Texans for Vaccine Choice, have been very successful at lobbying efforts — both of the Texas legislature and through social media and other advocacy — to convince parents not to vaccinate their kids. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I could not think of a more succinct for of words but am happy with your suggestion, the issue is whether TFVC are a significant part of the pro-disease movement, and I think that is unambiguously established. I don't have a strong opinion either way on WP:ATT to Hotez. He is a reliable source - an infectious disease specialist who has written specifically on the fake link between vaccines and autism - but if we inline link his name his authority is immediately obvious so we don't run too much risk of the usual bullshit "John Smith said X, Bill Bloggs said Y" where Smith is a professor of infectious diseases and Bloggs is a fucking chiropractor or some such. False balance and false equivalency are a plague on these types of articles. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This appears short enough, which source is it cited to? Tornado chaser (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I would support this change[22](diff from sandbox test), thoughts? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I made my proposed edit is the article by mistake, but self reverted reverted when I realized it wasn't the sandbox. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)