Talk:National Anti-Vaccination League
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on January 5, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here. |
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. | |
[edit] when did it end?
Historically ...
when was its last meeting? Midgley 21:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
No idea, that will come in due course. john 19:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is a very confusing article. It isn't apparent from the article whether it exists, whether there were any successors, etc. --Leifern 02:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- It appears to have started in 1896, which is I suppose technically 19th C. It is reported to have received money Circa 1960 so assuming it did not persiste beyond there it would be approx 94% 20th century, unless it is regarded as a continuation of the several organisations which serially mutated into each other until they ended up as it. Midgley 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] proposal to merge
Keep. This is a page I created and I don't agree with it being deleted for a page you created, where you are pushing your POV. As I said before you are using merger to subtly delete, and we know you tried to delete the main anti-vax medical man [1]. It is absurd that you are writing this page when I am the expert on anti-vaccine beliefs. And even more POV when you consider my very similar page called Vaccine critics [2] was DELETED, and now cheek of all cheeks is now merged to YOUR page of a similar name!! I have to admire your gall. So instead of having 6-10 pages on anti-vaccine people and their views we will end up having one page that you are editing. Nice one! And you were asking earlier on about why there are so few anti-vaccine people--that is because their views get taken out of the Encylopedias, for one (of 60 anti-vaccine books I know of only one is in my local library system), just like Creighton's article on vaccination got erased. It is fascinating to watch it in action. john 19:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge John convinced me to merge with his rant above. --CDN99 20:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- JOhn, you have confused "mereged" with "redirected". If you want to add text to a page called vaccine critics just go there, adding "&action=edit" tot he end of the address, and change the redirect bit. I think there was an obvious reason to point a redirect but it isn't fixed. Midgley 22:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - not becase I agree with the view-point, far from it, but it was an organisation and seems reasonable to have an entry. I think there should be a prominant link to the Anti-vaccinationists main topic (or what-ever if that page is renamed), which sets out the arguements raised by antivaccinationists (both of this specific group and others). But I do note that this article seems a simple historical account without any pushing of its POV, and I don't see the rational for merger.
- Might I suggest adjusting the 'merge' tag to 'mergeto' & 'mergefrom' on the respective pages, as no one seeing the Anti-vaccinationists article will be aware of this merger proposal ?
- As a general style comment, is the list of all board members useful (currently having links just to a range of UK cities) ? David Ruben Talk 17:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. THis would be an entirely logical and useful sub-page of anti-vaccinationists which seems to cover several different angles - I'm not sure of the WP policy on sub-pages though. Midgley 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Should not be merged and, quite obviously, the idea of making it a sub page is absurd. The tags should be removed and the article should be improved. -- JJay 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
COMMENT: You can see how important this outfit was when you read the quality of their publications, eg this 1921 one that takes apart vaccination (LINK REMOVED BY Falcorian (talk) because it it blocked.). john 11:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- keep: Very noteworthy information about a significant entity organized to challenge serious ongoing blunders of the medical establishment hegemony.
- Keep Merging it in would only remove some information contained here, and further make the other article unwieldly (it's already in need of clean up for months). --Falcorian (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
