Talk:Vaccine hesitancy

message: These should be two different articles, as there is a distinct culture of anti-vaccine activism that goes above and beyond mere hesitancy. BD2412 T 18:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note: I have started Draft:Anti-vaccine activism to this end. BD2412 T 23:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split [[Anti-vaccine activism]] from [[Vaccine hesitancy]] 

message: The racist term Latinx should be remove from the article. 84.203.60.124 (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The way that term is used in the article is as almost a direct quote from the source behind it, the Journal of Behavioral Medicine. It's part of the title of the article. We also have an article about Latinx, which says nothing about it being a racist term. Can you provide evidence that some people (apart from you) see it as a racist term? HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove racist language from the article 

message: The redirect Vaccinationists has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.   Jay 💬 07:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Vaccinationists]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The leading photograph shows an anti-vaccination activist wearing a poster that says, "Kids have a 99.99% Survival rate with natural immunity." The label says, "An anti-vaccination person wearing a false claim that children can be effectively protected from disease solely by natural immunity"
I have two problems with this. The first is that the poster does not use the word solely. That was made up by a Wiki-editor. The second is the word false. Whether the poster is stupid or whether the wearer was trying to put across a false message is beside the point. If you are going to say a message is false you need to have reliable citation that the actual message is false. No such citation exists because the poster is not false. The mortality rate of the common cold, for example, when left to a child's natural immunity, is less than 0.01%. The same applies to most childhood medical problems. (These are actually cuts and other wounds that could be treated with an anti-tetanus jab.) The entire article states very clearly (and has reliable references) that an anti-vaccination stance is wrong on many levels. There is no need to add propaganda. OrewaTel (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe we should get rid of that picture.  If you make any claim VAGUE enough, it can be true, like that one...who knows what disease that guy is referring to...rickets? ---Avatar317(talk) 00:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

text: If you are going to take a single disease then make it smallpox that has a very high mortality rate. (Measles tends to be survivable.) But the point is that the vast majority of childhood illnesses are not fatal. I would like to replace the caption by, "An imbecile wearing a particularly stupid notice" but that would not be encyclopaedic language. I've replaced the word false by misleading as being more accurate. OrewaTel (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-neutral language 

message: There's an ongoing RfC at Talk:Richard D. Gill#Rfc - Kate Shemirani radio show appearance of relevance to this subject. Structuralists (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rfc - [[Richard D. Gill]] and [[Kate Shemirani]]