This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Society B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Skepticism B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on MMR vaccine controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100525081504/http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/documents/AutismFile_US31_Wakefield.pdf to http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/documents/AutismFile_US31_Wakefield.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091026043205/http://www.iom.edu/reports/2004/immunization-safety-review-vaccines-and-autism.aspx to http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2004/Immunization-Safety-Review-Vaccines-and-Autism.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/Wakefield__Smith_Murch.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111112045809/http://consumercide.com/health/japan-mmr.html to http://consumercide.com/health/japan-mmr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the section on Litigation, under the UK subheading, the final sentences reads as follows:

Several British cases where parents claimed that their children had died as a result of Urabe MMR had received compensation under the "vaccine damage payment" scheme.[116]

I was surprised when I read that, so I checked the reference, but it's decidedly dodgy - it's a 2007 'comments' thread, which (if you scroll down far enough) includes a brief to-and-fro between David Salisbury (then director of vaccination for the Department of Health) and the FOIA Centre, in which FOIA asserts that such payments had been made, but providing no more information, no evidence and no references to the actual cases involved.

It doesn't seem to me that this is a reliable source - I'd suggest that, if a better source can't be found, this sentence be removed altogether. I'm a bit of a newbie though, thought I'd raise it here before being bold. Girth Summit (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more digging, and although I couldn't find anything specific about the cases referred to in the comments thread, I suspect that it was two cases where it was alleged that MMR had caused encephalitis. Given that this article is about the MMR/autism controversy, that doesn't seem relevant even if it were to be properly sourced; I've therefore gone ahead and deleted the sentence. Girth Summit (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   My Yank ears perk up disturbingly, in response to the lack of "for" as the clause's next and final word, or something like "to have occur." (This is the full current sent:

The then-secretary of state for health, John Reid MP, called for a GMC investigation, an investigation Wakefield seems himself to have wished.)

   I see my instincts about syntax as normally pretty reliable, and my professional-copywriter informant shares my criticism in this specific case. This request for consultation comes from my concern that i might just be deaf to a syntax that is an idiom of UK or Commonwealth usage of English. Whatcha think?
--Jerzy•t 02:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed PriceDL (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose this article should be moved. Obvious candidates include:

• MMR-autism hoax
• MMR-autism fraud
• MMR vaccine and autism

Rationale: Scientifically, there is no controversy, and essentially there never was. Virtually all research from the time of the original fraudulent Lancet paper either failed to confirm its findings, or contradicted it. To describe this as a controversy is to give undue weight to the fraud and those who perpetuate it still. The statement in the lede that it is perhaps the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years is pretty compelling evidence that we should choose a less musteloid title. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support such a move, MMR vaccine and autism is a good compromise to please one side particularly, but MMR-autism hoax is close to relaity. I opt for the latter.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this is moved it should be moved to MMR-autism hoax, as this was obviously a hoax, it was also fraud, but "MMR-autism fraud" could sound like a category of fraud (like tax fraud). "MMR vaccine and autism" is a bad title, as it sounds like maybe there really is some association between the two. I am undecided about wether to move this to MMR-autism hoax or keep "MMR vaccine controversy", Wakefield definitely perpetrated a hoax, but this hoax triggered a lot of controversy that is mentioned in the article but was not a part of the hoax itself. Basically, I see our options as 1: Keep "MMR vaccine controversy" as the article is about the whole controversy, not just the hoax that started it. Or 2: move to MMR-autism hoax, as this is about a hoax and the controversy that the hoax caused. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to follow the wording of TIME and PBS and use "myth". "Fraud" has a legal meaning that I don't think anyone is implying here. To use it otherwise is to use it figuratively, and I don't much like figurative language in writing an encyclopedia. Similarly, "hoax" implies some level of intentionality. Yes, maybe some people are intentionally pushing this narrative while knowing good and well that it's false. But I think it's safe to say that most people are just stupid mistaken, but otherwise advocating their position in good faith, despite their stupidity the veracity of the claim. GMG^talk 15:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• MMR-autism myth works better for me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I like "myth" because it's broader; it's doesn't presuppose intentions. Jehochman ^Talk 15:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman - Why is it preferable to ignore known fraud and ill intention? Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we ignore the origin of the fraud/hoax/etc. for a moment, it's clear that plenty of individuals mistakenly but earnestly believe it. They may have been hoodwinked, but they are not fraudsters or hoaxters just for believing it. Myth works better. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

”...plenty of individuals mistakenly but earnestly believe it.” That’s the way it tends to be with hoaxes that gain any traction, a hoax being an attempt to hoodwink others. Brunton (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• MMR-autism hoax or MMR-autism myth both sound good to me, as long as we end up removing "controversy" from the title. Merlin^sorca 15:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer myth over hoax, since it's broader than that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• A hoax implies a one-time effort to mislead the public, whereas a myth is more of a self-perpetuating meme that has continued to spread despite evidence. I'd say this is both a hoax and a myth, but the myth is a broader term which encompasses the scope of this article. Also, this is about the vaccine and autism, and the title should include both words (connected with an endash). I would support MMR vaccine–autism myth, or, if this article also should cover the related myths about other vaccines, Vaccine–autism myths. Bradv🍁 16:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support hoax or fraud. Myth is inaccurate and does not include the known ill intent and outright fraud that characterizes the movement. The argument that "myth" does not presuppose intentions is rediculous, because we base the supposition of intentions on countless reliable sources. It's not a myth. Oppose myth Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we base the supposition of intentions on countless reliable sources? Being willfully ignorant is not the same as being knowingly fraudulent. GMG^talk 16:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original perpetrator of the hoax had intent to mislead, but nothing about the word "hoax" implies that the people who have been deceived are acting in bad faith. I oppose "fraud" though. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "MMR vaccine and autism": A title like "MMR vaccine and autism" is too general to serve as the article title. "Myth" doesn't seem to cover the errors committed by Andrew Wakefield, so opposing myth. I would support either haux or fraud, but leaning to fraud, since the definition of fraud is "deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain", which seems to be the case here as Wakefield is/was an anti-vaccine activist. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ”hoax”, the fact that many people were taken in by a hoax doesn’t make it any less a hoax, oppose “myth” or “fraud”, one is too vague and the other too specific, oppose “MMR vaccine and autism” as it implies a link that doesn’t exist. Brunton (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support “MMR vaccine myths”, per Jehochman below. Would not oppose “hoax”. Brunton (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• MMR-autism fraud Fraud implies financial gain, which clearly applies to Wakefield. Hoax doesn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• MMR-autism conspiracy theory or MMR vaccine myths per Jehochman's arguments below. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• MMR-autism hoax Per Tornado Chaser's comment that MMR-autism fraud sounds close to something like tax fraud or insurance fraud. Calling it a hoax is better than calling it a controversy since, even though people have supported it in good faith, the claims were originally put forth with the intent to deceive. I also think calling it a controversy would be equivocating.TornadoLGS (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• MMR vaccine myths We should use the broadest designation for the article so that we can cover the views of those who are mistaken/confused/deluded as well as those who intentionally perpetuated a fraud. The fraud can be a subsection of this article. I also recommend "myths" because there are probably multiple varieties of myths, not a single unified myth. Some say it causes digestive problems (it doesn't). Some say it causes autism (it doesn't). Some purposefully misrepresented data to create a money making business... We should not lump different things together. We should document all the different nuances. If you want to write about fraud, title the article "Wakefield vaccine fraud" or something narrower. Perhaps that could start out as a subsection of this article and then become a child article. But don't assume all followers participated or knew about the fraud. Jehochman ^Talk 18:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both the digestive problems and autism originated from Wakefield's hoax. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Myth seems the best choice so far. It is used in the literature and unlike hoax or fraud does not imply that the proponents know there is no link. Conspiracy theory is another possibility. I don't see a problem with the term controversy however. Controversy merely means disagreement. It's incorrect to say the term can only be used to describe disagreement within the scientific community and never disagreement within the general public. TFD (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The “controversy” is between a position that is supported by reliable sources and one that isn’t. Guess which one Wikipedia follows. We don’t allow people to “teach the controversy” on evolution-related articles, and we shouldn’t allow it here. Brunton (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think "fraud" or "myth" are both appropriate. Natureium (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Fraud is better than myth, which is better than hoax (because hoax sounds like "did it for the lulz"), which is better than MMR vaccine and autism, which is better than controversy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• MMR-autism hoax --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• controversy 'hoax' and 'fraud' might be true, but they'll be watered down pretty quickly here for "NPOV". See Category:Autism quackery and the mess of the CfD over that. 'vaccine and autism' sounds too much like it's supporting a link between them. So 'controversy' is the best we can practically achieve. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support “controversy”. Narrower terms do not seem to cover everything here - the article is not just Wakefield content. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that it's not actually "controversial", unless you're taking a post-factual approach to reality. --Calton | Talk 04:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Controversy: NO, as it's wrong to the point of being actively false. It started out as a hoax and a fraud, but most of the active supporters are gullible not criminal, so something using myth or conspiracy theory makes more sense. --Calton | Talk 04:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Myth or conspiracy theory is best in light of this being an ongoing phenomenon rather than a discrete event in the past, which "hoax" suggests to me. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Myth or Conspiracy Theory (and to a lesser extent Hoax or Fraud), Oppose "MMR vaccine and autism". UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support conspiracy theory (no capitals). When having to choose between fraud and hoax, I prefer fraud. Oppose MMR vaccine and autism as per the above. Renerpho (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm seeing all of these opinions and votes, but is anyone considering WP:Common name and other things stated at the WP:Article titles policy? A number of reliable sources use the name "MMR vaccine controversy." And I don't see "controversy" as endorsing the validity of the fringe claims. "Controversy" is not meant to imply that what the overwhelming majority of scientists state about the matter is controversial. It's meant to get across the point that Wakefield caused controversy. His paper is controversial. This is a contentious topic, after all, which is what BullRangifer is stating in the #Another option, rather than move section below. The article also currently still uses the word "controversy" in parts, such as in the "Media role" and "Disease outbreaks" sections. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. 90% of this article should be located in an article named Andrew Wakefield MMR fraud scandal, or something like that. If we did that instead, we could clean up this article and devote it to the controversy which exists between the misinformed public and the medical/scientific community, because that controversy does exist.

This article could then have a (1) section summarizing the Wakefield/fraud article; a (2) section devoted to the misguided faux controversy, and how it is not a controversy in medical/scientific circles; and a (3) section devoted to the conspiracy theories. Other section would still exist.

I really feel that would be the right thing to do, because the current content does not match the title, and never will, no matter the title. There is far too much here about Wakefield. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MMR-autism conspiracy theory

Reading up on this topic I came across the article Chemtrails conspiracy theory, and I wondered why this couldn't be a decent solution here as well? Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good suggestion. Myth is not quite as good because it suggests a literary basis. Conspiracy theory is good because it doesn't imply that promoters are knowingly committing fraud. It could be fraud or they might just be unscientific. Keep in mind that we are trying to teach people. You can't teach people by labeling them idiots at the get go. Jehochman ^Talk 21:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Jehochman ^Talk 21:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "conspiracy theory", this started as a hoax, and then misinformation(including but not limited to conspiracy theories) spread from there, so conspiracy theories are just one aspect of the fallout from this hoax. I agree that "myth" is weird though, makes me think of ancient rome. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look at these:

• fraud - "In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. "
• hoax - "A hoax is a falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth. "
• conspiracy theory - "an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy—generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors—without credible evidence."
• myth - "folklore genre"

Which seems most applicable? Jehochman ^Talk 21:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with conspiracy theory because the believers resist all professional guidance, alleging that there's been a coverup. Example: Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe. Also have a look at Anti-vaccine sentiment associated with belief in conspiracy theories . Jehochman ^Talk 21:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know a lot of anti-vaxxers think there is a conspiracy, but is that the general consensus among them? TornadoLGS (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the term "fraud" fits well. See my comment for my explanation. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because vaccines are government approved and mandated, people who think vaccines are harmful must inherently not believe the government or mainstream medicine. “These powerful interests aren’t telling us the truth.” Look through any anti ax literature and you will see this theme. Jehochman ^Talk 00:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax works fine and is supported by this source[1]. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about MMR-autism research fraud? It was Wakefield's deliberate research fraud that started this whole thing off. The BMJ called it 'fraudulent'!^[1] The myth and conspiracy theories grew up in the wake of this paper's fraudulent assertions. Kitb (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Options

Please rank the front-runners in order of preference:

• MMR vaccine controversy (status quo)
• MMR-autism myth
• MMR-autism hoax
• MMR-autism fraud
• MMR-autism conspiracy theory

!votes

• Conspiracy theory, myth, hoax, fraud in that order. Guy (Help!) 00:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Conspiracy theory, myth, fraud, hoax in that order. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Conspiracy theory seems best. Fraud could also work but could lead to arguing about who is the victim and who the perpetrator. Myth seems too aggrandizing for these theories and hoax could be read as saying this was a joke.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Cannot support anything but Hoax Hoax, controversy, no support for fraud, myth, or conspiracy theory, in that order. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Tornado chaser (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Particularly strong oppose to conspiracy theory, as this is not primarily a claim of a conspiracy. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Help me out here: where's the "controversy"? --Calton | Talk 01:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Conspiracy theory, hoax, myth, fraud in that order. Jehochman ^Talk 01:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ...and strongly oppose any use of "controversy". That's a whitewashing word. Jehochman ^Talk 15:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Fraud, hoax, myth, conspiracy theory in that order. The term, conspiracy theory, does not seem to adequately fit this article, as there is someone who clearly committed an act of wrong in order to receive a financial/personal gain (fits the definition of "fraud") -- which, I repeat, is evident that there was some time of gain acquired noting the decreased use of combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine (at the time of the study being published) and seeing that Andrew Wakefield was an anti-activist. No real "conspiracy theory" was made, but a deceiving, ethically-violating, and evidence-manipulating study was made available for the general public. "Hoax" seems like this was done humorously, which is not the case, though I'm content if "hoax" is used--while "myth" doesn't cover the erroneous and catastrophic intentions of Wakefield. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory, myth, fraud, hoax in that order. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support conspiracy theory. Oppose myth, hoax, fraud, and controversy. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Hoax, myth, fraud, conspiracy theory in that order. TornadoLGS (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• myth, Hoax, Conspiracy theory/fraud, controversy. I lumped Conspiracy and fraud together because I think they are equally not really reflective of what this was.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Controversy, hoax, fraud, myth, conspiracy theory. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• MMR vaccine controversy, MMR-autism myth and reject the remaining 3 titles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• MMR vaccine research fraud controversy, myth, conspiracy theory, hoax in that order. Kitb (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Hoax, fraud, myth, conspiracy theory. "Conspiracy theory" implies there's a large powerful group behind it, and while some people may believe that, I think many are just genuinely concerned about their children's safety and have been deceived into thinking there was a legitimate study proving that autism was a side effect of the vaccine. Therefore, hoax/fraud/myth are more appropriate than "conspiracy theory." Merlin^sorca 16:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Conspiracy theory, hoax, myth, controversy, fraud. Sjö (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Hoax, conspiracy theory, fraud, myth, controversy. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Hoax, Myth, Fraud, Conspiracy theory. --Akrasia25 (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not care which item is appended, however, the word vaccine must be included just as it is in the current name. "MMR" is indeterminate w/o that! So "MMR vaccine autism conspiracy theory" is actually my top choice. RobP (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After reading through some of these votes I decided I DO care about one other thing: Using "controversy" is just wrong. It would be like putting that word on a Flat Earth article. It grants it unwarranted credibility. RobP (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Conspiracy theory, myth, fraud, hoax. No support whatsoever for "controversy". --Calton | Talk 04:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Hoax, Fraud, Myth. No support for Controversy or Conspiracy Theory. Also support inserting "vaccine" after MMR. Duke Gilmore (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree the word "vaccine" must come after MMR whichever we choose. I vote for Hoax, myth, conspiracy theory, fraud. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• MMR vaccine autism hoax -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Fraud, conspiracy theory, myth, hoax. Not controversy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Conspiracy Theory, Myth, Hoax, Fraud. Strongly oppose "controversy" and simply "MMR vaccine and autism" (Both of which seem to imply that there could indeed be some connection). It started as a fraud, but I don't think it conveys the info best, because Fraud (and Hoax) seems like a past tense thing that people no longer believe. Considering how long it has persisted after being exposed as a fraud, it has become both a full blown conspiracy theory, and a commonly held myth, so I think either of those descriptors would be best. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Conspiracy theory, Fraud, Hoax, Myth - Its not actually a myth, and fraud and hoax are equally valid in that it was an intentional distortion, and Fraud especially in relation to wakefield and the original lancet paper is both well sourced and technically accurate on a number of levels. However conspiracy theory is probably a more palatable title for some, even if less accurate. (specifically, the article doesnt actually articulate any 'conspiracy' - merely believing a vaccine is dangerous is not belief in a conspiracy theory, believing a vaccine is dangerous and the government is secretly covering it up would be). Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever is the common name, or the clearest name. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another option, rather than move

The feeling of a need to move this article happens to be founded, whether we've realized it or not, in the fact that 90% of this article should be located in an article named Andrew Wakefield MMR fraud scandal, or something like that. If we did that instead, we could clean up this article and devote it to the controversy which exists between the misinformed public and the medical/scientific community, because that controversy does exist.

This article could then have a (1) section summarizing the Wakefield/fraud article; a (2) section devoted to the misguided faux controversy, and how it is not a controversy in medical/scientific circles; and a (3) section devoted to the conspiracy theories. Other section would still exist.

I really feel that would be the right thing to do, because the current content does not match the title, and never will, no matter the title. There is far too much here about Wakefield. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with creating a separate article for the Wakefield vaccine fraud. We could make that a child of Vaccine controversies. That article out to be renamed Vaccine hesitancy, which is the scientific term. The rest of the content could drop in there and if there's too much, additional child articles can be created. "Controversy" is a horrible word for the title because it's adopting a fringe point of view. Jehochman ^Talk 03:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like that title. The WHO has just declared "vaccine hesitancy" to be one of the top ten threats to global health in 2019. See also Are Anti-Vaxxers a Major Health Threat? The World Health Organization Says Yes. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting on with it...

• I moved vaccine controversies → vaccine hesitancy per the discussion above, and especially the WHO statement. In terms of avoiding loaded terms this is a vastly better title.
• I moved thiomersal controversy → thiomersal and vaccines because the controversy effectively died when they took thiomersal out of the main schedule with zero effect on autism (and hence the shift to aluminium as the new reason why It's Always The Vaccines™).
• I suggest moving this to MMR vaccine and autism as a neutral title, and framing this as a cross between a myth (which is how it started) and a deliberate hoax (which Wakefield made it) in the lede, thus:.

Claims of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have been extensively investigated and found to be false. The link was first suggested in the early 1990s and came to public notice largely as a result of the Andrew Wakefield MMR autism fraud (new spin-out from the sections in this article). Anti-vaccination activists still promote the claims, often citing Wakefield's original work, despite its subsequent retraction. This has led to a significant reduction in vaccination and numerous outbreaks of measles resulting in several deaths.

Thoughts? Guy (Help!) 16:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like your lede and would like to get on with the changes as you suggest. I pulled back from your retitling of the article as you suggested but it grows on you and I see where you are headed with this. --Akrasia25 (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just wonder if Lancet MMR autism fraud would be a better title per WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "and autism" is between "myth" and "fraud". UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk · contribs) notes, correctly IMO and concurring with other users in the poll, that it is ambiguous to the point of being very overly generous. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Lancet MMR autism fraud spun out. There is some disjointed prose between this and the spin-out, copyediting would be greatly appreciated. This article is now a much more manageable size as a result. Progress, I think. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support for all of JzG's changes (the ones already done and the ones suggested). --Guy Macon (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Good job! Jehochman ^Talk 15:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The only issue I have is that "MMR vaccine and autism" could lead someone (who doesn't read the article but just sees that it is there) to believe there might be validity in the link. I think that, in this case, a "neutral" title is giving false balance. It would be like if we re-named "9/11 conspiracy theories" to "Alternate 9/11 theories". It's a neutral title, but it gives false parity. When the article, and all reliable sources, fall so heavily on one side of the debate, the article title should reflect that, IMO. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a concern, which I hope is addressed by a suitably robust opening sentence. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three vaccine"controversy" articles have now been renamed to remove the word "controversy", which gave undue weight to fringe ideas.

• In line with the renaming of MMR vaccine controversy to MMR vaccine and autism, I have proposed renaming category:MMR vaccine controversy to category:MMR vaccine and autism to match the parent article. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5 § Category:MMR vaccine controversy.
• In line with the renaming of vaccine controversies to vaccine hesitancy, I have proposed renaming category:Vaccine controversies to Category:Vaccine hesitancy, to match the parent article. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 4 § Category:Vaccine controversies.
• In line with the renaming of Thiomersal controversy to Thiomersal and vaccines, I have proposed renaming category:Thiomersal controversy to category:Thiomersal and vaccines , to match the parent article. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5 § Category:Thiomersal controversy,

I put this through CFD rather than simply move them so that the bot will do the spadework. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the discussion above, I think I have assessed and calculated this correctly.

That seems to make myth a clear winner, right? Guy (Help!) 22:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is "Support (any choice)" defined? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Choices are listed in order above, I put the choice order into a table. An item that someone did not identify as a choice, was left blank and not counted (so if your only opinions were hoax or myth and not controversy then that would be hoax=1, myth=2 and controversy=-1 with first choice being all 1s, first or second being 1 or 2, oppose being -1, and no opinion on that choice being null). Sorry, that was probably obvious by about word 5. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if I understand correctly, "Support (any choice)" equals "first or second or third or fourth or fifth choice".

I don't think you should count a fifth choice as equal to a first choice. You certainly should not say that something with one first choice vote is the winner over things with 8 and 9 first choice votes.

The instructions said "Please rank the front-runners in order of preference" A lot of us didn't put "controversy" in our list and ranked the other four in order of preference. You should have told us that our last choice might be counted as support. If I knew that I would have only voted for one. In fact I am going to change my vote as soon as I post this.

Looking at the above table, I think conspiracy theory got the most support. But I also think that we should ask someone uninvolved to look at the numbers and determine consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going with any support, I was looking at first or second versus opposition, with absolute opposition weighted highly (we're after consensus here, not a vote). Myth gets 11 support and no oppose. Conspiracy gets most support but some strong opposition. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This whole discussion is being driven by a false narrative that seeks to make Wikipedia clearly POV pushing. There is controversy, the people who talk of this work up a controversy, plain and simple. No matter how much you disagree with them calling their ideas other than controversy ignores reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not controversial. It's established fact that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism. It's scientific consensus and it's not controversial just because anti-vaccine propaganda refuses to acknowledge this fact. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correct answer. There is no controversy. Bradv🍁 07:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: That's pretty offensive. The discussion is actually driven by the fact that painting the MMR autism link as a controversy is itself POV-pushing: it's a public health issue caused by one of the worst examples of scientific fraud ever recorded, it's a controversy in the same way as "teach the controversy" in creationism - acceptance of the claim that there is a controversy embodies inherent deference to a fringe view. My preference, as the initiator of the discussion, is for a value-neutral title (MMR vaccine and autism), a and I changed my view on the details of that as a result of thoughtful discussion here, but I think I am in a minority here and there is a supermajority for framing it explicitly as a myth, hoax or whatever. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only controversy is that unfortunately many people now believe what has become a myth ("a widely held but false belief or idea") as a consequence of a slightly different conspiracy; Wakefield never believed the vaccine caused autism. We know he committed a massive fraud. What I see underemphasized in these articles (maybe I missed them) is that Wakefield planned to make a fortune in diagnostic testing, treatments, and developing a replacement vaccine.^[1][2] So it started as a profit conspiracy by Wakefield which is now a myth believed by thousands who are looking for something to blame for their child's autism or by those who do not trust governments or pharma/corporations for assorted reasons. It is not a hoax, because hoaxes are typically not driven by some type of profit motive as compared to a conspiracy. MartinezMD (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the current name is far better than "controversy". I can live with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated in the initial part of the #Time to move section above, I'm seeing all of these opinions and votes, but is anyone considering WP:Common name and other things stated at the WP:Article titles policy? A number of reliable sources use the name "MMR vaccine controversy." And I don't see "controversy" as endorsing the validity of the fringe claims. "Controversy" is not meant to imply that what the overwhelming majority of scientists state about the matter is controversial. It's meant to get across the point that Wakefield caused controversy. His paper is controversial. This is a contentious topic, after all. The article also currently still uses the word "controversy" in parts, such as in the "Media role" and "Disease outbreaks" sections. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous reliable sources use Myth when discussing claims that autism is linked to vaccination. "Autism-Vaccine Myth"(Psychology Today), "Vaccine-Autism Myth"(Time), "Vaccine Myth"(Science Mag), "Anti-vaccine Myth"(BBC), "Myth of MMR and Autism" (Child-encyclopedia). Also, not that is necessarily matters, but "MMR vaccine and autism myth" gets 226,000 hits on google vs 136,000 hits for "MMR vaccine and autism controversy". UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Common name doesn't really help here - fraud, hoax, myth and controversy all have support depending on how you frame the search and the context of the results (medical sources give one result, tabloids quite another). This is a case of competing, more or less equally supportable titles, where we fall back on editorial judgment and WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE etc. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]