This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Medicine Start‑class Low‑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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. California Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative medicine Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

i don't think the lilacs commentary belongs: as a comment on a HuffPo blog, it is well short of WP:RS. Also, Oprah magazine is slightly less reliable than an IOU from a drug addict, so also does not belong. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I'm not sure what you mean by "lilacs". The Oprah source documents one of his untrue claims. Is mentioning it giving it undue weight, or would a different source be better? I didn't add that content, so I don't know the background there. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with JzG. None of this would pass RS and we might be dealing with MedRS issues given the nature of the topic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is biographical, because it refers to a patient of Sears that was found to be the source of an outbreak. The material needs to be restored. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Removed per WP:BLP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC) [1][reply]

ChrisGualtieri, what part of BLP are you referring to? Removal of that properly sourced content violates NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it applies to talk pages. You're not dealing with newbies here. What about that content violated BLP? It was properly sourced content, so BLP does not apply. Is there some other aspect of BLP you're thinking of? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies to all living persons at all times. Look below for your answer. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but you didn't answer my question. What "unsourced negative content" (a BLP violation) exists in the article (or the talk page content you deleted)?

Content in the body gets mentioned in the lead, as required by WP:LEAD, so if it's in the lead, the source(s) should be in the body, and the refs can be added to the lead if you require it. That's a normal way to solve that problem. If you would AGF and ask questions to gain insight, rather than making accusations, we could solve this amicably. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop splitting sections . ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

??? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris has his own unique interpretation of BLP, which seems to override an admin's judgement. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, I think you're right. I was beginning to wonder if I'd lost my mind! Such arguments only come from drive by IPs and newbies. They just weren't making sense. We are required by NPOV to include properly sourced criticism and negative content if it exists. That's what creates the balance in an article and keeps it from being a sales brochure or hagiography which only presents the favorable side of the story. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the section I restored below, we should be discussing weight. It's obviously not a BLP violation having it on the talk page to discuss. Right now, I think it's a little too coatracky to put in without any further sources that describe what impact this had on Sears' career or standing in the medical community. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that this can be mentioned much more briefly, while keeping the refs. Would that be better? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that still wouldn't be undue weight but it shouldn't warrant an automatic revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences of epidemics (restored)

Moving this content to here in case there is something in it that could go back in the article. The way that it is worded it isn't biographical content about Sears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloNight (talk • contribs) 22:44, February 4, 2015‎ (UTC)

The effects and costs of epidemics are substantial, and an "intentionally undervaccinated" seven-year-old boy— ^[1] a patient of Sears — ^[2][3] was identified as the index patient who started a measles epidemic in 2008,^[4] an epidemic which was the largest outbreak in San Diego since 1991.^[5] The epidemic "resulted in 839 exposed persons, 11 additional cases (all in unvaccinated children), and the hospitalization of an infant too young to be vaccinated....[with] a net public-sector cost of $10,376 per case.... 48 children too young to be vaccinated were quarantined, at an average family cost of $775 per child."^[1]

I'm intrigued by this objection above:

• "The way that it is worded it isn't biographical content about Sears."

Maybe this is a legitimate concern which can easily be fixed without deleting properly sourced content.

For one thing, there is no requirement that all content here must be "biographical" in the ordinary sense. An article at Wikipedia includes many (and more) different types of content which would not be found in a "biography" elsewhere. Anything tangentially related to the subject is fair game.

I'm still willing to entertain better wording. What wording is problematic? Any suggestions? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the exact words in those sources to the refs as evidence for the relevance of the refs. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked the article to try and get more balanced presentation of his life's work. Also, I took out some of the media mentions about him because I don't see the point of why these particular opinions matter. It looks too much like a debate about anti-vaccine theory rather than a biography. Also, we need to find a better source for calling him an alternative medicine pediatrician besides a passing mention in a news article. If we do then I'm not opposed to adding it back. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flo, you made ONE edit which doesn't amount to what we would call blatant vandalism if it hadn't been done by an experienced editor: a better source for the "alternative medicine" mention would be good. That an experienced editor did it doesn't make it better. You should know better. You have no basis in policy for the other deletions.

This reminds me of attempts to delete an article by removing all significant content and then declaring it not worth keeping. All the content was properly sourced and mentioned Sears and his influence in various matters, most of which happen to be about undermining vaccines and the use of the proper vaccine schedule so his book and schedules would be used. It was not a coatrack for dealing with antivaxxers. It was directly related to him. You even removed the last sentence of the lead, which was based on good references in the body. Then you removed those references! I suggest you step back and reexamine each and every sentence and the sources. Then ask about them here before you remove anything. I can assure you that great thought and care went into each edit, choice of source, and wording. Nothing was done haphazardly. Nothing was dumped here. Nothing was taken out of context.

Would better wording be welcome? Sure. Would more sources and coverage of other aspects of his life, POV, practice, and influence be welcome? Sure. A number of editors have actually been improving and building the article, without opposition. By contrast, every bit of your work has been destructive, with ONE exception. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are responsible for putting one of the worst cases of synth back into an article that I have ever seen. You restored a completely inappropriate claim that directly says Sears was responsible for an epidemic and you restored the actual denial as evidence in the problem! You restored an entire unsourced paragraph and gave a whole paragraph of an editorial that condemns the subject as a dangerous doctor. That is a major problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning an actual policy....SYNTH. Since you are a relative newbie, compared to me, I won't just buy your argument, but I will examine it to see if that's the case. You may or may not be right. Maybe a slight change of wording would suffice to fix the problem.

What "entire unsourced paragraph" did I restore? Did you check the history to see how that paragraph came into being? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh... an ad hom? Seriously. How about looking at the sources - I certainly do not see any indication that an "epidemic" was caused by Robert Sears. The fact "epidemic" was even used screams red flags. The fact that the only PubMed source doesn't mention Sears at all should have been another.[2]. The fact "intentionally undervaccinated" does not even make sense is another. Another editor gave a good reason, "Consequences of epidemics" was about attacking Sears and you restored the problem without so much as verifying it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Now we're getting into details. They can be dealt with. Did you check the other refs which showed that it was Sears' patient which was the index case in that epidemic? Those sources make the synthesis, not me. I just provided a source to Pediatrics. I didn't need to do that. (When a secondary source makes the synthesis, we often add the primary source as a service to readers.) If you will read the content carefully, Sears is not directly blamed for the epidemic, his patient is. I know there are several sources, not used, which do blame Sears for that epidemic. I had the sense to not go there without better sources.

Just to put this into context, I'm not wedded to that paragraph. Much of it could be left out or reworded. The wholesale deletion was problematic, especially since SYNTH (which might apply) was not mentioned, and BLP, which did not apply (because it was properly sourced), was mentioned. Can we find a compromise? I'm willing to work with you. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is under discretionary sanctions and I have warned you of that fact. You have directly implied that Sears is responsible and when pressed you are now saying a 7 year old child is to blame for causing an "epidemic". Spare me your idle banter about sources and synth when you are using Huffington Post comments like that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is really embarrassing...for you. You obviously haven't read the sources, and your reading comprehension is woefully lacking. You need to be VERY precise, especially when you attack me (as you have done within the last hour or so here and elsewhere). We have sanctions here in our PAG to deal with such personal attacks, so stop making false accusations. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you explain the fact that Sears' advises parents to get the MMR on a normal schedule in his book? Also, the child had more than one pediatrician, but the parent's are responsible for making the decision to vaccinate their child. The doctor cannot force it upon the patient. The entire use "Consequences of epidemics" was little more than to show the that a patient of Sear's caused the spread of illness and incurred costs while laying responsibility directly at him. What about the child's primary care provider? What about the parents? What about the person who gave it to the child in the first place? Even Sears own words are not given context and balance. That's the issue and that's why I removed it again. A person claiming to be Sears has complained about the article and the information and it seems legitimate because Sears supports vaccination. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's OR and acceptance of the subject's special pleading. He denies being anti-vax, and since we follow the sources here, we document that.

Pretty much all other reliable sources treat him as, and call him, anti-vax, because his writings and actions tend in that direction. We document what they say. That's our job. The sources called the earlier outbreak an epidemic, and the current one is over 100 cases and growing. Sears own claimed "support" of vaccinations is at deviance with the standard of care expected of a physician, endangering his patients and all of society. As such his license is in danger, and there are calls for him and others to lose their licenses.

RS say all this. We document that. RS call him anti-vax. We document that. RS show that he is deeply uninformed and misinformed about vaccines. We are required to document what they say. That's our job.

We don't whitewash articles, especially when the subject wants us to. On the contrary. We are required by several of our policies to resist such attempts, stick to the sources, and tell the good and the bad. We "work" for Wikipedia, not the COI-conflicted subject. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sears own statements and checking his book to which he makes a rebuttal to on PBS and others is clearly not OR. Verifiability and veracity is required when you are dealing with sensational and contentious claims. A reliable source will have both of these elements and opinions are to be used with extra care when directly going against the subject's stance. The fact the entire article was mostly opinions of Sears from others represented a clear issue. Resolving and explaining the complexities of why such opinions are a problem is not my goal here, but Wikipedia is not an echo chamber for opinions of others. Negative or positive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect has now twice removed the Anti-vaccination activist category, asking for "RS". This is of course provided by two sources currently being used as references: Gorski and Willingham. Apart from that, there's the notion that he is merely advocating "reduced" vaccine and not "no" vaccine. That argument is woeful: if you give some vaccine but not enough (as per standard medical advice) to do the job, then of course you are "anti" doing vaccination the right way. Doing it not the right way is of course "anti-vaccination". And again in any event there are reliable sources for this categorisation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, additionally, this fine source on anti-vaccinationists

• Poland GA, Jacobson RM (2012). "The clinician's guide to the anti-vaccinationists' galaxy". Hum. Immunol. (Review). 73 (8): 859–66. doi:10.1016/j.humimm.2012.03.014. PMID 22504410.

has Sears as a chief subject. Seems to me that too is RS for labelling him such. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Please restore it; the person who removed the category didn't even notice that there are already sources to this effect being used on the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sources, I think he should be described prominently as an anti-vaccinationist in the lede too, since that is his principal (in fact only, really) claim to fame. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object, though the lead as written makes this clear, even without using that term. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sears own words and book advocate vaccines - thus he cannot and is not an "anti-vaccinationist". Those "reliable sources" you just labeled are opinions and historically we comply with the subject's stated stance on views regardless of what others say. This has been done for religion, politics, gender, and ideology. Neither Gorski and Willingham are a reliable source for this category - only the subject is. Gorski makes an opinion known, but using this to label a person based on the personal opinions of another person is an issue when it is contested by the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's incorrect. We have a plethora of Holocaust deniers who call themselves something else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]