Appeal to the majority
(Argumentum ad populum)
Rationalization Logical Fallacy
"In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." ---Galileo Galilei
[A popular Rationalization and Logical Fallacy. Making out anti-vaccine beliefs are fringe is the same--the reason they are fringe is purely due to information control, by the Allopaths, as the ones on Wikipedia demonstrate so well.]
[Wikipedia] Appeal to the majority
"Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of the majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion." -----S. Kierkegaard (1813-55), Danish philosopher. The quotation is from The Diary of Søren Kierkegaard, ed. by Peter Rohde, 1960, pt. 5, sct. 3, no. 128, entry from 1850. There could not be a more exact analysis of contemporary views on MMR and the sub-set of children who have suffered serious adverse reactions. While the 'majority' is made up of those who simply receive their opinions from the media, together with those in positions of authority who simply make up ideological opinions, the parents and a handful of concerned professionals know their case from personal experience and a rigorous reading of the science. Uncomfortable Science and Enemies of the People by Martin Walker
"Not to mention that the NIH, FDA, UN, CIHR, CID and pretty much every other major health organization all are on the side of vaccinations. That's tens of thousands of scientists, hundreds of thousands of doctors, and hundreds of health organizations, all on the side of vaccination. All against your what - 20 or 30 wackos?--Usent 25/5/06Now back to the actual discussion. This all started because Wikipedia has a policy (WP:NPOV) that states explicitly that not every minority view needs mentioning. You can say what you want, but most information on whale.to is not widely accepted. There is no reason to presume that the "external links" section of articles should not fall under the aegis of this NPOV policy. Hence, links have been removed. So far there has been no indication that this has changed, and I see no reason why we should suddenly be including links to whale. Sorry. JFW | T@lk 20:47, 11 December 2005
All I am doing is making sure your defamatory, confused and misinformed page does not get its traffic as a result of link placement in Wikipedia. I think an Alexa ranking of 1,000,000 a year is not very high and no sign that your page is notable. Today, 106,763 sites were getting more traffic than you. JFW | T@lk 15:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)"
" Vedic science: The majority of the scientific community believes that these claims are Pseudo science."--Wikipedia Editor.
So to summarize, you are completely unable to substantiate any of your claims using actual medical literature. All you have is a little webpage you put together featuring articles from your fellow anti-vaccine groupies, and opinion pieces selected from a few MD's out of the millions of MD's out there. Usenet May 2006
NPOV dictates that extreme fringe views do not need to be propagated by Wikipedia. I have explained to John on the Ombudsman RFC page that the POV of whale.to is so utterly fringe that it needs not to be covered, even as an external link. I think "links to citizen's organizations advancing critical views on vaccines" is spin. I have never seen more rabid opposition to vaccination, conspiracy theories and all.--Allopath Wikipedia Editor
"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.". Michael Ralston 08:25, 21 April