This is an archive of past discussions with User:Shibbolethink. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
El C, I don't totally 100% understand what you mean, I was just fixing the formatting! I figured ARW was probably watching there anyway. But I think what you're saying is that ARW's sig date made the ping not work? Is there anything else I should do? I definitely don't want to get involved in that whole situation, I was just lurking :) — Shibbolethink(♔♕)14:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the tip :) I also want to say, regardless of any opinion I have about the user or or conduct, I know that situation has to be quite a difficult one to mop, and I respect you for engaging in difficult situations like that. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)15:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I am asking you please what to do. I was just saying "There is a scientist who says Spike is toxic, there is another scientist who says it's not". Then I see the discussion closed because "You are saying scientists are wrong and you are right". Actually not Datafiller (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Datafiller, my advice is to read WP:FRINGE, WP:YWAB, and WP:1AM. We have many many scientists saying the protein is not toxic in and of itself, and that the vaccine is not dangerous, it has only exceedingly rare risks of adverse reactions, like any vaccine. And this first group have published in peer-reviewed reputable journals. As opposed to a very small minority saying it is toxic, who are not recognized as legitimate by the broader community. Hence, we report what the majority view is. That's how wikipedia works. You may think it's the wrong way, but we operate via consensus, not via the opinion of one or a few users.— Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Shibbolethink. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
TheresNoTime, oh wow, thank you! I was planning on asking at some point, so this is a huge relief! I appreciate you keeping an eye out for users who would benefit, and I will do my utmost to make sure that faith was well placed :) Thanks again.— Shibbolethink(♔♕)21:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Forich!! And back at you, you are doing a great job in a difficult area, and even when we disagree, I know you're always trying to do the right thing and that I can count on you to have a level head about it! — Shibbolethink(♔♕)21:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Question about another user's profile page
Thanks for your comments here. That's a good point about adding a warning message on that user's talk page. I normally only do that for vandalism but I'll start to do it for MEDRS in future as well. One thing I am wondering about: is the user actually allowed to make a statement about their religious beliefs on their user page (here)? I am not sure if that goes against Wikipedia policies and the user should be warned about it, too? (although in a way it was useful because based on that my suspicions rose that the newly added content at menstruation (here) was probably added with a religious agenda in mind...).— Preceding unsigned comment added by EMsmile (talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@EMsmile: Yeaaaah, so I agree there are definitely policies against explicit and prolific promotion of one's beliefs, even in user space. But my understanding is that there is wide latitude in user space which allows this sort of thing. You can't say racist stuff, you can't say sexist stuff, but I believe you can say "I am a black person" or "I am a religious person." It's a nuance, but it is one worth keeping. Have you ever heard the saying: "Religions are like genitals. You can have it out in the open in the privacy of your own home. Feel free to take it out, wave it around...but if you're ever shoving it down my kid's throat, we got a problem."
The slippery slope is also too steep imo. We allow people to say "I'm a woman" or "I'm a man" or "I like frogs." So I don't really see why that wouldn't extend to "I'm extremely religious." The issue is of course, in their edits. If they are only editing to push that agenda, or if they are largely editing to push that agenda, then they are breaking the rules. (namely, WP:SPA, WP:NPOV, etc). Or if they are making a massive essay or screed in their talk or user space, a laTime cube, that would also run afoul of the rules against promotion of one's beliefs. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)00:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, makes sense. Although not sure about "Feel free to take it out, wave it around" - this would still intimidate others (with regards to genitals, see Exhibitionism). I also feel a bit intimidated if users "wave around their religious beliefs" but you're right there is probably not enough grounds in this particular case to make a complaint. (sorry that I had forgotten to sign my comment above) EMsmile (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
EMsmile, hahaha all good. I forget to sign my comments occasionally too :) I think the "take it out, wave it around" definitely only applies in ones' home with closed doors, and presumably without my children present! You're definitely right there! I think if the user posted on your talk page about it, or mine, and started trying to proselytize on wikipedia, that would definitely be an issue. I can imagine it would probably even be an issue if the user tried to proselytize on their own talk page, like if they tried to convert anyone who posted a warning there.— Shibbolethink(♔♕)00:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
OldBolshevik at ANI
Given your personal schedule, I am amazed that you had the time to assemble that refutation. I clicked every one of your links and was reminded of a lot and learned a bit. Thanks. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Cullen328, No problem, happy to help. Some plain ol' not-necessarily-related facts that may assist in understanding my state of mind when I posted that:
I had a clinical psychiatry exam this morning
Procrastination is one hell of a drug
I had a phase in middle school where I studied religiously all the terrible things Christians had ever done
This phase was right after I finished reading the bible, became an agnostic, and stopped attending church
I have a list in my google drive of all the terrible things people have done in the name of science/medicine (e.g. 1234567891011), and in the name of religion (from which most of that post was sourced)
I do not recommend clicking those links, unless you are in a good place mentally, physiologically, spiritually. As Charles Bukowski wrote, "People are not good to each other''
As French vascular surgeon René Leriche wrote: "Every surgeon carries within himself a small cemetery, where from time to time he goes to pray — a place of bitterness and regret, where he must look for an explanation for his failures"
I keep this list around, because I look at it every time I'm about to do something I think I might regret. Reading that list is why, in grad school, I declined an offer to work for the DIA. And probably why I decided to go to medical school! And why I now find myself typing this after finishing a surprisingly difficult psychiatry exam and having a few beers to mope about it :)
I think it's sometimes okay to wallow in the terrible things humans do, as long as you're able to pull yourself out of it and do something good as a result. Yesterday, I was able to connect an institutionalized man with schizophrenia to his parents whom he hadn't spoken to in nearly 20 years. That felt pretty good!
Graham Beards, Happy to help :) I think many of those virus articles are wonderful. Truth be told, I used them to great effect to find sources while taking (and then teaching) relevant courses in grad school. So I am forever in your (and others') debt. Maybe some day I'll bring Orthohantavirus to FA as penance! — Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
List of LASD Gangs
Thank you for your edit in my sandbox. It is a nice little list, but of no real use, unless you have some idea for it. Also, I like your username, and it prompts the trick question, "Do you travel?"
I'm happy to help! Well, to be honest, I think it would do great as an article in and of itself! Like: "List of LASD deputy gangs." The subject is clearly notable, and I hope to help create and expand some of these other gangs as notable articles in and of themselves as well. Not all of them will be notable enough, but, for example, I think the 2000/3000 boys probably is. Any LASD gang that has its own independent lawsuit with lots of news coverage probably deserves an article! And, to answer your question, unfortunately I am not a fellow traveler and I am not travelling east or west :P But you are not the first person to ask lol. My mentor is a traveler, though, and he keeps trying to convince me! He's trying to make the transition from E to W. I'm just not usually one for membership in any sort of group, hahaha. Thank you for the kind words, and I'm happy to help. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)10:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Question for the virologist
Say someone refuses to take the vaccine because they’re uncertain about long term effects, and aren’t convinced by the current studies on short term effects because they don’t/can’t explain what happens long term, and that these are the first mRNA vaccines to gain authorisation and be widely used. What’s the scientific rationale you use to convince them the vaccine is safe?
I’m feel rather sceptical of the idea that a vaccine dose could cause no short term effects and then start showing notable adverse effects a couple years down the line, and also suggest long COVID is probably worse. But say both those points fail to convince. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
One technique I've found is just to explain that the vaccine is just going to make these little proteins, the spike, and their body is going to make antibodies against them. Nothing about that leads any scientist with a PhD to be concerned about long term effects, because within a few days/weeks it's all gone. But I understand that's not usually convincing.
I've also had a little bit of success with patients when I ask what other treatments/vaccines they've had, and show them how few patients those treatments were tested in in comparison to the vaccine, and yet are still safe. Especially now that the Pfizer vaccine is FDA approved, it probably had the single largest patient population before FDA approval of any drug/vaccine ever. It has been more rigorously tested than any drug/vaccine has ever been.
They may often reference that the fact that it's an mRNA vaccine is the issue. But it may help to know that these are not the first mRNA vaccines to be tested [1][2][3][4]. We have plenty of patients who got these vaccines as long as 12 years ago, and none of those patients developed any ill effects from those past vaccines. So, you might ask, why didn't we have these vaccines 12 years ago? The answer is that those past trial vaccines didn't work very well! They weren't harmful, but they didn't really help either. It took those 12 years to figure out how to make the vaccines effective enough. To take what they had back then, and make it slowly better over time, until we were ready to try it on something like this. and it worked! It also turns out, it's a lot better at inducing antibodies against these virus proteins than it ever was at getting us to make antibodies against cancer proteins (what it's been tested for in the past). Again, it wasn't harmful in any of those trials, but it wasn't helpful. It needed this new purpose, and some incremental fixes, to start working this well.
I don't find that any single one of these arguments or discussion points is ever particularly convincing. What works is establishing trust with the person, answering their questions slowly over time, letting them do a lot of the talking, and then just giving them breadcrumbs so they figure out it was their idea all along. They have to believe they're doing it for their reasons, not for yours or anyone else's. Because distrust of science is so key to this. And emotions are so key to this. That pure facts are rarely helpful. They are often information overload!
What actually helps is giving them a safe place to ask questions they feel uncomfortable asking, and then giving them compassionate understanding empathetic responses that just also happen to be correct. lol. I know that's easier said than done for most of these things. But I think it's awful similar to how we talk to problematic users on wikipedia. Never getting upset, always just calmly advancing the conversation, etc etc. And you're quite good at that, so I have faith that you can make progress with this person. Let me know how it goes, though, I'll be curious to hear. And sorry this response is so delayed! I had to put some thought into it. :) — Shibbolethink(♔♕)03:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
(Update:) Still a bit of a work in progress. Seems awfully difficult convincing people on politicised issues, so I generally avoid these topics in real life, as generally being a waste of time. It does indeed seem like more a trust thing than a science thing, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
(talk page stalker) If you're going to argue logic, know your stuff. Someone claiming "x is y" has to show evidence for it (Russell's teapot). Simply because it hasn't been disproven (or can't be disproven, in the case of some non-scientific stuff like religious beliefs or pseudo-science) does not make "x is y" any of "true", "likely" or even "possible". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems I missed that point, glad to see us agreeing. That says a lot of good things about you that you are able to understand the distinction --Distelfinck (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Ivermectin article
Our article says "misinformation has been widely spread claiming that ivermectin is beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19". Calling something misinformation is calling it false, according to most dictionary definitions of "misinformation". There are some dictionaries that give alternative meanings, but they are in the minority, and most readers of our article will interpret "misinformation" as "false information". So most readers will interpret that sentence to mean that "ivermectin is not beneficial". However, all the sources say that the jury is still out on ivermection re Covid, and that there is not enough data. --Distelfinck (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The false information is that it has been proven effective. We don't know that it is beneficial. So yes, that is misinformation. If I go around spreading rumors that Aliens exist and they have visited the earth and they already control all the seats of government, I'm spreading misinformation. Is it possible I'm right? Yes. But it's still misinformation, because there is no proof. The sources say "the data do not support that it is effective." — Shibbolethink(♔♕)20:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
It is extremely difficult to prove a negative. So in medicine and science, we default to "no effect" or "negligible effect" until we have evidence otherwise. As more and more high quality RCTs are done, it gets us closer and closer to the conclusion that an effect likely does not exist, or we would have seen it in such large data sets. We exclude studies which are poorly controlled or which have unclear or flawed methodology, as these have confounders which interfere with actually detecting any effect. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)20:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
We prefer more succinct encyclopedic summary. We can change it later if/when any professional organizations arrive at a consensus that it works. I think the current wording is more than adequate (e.g. Misinformation about ivermectin's efficacy spread widely on social media, fueled by publications that have since been retracted and Ivermectin has been pushed by right-wing politicians and activists promoting it as a supposed COVID treatment, and less editorialized than it was previously. Overall, my suggestion would be to provide more specific actionable proposals on talk pages, in the form of "Change A to B." You are more likely to get traction that way. Outright descriptions of right-wing or left-wing bias don't tend to get very far on Wikipedia. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)21:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay. I didn't write any of the versions of the text that have been described here. Keep in mind, repeated accusations of misconduct or threats to report another user without consensus or policy basis can be construed as harassment under WP:ASPERSIONS. Reporting other users when one doesn't have consensus on one's side usually does not end well. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)21:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
So in medicine and science, we default to "no effect" or "negligible effect" until we have evidence otherwise. That's not what the sources are saying. They are saying that the jury is still out on Ivermectin. --Distelfinck (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay. I think we are rapidly approaching WP:IDHT. We do not say that Ivermectin is not effective. We describe what our sources say. I think I'm pretty much good on this conversation. Have a nice day. Report me if you like. I would advise against it, but as I said, I cannot stop you and will not try. I am only interested in keeping the articles in a WP:NPOV state wherever possible. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)21:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Necrothesp, I absolutely see what you mean. I honestly hadn’t noticed the other comma disambiguations in that category when I did the close ( was going off of the category name alone, I didn't see the few disambiguated examples in there, only the non-disambiguated ones). It makes sense that this longer-standing consensus would trump CONSISTENCY.Would you like me to revert the close (move everything back) or do a unilateral move for the Birmingham school to a comma DAB name, and then correct the close summary? I’m happy to do either, and you are also welcome to do the second and I’ll correct the move summary if so.I’m relatively confident it will be uncontroversial to use the comma DAB delimiter, and neither of us would end up at “undone moves.” — Shibbolethink(♔♕)15:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I think a change to the comma disambiguated name would be fine, given the only other contributor also supported it and retaining the parenthetical disambiguation would actually make it the only secondary school in England disambiguated this way. Many thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Forgot to note, but this case request was declined as premature. The claim of impersonation of an admin by this user seems to be a misunderstanding, as they say that only admins can leave uw templates / arbitration alerts. Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions19:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
