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.
Shibbolethink, I'll start by saying if you aren't interested, no problem I will move on. That said, if you are interested I would be happy to explain why objected to the Andy Ngo content in more detail. Sometimes it's easy to have a full understanding in your own head but not make it clear in a reply. Again, I just thought a more detailed answer might help but I won't take your time if you ask me to move on. Thanks, Springee (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Springee, IDK, I've been told I should just not get involved in this topic area. But I don't think I'm gonna start editing there any time soon. On further reflection, I can see there is a legitimate concern about BLP and attributing motivations to someone that they have not explicitly expressed. I guess if I were editing in the topic area, I would want to know if Ngo ever expressed a denial about this claim. Or if all we have is the quotes MPants provided, I really do think the sourcing is good enough to overcome the high BLP burden.
At the same time, it overall feels very similar to this cesspool of a content area, where editors want to remove any negative connotation about a BLP, regardless of how high quality the sourcing is.
But yeah, I would like to hear your side, because I think it's important to understand all angles of disputes like this, even if I disagree. So go ahead!--Shibbolethink(♔♕)02:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to look into this. Even if I don't convince you in the end my objective is to show that this was at least a legitimate point of disagreement. In prepping for this I can see some blind spots of my own which would have been easier to address in a more civil discussion. OK, on to the content.
The original text is quoted below. The sentence in question is italics.
It has been contended that Ngo seeks to provoke left-wing violence.BuzzFeed News reported that "[Ngo]'s literal brand is that anti-fascists are violent and loathe him", adding that he "has been building to a dramatic confrontation with the Portland far left for months, his star rising along with the severity of the encounters...[Ngo] is willing to make himself the story and to stream himself doing it. He proceeds from a worldview and seeks to confirm it, without asking to what degree his coverage becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy".(Buzzfeed citation [[1]]) California State University, San Bernardino extremism expert Brian Levin stated that Ngo was "a political pundit who certainly makes the most out of his conflicts, which sometimes turn violent on him...But to his credit, I’ve never seen him be the physical aggressor in the posts that he's made generally.”[1]
I take this to be a topic sentence for the paragraph. So as is we the next sentences and their sources to support the sentence. Breaking the sentence down we are saying that sources (it needs to be plural or it should be specifically attributed) are claiming that Ngo "seeks to provoke" (ie it is deliberate) and what he is trying to provoke is "left-wing violence". Since we are dealing with a BLP we need to be clear that we are either specifically reporting a sourced claim (direct citation) or that the scope of the claim isn't overly broad. As written "promote left-wing violence" can include attacking cars/building/etc vs attacking Ngo himself. The next part is seeks to provoke. That means we need sources that clearly state his intent was to cause violence of some kind. Not just to get a reaction but that the reaction must be violent. Finally, if we are going to say "it has been contended" then we have to assume those doing the contending are multiple and reasonably reputable. If not then the claim is not DUE for inclusion since it effectively alleges he is trying to incite violence. So we really want to see the sources make the claim, not "left wing activists".
The original two sources are Buzzfeed News and NYT. In my view the relevant BFN content is this:
Smaller, semantic debates have spun off, mostly on Twitter, about the nature of the word “journalist” as it applies to Ngo and the nature of the word “violence” as it applies to nonphysical harm.The former debate turns on the extent to which Ngo deliberately provokes angry and violent responses from anti-fascists. I was with Ngo, watching him, from an hour before he entered the demonstration until an hour after he arrived at a Portland hospital to be treated for his injuries. Nothing he did that day suggested that he planned or even secretly wanted to be assaulted, which has been a common enough refrain in the days since from some on the left. The attack was not provoked.But it would be a mistake to think this violence came out of some vacuum-sealed ideological intolerance toward conservatives. Ngo has been building to a dramatic confrontation with the Portland far left for months, his star rising along with the severity of the encounters. “Hated by antifa,” Ngo’s Twitter biography read before and after the attack. Scary-looking antifa marchers glare from his account’s banner image. Before I arrived in Portland, he suggested that it might be good for my story to go get a drink with him at Cider Riot, a far-left hangout. The man’s literal brand is that anti-fascists are violent and loathe him.
Looking at the underlined passages this article doesn't say he promotes violence. It would be fair to say the article suggests others make the claim but then we have non-attributed others making a rather serious BLP claim (promotes violence). The article does make a strong case for an observer effect and that was where the talk page discussion went.
The NYT article basically says Ngo does not try to get violent. He doesn't engage in violence himself and it wouldn't support any notion that he tries to be the victim of it. Does his reporting/on line activity seek to provoke it?
Before Saturday’s event, anti-fascist organizers had mentioned him by name. Mr. Ngo had written on social media that he was worried about the event.“He’s a political pundit who certainly makes the most out of his conflicts, which sometimes turn violent on him,” said Brian Levin, the director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University in San Bernardino. “But to his credit, I’ve never seen him be the physical aggressor in the posts that he’s made generally.”
I don't see how that supports a sentence stating that people accuse Ngo of seeking to provoke violence.
I will grant that I should have been more clear with this explanation the first time but things went south so fast it was much harder to figure out where we might have common ground/understanding/misunderstanding.
When it was questioned if these sources supported the sentence, two additional sources were offered (Vox, LATimes).
In the dominant narrative, pushed by the conservative and mainstream media alike, the attack on Ngo is evidence of a serious left-wing violence problem in America. Antifa, they argue, is a group of street thugs that has repeatedly attacked journalists and poses a genuine threat to public safety. ...But according to a second narrative, offered primarily by less well-known left-liberal writers and social media accounts, the mainstream media is getting it all wrong. Ngo is not an innocent victim but a far-right sympathizer who has doxxed antifa members in the past, potentially facilitating their harassment, and provokes them so that he can broadcast the result.
So VOX isn't saying Ngo "provokes them so that he can broadcast the result.". VOX is saying some left-liberal writers are saying that. That means it's a disputed point. We don't present it as disputed which means per VOX we are giving this too much weight.
Finally, we have LAT. This one is pretty straight forward. The provided quote says the right-wing groups provoke antifa, not that Ngo provokes them.
So none of the four sources really support the sentence as a topic sentence. BFN is closest but if we want to tie this only to BFN then it should be clear that this is something "BFN says..." and it should more true to BFN's point (observer effect). I'm not sure how any of the other three could be said to support the sentence as written even if they might agree with it. The observer effect aspect I think makes loads more sense. Ngo isn't a dispassionate outside observer. Instead he interacts with friends and foes alike on social media. Even if he didn't want to be attacked, he took full advantage of the opportunity after the fact. That makes it easier for people to assume intent the next time it happened. Also several of the sources do mention confrontation but they aren't saying "violence" and BFN rightly says "violence" is debated when we are talking property damage vs physical injuries. Despite our general content disagreements FormalDude and I were working to come up with a replacement sentence that was closer to the articles. I think we are close at this time.
I hope that all makes sense and isn't too overwhelming. This was all done as a single draft and no copy editors were harmed (or consulted) as I typed this. Thanks for taking the time. Springee (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
What about this version: It has been contended that Ngo seeks to provoke confrontations with left wing activists.
Buzzfeed and Brian Levin are two people contending this, along with the other voices in the sources provided (LA Times and VOX). Is that not a fair summary of the sources? It appears as though it is to my eyes.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)03:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Here you say: So VOX isn't saying Ngo "provokes them so that he can broadcast the result.". VOX is saying some left-liberal writers are saying that. That means it's a disputed point. We don't present it as disputed which means per VOX we are giving this too much weight. but that isn't strictly true. It's presented in that text in attributional voice ("it has been contended..." is indirect attribution), which is part of how we present disputed ideas. You could provide a countervoice that is properly attributed and DUE, which would solidify this. But as it stands, it isn't in wiki-voice, which would be the no-no in this criticism.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)03:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree it's not in wiki voice but we have to be careful that we don't look like it's a well accepted fact. VOX said most sources say A but a few lesser-known, left-wing sources said B. They are saying this is a minority view. We have to be careful that we don't make it sound like "a number of sources say B." Still, I agree this is a gray area. Springee (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Springee, Yes, that is what vox says. I'm not sure that is borne out in the rest of the sources you provided, but it is definitely what Vox says. I think that's where you would need to find more attributed voices to be DUE, so that you are presenting the viewpoints in proportion to their representation, but also in proportion to how many notable voices actually exist. Vox could very well be wrong, but if they aren't, it should be easy to find those other voices yknow.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)04:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I think that is better. I think saying who contends that is also important but I'm not sure the best way. Take the Vox part, Vox contends that some left-wing writers content... I don't think any of our sources would put that statement in their own words which makes it harder when we have to double attribute. We should also make the mechanism clearer. Provoking by actually telling people to act is different then thinking "left wing violence is the crisis of our time and we need to show people how bad it is (and I get more hits when I show these confrontations)" I don't want this to come off as just stalling so let me propose a change. What about It has been contended that Ngo seeks to provoke confrontations with left wing activists via his reporting and social media presence. I think that would be supported via BFN and makes it clear he isn't directly inciting but his messages move people in that direction. Springee (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Springee, I'm not sure the mechanism is necessary, but I think that is a mechanism that is supported by these sources. I wold say it's more like he's acting recklessly without disregard for whether it incites violence, and it happens to benefit his social media presence, so there's not a lot of incentive to stop acting so recklessly. I'm not saying that's what you should put in the article, just saying that's the perception I get from these sources. I think any more than what you've provided (plus the relevant quotations from BFN, Levin, and then pro-Ngo voices) would be UNDUE. But I do think you need quotations in there, not just that sentence. That sentence is perfectly represented by the quotes already there imo.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)04:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
like this: It has been contended that Ngo seeks to provoke confrontations with left wing activists via his reporting and social media presence. BuzzFeed News reported that "[Ngo]'s literal brand is that anti-fascists are violent and loathe him", adding that he "has been building to a dramatic confrontation with the Portland far left for months, his star rising along with the severity of the encounters...[Ngo] is willing to make himself the story and to stream himself doing it. He proceeds from a worldview and seeks to confirm it, without asking to what degree his coverage becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy".(Buzzfeed citation 1) California State University, San Bernardino extremism expert Brian Levin stated that Ngo was "a political pundit who certainly makes the most out of his conflicts, which sometimes turn violent on him...But to his credit, I’ve never seen him be the physical aggressor in the posts that he's made generally.”--Shibbolethink(♔♕)04:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I still think contended over states things but I would be OK with it. Overall I would be fine with that. Just in case it wasn't clear, it was always assumed the rest of the paragraph would be retained. I think if the article talk page hadn't started with accusations we could have easily worked this out (as you and I just did). This is why I think civility is so important and needs to be enforced in cases like this. If we treat each other with respect we can often find compromises and the article is better for it. When the discussion starts with accusations of bad faith it poisons the well. Later today I will propose your text on the article page. Thank you for taking the time. I hope it helped clear up my content concerns. Springee (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your conversation at HighInBC's talk page, and wanted to let you know about the User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks script. It adds helpful links to the top right of pages; on a user page, one of those will be a ds alerts link so you can instantly see all of the discretionary sanction notifications that have been posted there. Cheers! Schazjmd(talk)14:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome. It's also great on articles - the log dropdown lets you see when an article was reviewed or protected, and the filter dropdown shows all of the edits that triggered edit filters. Happy editing! Schazjmd(talk)20:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
ivmmeta.com
You insta-reverted my edit to ivermectin. My original edit did not have the correct reference link, which should be ivmmeta.com. I request that you review the summary of the factual scientific literature on ivermectin at this website and work with me to craft an edit that accurately reflects the change in scientific opinion on this subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickyjames (talk • contribs)
Please take this discussion to the relevant talk page. I would direct you to the consensus template at the top of that page which explains why your edit is not in line with wikipedia policy or the relevant sources.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)02:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
In this section we've got a lovely sentence which goes "Furthermore, the large advantage in transmissibility gained by the presence of the furin cleavage site largely outweighs concerns that such sequences trigger disadvantageous immune responses from B-cells". Err... what the heck does it mean? Could you explain why it makes Wade's theory of a laboratory experiment less likely, so it can be reworded in a way that makes this clearer? Jr8825 • Talk21:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Hahaha yes yes. I can definitely reword it. Basically the argument that’s been put forward by “lab leakers” is that the furin cleavage site is “impossible” or “unlikely” to be a natural phenomenon. Some say the CGGCGG is too rare, some say it’s too stimulating to B cells. Then there’s a response argument (I believe in Frutos et al) that this just doesn’t make sense, because just having a furin cleavage at all is so advantageous for this virus that it doesn’t matter if it stimulates B cells. It’s just too good. I would actually add that a higher immune response isn’t always a bad thing got the virus. I know that’s counterintuitive… but the virus actually wants /some/ immune reaction to drive the cough reflex! Just one example. Anyway, I’ll try and run down the source and make that part more readable.—Shibbolethink(♔♕) 21:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC) Shibbolethink(♔♕)21:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Please stop. Per your own words you did not even check when and where I posted these links leading to rather (now hidden by you) premature summary of facts including not realizing Psychologist guy also did the same thing (A fact which I was aware of and did not care to challenge because who would that is silly), and that you did not realize I also posted the same link to Saturated Fat which is how Psychologist Guy knew of the original discussion. I find your selective application of policy and over-reliance on non-consensus essays rather troubling and quite disruptive. FrederickZoltair (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
The above post is borderline disruptive, and I've given it's poster a warning for a unambiguous WP:TPO violation. As to the claims about "selective application of policy"; I'd be interested (as I'm not really involved in this dispute so far) to know where exactly this was advertised; if you can give me a tip so I can take a look. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I absolutely checked where you advertised, hence the canvas notice. PG did not "do the same thing," he advertised to a wikiproject, which is an appropriate step in gaining broader input. It is distinct. I also knew that you had posted to Saturated fat, and that is also an appropriate step, as it is where the discussion started. These two things are distinct from canvassing, and they are distinct from advertising to several different talk pages which are about topics that may be frequented by users sympathetic to your point of view. THAT is what makes it canvassing. Wikiprojects do not fall under this umbrella, and you are actually encouraged to back-link discussions when advertising them elsewhere. Your lack of advertising at the WT:MED discussion is part of what puts it closer to the unacceptable canvassing end of the spectrum. Please understand, this is advice about how to conduct yourself in the future, it is not shaming. Re: your continued removal of the template, however, this is something I will bring up with an uninvolved administrator if it continues and goes past the 3 revert threshold. Passing the 3RR is sufficient, but not necessary, for an action to be labelled "edit warring." Edit warring is a blockable offense. Please exercise caution. As a general rule, you also should not remove talk page notices like this without achieving consensus for their removal. See WP:TPO for one set of guidelines on this sort of behavior.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)03:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure it needed a template that prominent, but it appears neutrally worded that it doesn't pose any other problem. The comments on the talk pages of the articles you list don't appear, prima vista, to be partisan vote-stacking (they're neutral invitations to participate), although of course the topic of the articles vs. the topic of the discussion (impact of fats on health) are certainly not a coincidence: attempt at getting editors interested in those topics (and presumably, with a favourable viewpoint) to contribute? WP:AGF would suggest ignoring the parenthetical there, although I must say it wasn't done in the most fashionable manner; usually, if the discussion is already at the Wikiproject page, it doesn't need much advertising, except at maybe some other project if that is relevant, and also at the page of the main affected article if there is one). I don't think there's anything worthy of further action, beyond of course reminding everyone to stay cool and to follow WP:MEDRS for any content that is obviously under the scope of that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
RandomCanadian, Yes I would agree, I wish I had used a smaller/less prominent template, but tmbox is the one that came to mind. I wanted something at the top, because it's important for readers linked to that section to be reminded of NPOV and that their prior opinions should be checked at the door (regardless of which position it is). If you have a less prominent/warning-y format in mind (perhaps more muted colors? like other section templates?), I would love to alter it to be less blaming and more notifying.
I also agree, the notices the user posted were not partisan, they were appropriately worded in a neutral manner. The thing that concerned me was the scope of their advertisements. Indeed, FrederickZoltair has said that these talk pages are ones where he has found favourable POVs [2]: Your only contributions to this discussion has been in support of editors known to be vegan advocates as well as pointed attempts to both discredit me personally and misapply policy while highlighting your original research as a med student. Thank god I chose to educate myself on the multitude of perspectives at the archives here, at the reliable source noticeboard archives, low carb and keto talk page archives, and on project vegan or your very public and very transparent attempt at associating my intentions with those of bad actors may have resulted in readers unfamiliar with the discussion unfairly weighing in against me.
I think you're right that this does not raise to the level of any admin involvement or noticeboard posting etc. Better to disengage and see what consensus forms at the project talk. Anyway, thank you for your insight, it is much appreciated as always. --Shibbolethink(♔♕)04:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
FrederickZoltair, do you find the above acceptable? Is this template less offensive? Your input is appreciated, as I would like to come to consensus-via-compromise on matters like this. We appear to disagree quite substantially on the content dispute, but we should be able to agree on policy matters that are less ambiguous.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)04:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
RE: Removal of shibb canvas notice
Hello. Thank you for letting me know and my apologies I did not realize that notices must be removed in a special way as it seemed to be to be quite rapid that I was accused by Shibb and then had the box placed ahead of my comments which I thought was a little unfair. I believe use of this box to be improper, how would I draw attention to that properly? Thanks again. FrederickZoltair (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
--the preceding was copied from elsewhere to avoid fragmented discussion (04:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC))
