User talk:Shavais
December 2023
Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't use the talk page for general discussion. I used it to object to the use of politically non-neutral labelling. The fact that the labelling was politically non-neutral is not in debate. You don't need a source to support a tautology. The source material is the article together with its labelling.Shavais (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Talkpages aren't fora for your interpretations of what sourced content says, or what reliable sources should say, or for demands that reliable sourcing be removed because you disagree with what they say, nor are they soapboxes for personal POVs. Acroterion (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- My post was not an interpretation of what the source content says, or what reliable sources should say, or a demand that reliable sources be removed, or a soapbox for a personal POV. It was an objection to the use of a politically non-neutral label. Shavais (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, neutrality is defined as the consensus of what reliable sources state, not an absence of characterization according to commonly accepted interpretations in mainstream media. We don't water things down to a false balance. Acroterion (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- So your claim is that the label represents a consensus of what reliable sources say? According to whom? No, I don't think it is. Hence the objection. Shavais (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- If you have evidence that reliable sources do not make those statements, or that they are not representative of reliable mainstream sources, present the sources. "I don't like what those references say" is not appropriate use of a talkpage. Talkpages aren't soapboxes for griping about things you disagree with, or that you'd rather they didn't say. Sourceless complaints will be removed. Acroterion (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- My source is the label, the article, and its sources. Where do any of the article's sources claim that this label should be applied? Are those sources reliable? Who says? Who decides what sources are "reliable"? If neutrality is the goal, the statement should not be "This is an extremist conspiracy theory." It should be "These sources call this an extremist conspiracy theory." Wikipedia articles should not try to be the arbiters of what is considered "reliable." Shavais (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- «If neutrality is the goal, the statement should not be "This is an extremist conspiracy theory." It should be "These sources call this an extremist conspiracy theory."» => These sources call Boston the capital and most populous city in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. These sources call cattle large, domesticated, bovid ungulates. These sources call butterflies winged insects from the lepidopteran suborder Rhopalocera. This sound ridiculous, isn't it? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- So your claim is that the label represents a consensus of what reliable sources say? According to whom? No, I don't think it is. Hence the objection. Shavais (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, neutrality is defined as the consensus of what reliable sources state, not an absence of characterization according to commonly accepted interpretations in mainstream media. We don't water things down to a false balance. Acroterion (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- My post was not an interpretation of what the source content says, or what reliable sources should say, or a demand that reliable sources be removed, or a soapbox for a personal POV. It was an objection to the use of a politically non-neutral label. Shavais (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Talkpages aren't fora for your interpretations of what sourced content says, or what reliable sources should say, or for demands that reliable sourcing be removed because you disagree with what they say, nor are they soapboxes for personal POVs. Acroterion (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
For the record i disagree with strict application of WP:NOTFORUM and i think that your comment in Talk:Great Replacement should not have been deleted. Could you give me examples supporting your claim that «Quite a lot of things that quite a lot of people initially believed were nothing more than "fringe conspiracy theories" have been more-or-less proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt, by most any rational, critical thinking person, and have become commonly accepted as being actual reality.»? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)