User talk:BSFBoredguy

CS1 error on Junlper

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Junlper, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Junlper, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. JaggedHamster (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cited PubMed, PCRM directly and a quote from a site related to a quote from an individual included.

The others were also not unreliable either and if you have an issue with particular ones I will happily find alternative sources.

Otherwise, I see this as being unsubstantiated to claim.

Warm regards

BSF BSFBoredguy (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry on the first paragraph there the first "a quote" is redundant BSFBoredguy (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cited stuff like this in order to cast doubt on the organization and one of the people in it. That's not acceptable, and a violation of the WP:BLP to boot. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not to cast doubt on the organisation but to simply give a factual and objective understanding of their true values and activities. Those are all claims and quotes from those individuals and can be verified as coming from them.

The material I gave was neither unsourced nor poorly sourced as it was sourced with direct quotes from any individuals it was referencing and therefore does not breach any BLP rules.

Both Neal Barnard did make those claims and you can verify that your self. Vlasaks comments are sourced from an organisation he himself is affiliated with and are well documented.

You also removed all corrections not just those specific to issues you have raised. That source was also simply due to it being an aggregate for information.

I will however, change this to the Consumer Freedom source to hopefully satisfy any concerns you have over that particular source. BSFBoredguy (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. BLP violations, improper sourcing, non-neutral information. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cite what exactly BLP violations and how it was improper as well as how all my sources used were unbiased? Be specific and I will correct them.

Simply listing verifiable facts of an organisation that can portray their actions in a negative light is not biased unless unfair and in this case it is entirely fair.

BSFBoredguy (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I do not get a response in 24 hrs from now I will publish a revised version in a "Controversies" or "criticism" section that excludes what you have describes as being biased instead only using sources from the following.

-PCRM directly

-Abc15

-A different Consumerfreedom source for a different reference (which if you feel is unacceptable I will find an alternative for)

-Senate.gov (through web archive)

-Animalliberationpressoffice (relating to a direct quote from its press officer

-NCBI / PubMed

-worldwidecancerresearch

-BMJ

-Scribd (relating to a past release by PCRM)

-azcentral

-the Washington post

Feel free to ask any questions or recommend changes.

I hope the inclusion of this in a dedicated section and using more 'reliable' sources will mitigate the issues you feel are present.

Warm regards BSFBoredguy (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This does not sound like a good idea. I really think you should read WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:SYNTH. I'd encourage you to identify reliable secondary sources and to report what they say in a NPOV manner, instead of combining sources of varying quality in order to present an argument for your POV.

WP:CRIT is an essay which may be of use to you. JaggedHamster (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having read those rules is we no concern with WP:RS and WP:NPOV

I am not and haven't presented what they have done in a way that is deliberately meant to mislead or present a negative light any more than the actions themselves.

Inevitably, having advocates and spokespeople who also are members of designated terrorist organisations who call for "political assassinations" inevitably can be seen to portray them in a negative light however, it is in no way a biased one or misleading one.

As I have shown the sources I'm using are either primary sources from the organisation/s and secondary sources from high quality sources relating to events or statements (again CR I am happy to change)

There wasn't and isn't original research included. If this is in reference to claims made around vegan diets I have included direct claims they have and continue to make as well as peer reviewed research clearly showing they're inaccurate.

Again if you have specific issues with the last revision of this that I published please list them specifically instead of vague accusations of incorrect referencing.

BSFBoredguy (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's take [1] as an example.

I am not and haven't presented what they have done in a way that is deliberately meant to mislead or present a negative light any more than the actions themselves. This simply isn't tenable, your phrasing throughout is clearly meant to present the PCRM in a negative light and the tone is clearly reflective of your disagreement with them. To give you some examples: Despite its name the PCRM is an animal liberation organisation not a real physicians committee with less than 5% of PCRM’s members being physicians, and PCRM founded The Cancer Project to help push an animal free diet., and PCRM promotes strict vegan diets for children despite numerous examples of serious health complications and even death brought on by plant-based diets in childhood., and Ignoring the consensus among pediatricians that vegan diets can be extremely dangerous for children if not managed carefully, PCRM promotes childhood veganism universally downplaying a 2005 case....

There's not a single reliable secondary source used in your edit, aside from a paper which doesn't mention the PCRM and which you're including as part of WP:SYNTH in order to support your claim that PCRM promotes strict vegan diets for children despite numerous examples of serious health complications and even death brought on by plant-based diets in childhood

Going back to Ignoring the consensus among pediatricians that vegan diets can be extremely dangerous for children if not managed carefully, PCRM promotes childhood veganism universally downplaying a 2005 case when three Arizona children were found emaciated and extremely malnourished from their vegan only diets, PCRM’s president claimed that “vegan diets are not only good for kids, it’s a preferable diet for kids.”, your source for this paragraph is again the PCRM and has no mention of that 2005 case. Even if you did source the information about the 2005 case this would again be synth unless there are reliable secondary sources discussing it in relation to the PCRM.

I could go on, there other similar issues in this diff, let alone your other ones, but hopefully the point is clear. JaggedHamster (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JaggedHamster, thank you for laying out the issue in detail. BSF, for me the whole "Despite its name" thing is enough evidence of POV pushing already. Combine that with poor (primary, unreliable, partial, etc.) sourcing, and with violations of the WP:BLP (you should probably click on that link and read the page), that spells doom. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a factual statement. A physicians committee would be made specifically of physicians and appointed by a large group.

By sheer definition they are not a committee.

BSFBoredguy (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“This simply isn't tenable, your phrasing throughout is clearly meant to present the PCRM in a negative light and the tone is clearly reflective of your disagreement with them. “

Not the case. Obviously as is the nature of criticism it will not been seen in a positive light but this isn’t misleading or biased. It’s simply factual. By the same extension of what you claimed is the Nazi party wiki violating those rules for those same reasons? For portraying negative things in a negative light?

Portraying negative things is inevitable and denial of these realities is untruthful.

“There's not a single reliable secondary source used in your edit, aside from a paper which doesn't mention the PCRM and which you're including as part of WP:SYNTH in order to support your claim that PCRM promotes strict vegan diets for children despite numerous examples of serious health complications and even death brought on by plant-based diets in childhood”

Not the case. The two sources used were both from either PCRM directly or from literature. It’s not original research either as the statement included was in reference to their policies and guidelines being in direct contrast to actual research.

I am happy to change it out for another example instead if you would agree it’s sufficient. Link is here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5916425/

As for the next point I will remove that section. BSFBoredguy (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]