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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

«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)[reply]

Do the sources claim that the idea that leftist "progressives" in politics (Joe Biden, the Clintons, etc.) and in finance (George Soros, Black Rock, etc) are deliberately pursuing political action (open southern border policies, giving money to immigrants, pushing to give them amnesty and even the right to vote in our country, sooner than later) which has resulted in a larger-than-ever influx of immigrants whom they believe will vote for people like them and further their agenda of moving the U.S. into more and more "progressive" territory.. do these "reliable" sources claim that this is a "far right conspiracy theory"? I realize that the Great Replacement notion isn't exactly the same as this notion, but YouTube still referenced this Wikipedia article about the Great Replacement notion in exactly this context.

I have no idea. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The reason I objected to the labelling is because this article was referenced in a link pinned at the top of a YouTube video page, by YouTube, in a manner that mischaracterizes and casts aspersions on the video's content in a decidedly politically non-neutral way.

To try to answer your question briefly.. well, one example is the Hunter Biden laptop thing. That was scorned and laughed at until it wasn't. Another is the whole "the MRNA vaccines have not actually been either safe or effective and the manufacturers have lied about them" thing. That was laughed out of town at first, too, but now quite a lot of evidence, data and studies have come out about it and it seems like most people realize it's true, although it seems there remains a very concerted effort to deny it in some quarters. I remember watching a video that listed 5 or 10 other examples in quick succession, but sadly I can't find it now. It was a very entertaining clip. Oh well.

Anyway, I probably shouldn't have made either my original comment or these remarks, because it's quite clear that in general the Wikipedia editors and moderators are not remotely politically neutral. I might as well be pissing in the wind. Shavais (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

«The reason I objected to the labelling is because this article was referenced in a link pinned at the top of a YouTube video page, by YouTube, in a manner that mischaracterizes and casts aspersions on the video's content in a decidedly politically non-neutral way. » => Got it. Youtube do that since a few years for major conspiracytheories (such Great Replacement and Eurabia) and State-owned media (Such BBC and CCTV). For example when i display https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyQuC-D3gIo on my Internet device Youtube add a quote of Wikipedia that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fabricated text blah blah. This does not cast aspersions on the video's content since the narrator condemn The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. An other example is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZDQGV4MtoY to which Youtube add a quote of Wikipedia that Eurabia is a conspiracytheory blah blah. This does not cast aspersions on the video's content since the narrator endorse Eurabia. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My objection to the labelling centers around Wikipedia being politically non-neutral. The video I was speaking of presented evidence, as I mentioned, that the Democrat leadership and some of their politically prominent supporters are pushing policies that have resulted in a larger-than-ever influx of immigrants whom they believe will support their political agenda. When YouTube's link described itself as a "warning" about "misinformation", and correlated it with the French "Great Replacement" notion, and Wikipedia called that a "far right conspiracy theory," aspersions were cast in a politically non-neutral way. Shavais (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

«The video I was speaking of presented evidence, as I mentioned, that the Democrat leadership and some of their politically prominent supporters are pushing policies that have resulted in a larger-than-ever influx of immigrants whom they believe will support their political agenda.» => So this video do endorse the Great Replacement thesis, so i see no problem in Youtube's warning. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

«To try to answer your question briefly.. well, one example is the Hunter Biden laptop thing. That was scorned and laughed at until it wasn't. Another is the whole "the MRNA vaccines have not actually been either safe or effective and the manufacturers have lied about them" thing. That was laughed out of town at first, too, but now quite a lot of evidence, data and studies have come out about it» => Could you give me evidences that those 2 examples were widely called «fringe conspiracy theories» and are now «more-or-less proven to be true beyond any reasonable doubt»? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will encounter abundant evidence of these things if you spend any time actually listening to any of the news sources whom Wikipedia would probably call "right wing." I'm not going to spend any more time pursuing this, because, as I said, I recognize at this point that I'm pissing in the wind. Shavais (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's catastrophic, from my point of view, to lose Wikipedia as a politically neutral information collector, but it's quite clear that that is in fact our reality at this point. Shavais (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

«I remember watching a video that listed 5 or 10 other examples in quick succession, but sadly I can't find it now. It was a very entertaining clip. Oh well.» => Maybe https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=conspiracy+theories+turned+true could be a lead/hint to find it? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

«To try to answer your question briefly.. well, one example is the Hunter Biden laptop thing. That was scorned and laughed at until it wasn't. Another is the whole "the MRNA vaccines have not actually been either safe or effective and the manufacturers have lied about them" thing.» => According to Hunter Biden laptop controversy and MRNA vaccine the 2 claims you mentionned are far from being «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) 20:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not far from that, they are exactly that. See, this is why this conversation is pointless. I'm not going to go spend hours gathering, for the purposes of citing, the many many pieces of evidence for those things that I've come across because even if I were to do that, I'm sure you would no doubt find some excuse to doubt their veracity, because that's your bias / preference. If it weren't, you would already know all about them and you would agree. Like I said - I'm obviously pissing in the wind, here. Shavais (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]