Talk:Ben Swann/Archives/2018/June

Lede changes
There was a kerfuffle over the lede. I changed the lede in a way that I think solves concerns that an editor raised in the edit summaries - there was a dispute over where precisely Swann had promoted certain kinds of conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Points for using the word kerfuffle. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The lede no longer references a non-existent Reality Check, but the change did not address the WP:BLP concerns, it still contains poorly sourced contentious information, which doesn't belong in a BLP, much less the lede of one.--74.195.159.155 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please be more specific? Is this about your Sandy Hook concern you articulated above or is there more? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Lede claims he "pushed scientifically-discredited claims", but has no source for it. Which of Ben's claims has been debunked by Science exactly? This seems like another WP:WEASEL issue as well since it's so vague. And why would we have contentious material like this in the lede in the first place? --74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Which of Ben's claims has been debunked by Science exactly? It says right in the rest of the sentence that you omitted: "scientifically-discredited claims of a link between vaccines and autism". The sources are in the body of the article. O3000 (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Citations need to be next to the claims they are intended to support, not somewhere else in the article. "scientifically discredited claims of a link between vaccines and autism" is still very vague and doesn't mention any specific claim made by Ben. The specific claims that are mentioned in the article have not been debunked by any of the scientific sources given (which don't even address the actual claims). And why is this in the lede again? Perhaps it belongs in the subsection where it's actually sourced.--74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not required to cite things in the lede so long as they are cited in the body of the article. It belongs in the lede because it's an example of why Swann is journalistically discredited. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow. Don't worry about hiding your bias Baranof. WP:LEAD: "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." --74.195.159.155 (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you desire that it's cited in the lede, we can include the citation in the lede. Still no justification for removing it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:LEADCITE. As for why we'd include it in the lead section, it's because it's highly noteworthy whenever a professional journalist promotes a debunked theory, especially when they claim to be giving the straight scoop. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's weasel wording. What Ben did was report on documents he received from a CDC whistleblower. It would have been more noteworthy if he didn't report on it. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What's weasel wording? I don't follow. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:WEASEL "The bad thing about weasel worded statements is that their implication is misleading or too vague to substantiate." --74.195.159.155 (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No---What are you saying is weasel wording? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * whenever a professional journalist promotes a debunked theory --74.195.159.155 (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We’re just not seeing any weasel wording. You must show that an implication is misleading or too vague to substantiate. I don’t see it. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOVFAQ - "the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it" --74.195.159.155 (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Oklahoma, please stop edit warring. The discussion is joined, so participate or move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You lost me Oklahoma. WP:WEASEL is about article content. No one has proposed adding "whenever a professional journalist promotes a debunked theory" to the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Crappy blogs
have a look at this "media bistro" piece and this from cincinnati.com. They are the same. The first says it was written by Andrew Gauthier and the second by John Kiesewetter. Both link to the same main piece -- -- which is not online but I was able to get through the library. Most of the cincinnati.com references are dead links and are not in the internet archive. argh. I can send this piece to anybody who wants it. Jytdog (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)