User talk:JzG/Archive 190

BLP?
Normally if people say this type of thing they get sanctioned:

"Carlson is sufficiently cool with white supremacist rhetoric"

"Carlson is promoting whatever the Dear Leader wants to be reflected as truth"

"Carlson knows that what he is saying is stated to be false by every qualified expert"

I've been checking hard on the school children mask topic, because there isn't much data, but as I said elsewhere where I live masks are required just about everywhere but schools. Now you'd know if you actually read the sources that Carlson wasn't talking about masks in general, but specifically in schools, as he's been one of the few outspoken Conservatives on the seriousness of the COVID crisis from day 1 (but yeah, sure, mainly as a reason to attack China). I've seen Carlson criticize Trump many times, and there's no reason to think he blindly reflects Trump's truth as his own. I've rarely seen the other network hosts, say, criticize Cuomo for order nursing homes to take COVID patients, which may have been one of the single actions leading to the most fatalities (although Tapper did a segment about it the other day). How are the death rates per capita doing in your country? Hope you are staying safe. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been sort of surprised at the free pass Cuomo has gotten, given that the magnitude of the crisis in New York was to some extent avoidable. I think he's benefited from the fact that he provided visible, assured public leadership, which was (and remains) sorely lacking at the federal level. People crave visible leadership in a time of crisis, and they're willing to give leaders who supply it the benefit of the doubt, even if the leaders' own actions contributed to the crisis (as with Bush after 9/11; even Trump got a brief bump in approval during the early phase of the pandemic). Cuomo also benefited from the fact that he's broadly popular, whereas no one likes DeBlasio, so the blame has fallen both fairly and unfairly on the latter. Governors who took more decisive, effective, and politically risky actions that protected their citizens&mdash;in California, for instance, or in Ohio&mdash;haven't had quite the public impact that Cuomo has had. MastCell Talk 20:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think you're right: this is the difference between being wrong and learning from it, and being wrong and rejecting even the possibility that you're anything other than omniscient. Guy (help!) 21:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Merkel received criticism early on for not providing stronger federal leadership, leaving it to the state minister presidents to handle their own actions to tailor solutions that maybe weren't applicable or the best case country wide. If only the USA had people installed at state levels to make independent decisions for their own citizens then a lot of this could have been avoided. Since we have the benefit of hindsight, which one was the better approach? Mr Ernie (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you understand the difference between learning from experience, and trying to bludgeon reality to somehow make your statements not wrong? This is Sharpiegate on steroids.
 * From the OIG report into Sharpiegate:
 * Why did NWS "intentionally contradict" the president? Because he was wrong, and lives were at stake. That's the only explanation that's needed. Instead an unsigned statement was released undermining NWS, and, in the process, undermining public trust in the hurricane warning system that - and I think this cannot be stressed enough - treads a delicate line between mobilising people to save life and property, and managing the panic that this can bring.
 * And the basis for this was that Trump made a statement based on an out of date and subsequently revised projection, and could not bring himself to admit that what he said was incorrect. Science is by definition always provisional. The contrast is not between pro-science and anti-science people, but between those who admit that understanding develops as new data emerges, and those who have a pressing need to be "right" and lack the intellectual humility to say that the statement made last week based on the best available information is now known to be incorrect, and here is the new best estimate. Guy (help!) 13:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , are you saying you think Carlson himself is a white supremacist, rather than simply repeating white supremacist talking points? That's a defensible POV but not one I share: for me the more parsimonious explanation is that he is just another propagandist who doesn't care enough to avoid it. Not that it matters, given the quotes from Andrew Anglin and David Duke applauding him as one of the tribe. I'm not an expert on what white supremacist rhetoric sounds like, but Andrew Anglin certainly is.
 * Of course you may be right, it is conceivable that when he was promoting masks he was doing so because it was on-message, and he switched to anti-mask because that was on-message, and he did both without ever discovering that every reputable expert says masks help. But again the more parsimonious explanation is that he knows the expert opinion and promoted anti-mask rhetoric because it was on-message for the Dear Leader's agenda.
 * One thing seems pretty clear from the numerous sources reporting on both masks and white supremacy: don't listen to Carlson. At all. Guy (help!) 21:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's what you've taken away from my message there's no point in continuing conversation about that topic. It's very easy these days to label views you disagree with as racist or white supremacist, so carry on by all means. Again I will say no masks are required in schools where I live, as the data doesn't support that they are necessary. I wish more people listened to Carlson in January and February when he was promoting the dangers of COVID, and the leaders in the US (including the Democrats) were promoting business as usual. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , again I think you missed the point. It isn't me who says that Carlson's statements were white supremacist. It's Andrew Anglin. He said that Carlson is "basically Daily Stormer, The Show". He said that Tucker is "literally our greatest ally".
 * And just this week his main writer "resigned" for posting racist comments on a white supremacist website. Which no doubt explains why Carlson's rhetoric was so pleasing to the white supremacists.
 * There are only two plausible alternatives here: Carlson is a white supremacist, or Carlson cares sufficiently little that when a white supremacist puts a script in front of him, he'll read it anyway.
 * Neither of these is good. And it should be noted that this is very different from Hannity, who has no such history that I am aware of. Guy (help!) 22:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

my vanished wiki-page (José Antonio López Guerrero)
Dear Colleagues, My name is José Antonio López Guerrero. I'm a teacher, neuroscientist, National RNE-radio collaborator and scientific communicator-noted by "Influencer's" as one of the more important scientist in social communication during the current pandemic of the coronavirus. I had have a wiki-page with my name since more than a decade, in Spanish, English and in German - where I had been living, in Hannover, for many years-.Unfortunately and surprisingly, after more than 10 years, my Wiki-page in English disappeared without any explanation. Would it be possible to obtain information in this regard? Could be possible to restart this page? Would it be possible to retrieve this entry in English?Thank you very much for your consideration!!Congratulations for your brilliant work. Best Regards López Guerrero, José Antonio, Ph.D Note: I realised that my old page is currently publish as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JALGUERRERO, a user page, not an article. I do not know why this happened. Please, could be possible to restart my old status?79.157.154.193 (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Guy (help!) 15:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The de Wiki at least has different policies to the en wiki. I understand that de wiki users are positively encouraged to write their autobiographies. On the en wiki it's generally streng verboten, and such work is likely to be deleted as soon as any regular user becomes aware of it. If you want to try, there is some advice here. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Anybody who wants to help with a possible enwiki article might look at José Antonio López Guerrero and José Antonio López Guerrero. The Spanish version looks a lot like a resume. Both articles have way too many details by our standards. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Google Scholar page says that Lopez Guerrero's work has 5522 citations. I believe that notability would be satisified, if a proper article could be created. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , both were also pretty clearly written by the subject or his PR. Guy (help!) 21:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

New message from RGloucester
RGloucester — ☎ 17:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

An observation
Guy: Everything he does makes him look like an idiot. Except for the stuff that makes him look like a sociopath. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is about Snagglepuss, I presume...? El_C 23:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this guy. Your's has already exited, stage right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Just going to reiterate
Guy, I wanted to reiterate that I think you went above and beyond to try to do the right thing with respect to the SashiRolls case. It was good to see at least the review closing was above reproach. Springee (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks. And hopefully now we can all move on. Guy (help!) 21:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

O'Donovan family
Thanks for blanking those edit summaries. Agricolae (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , np Guy (help!) 22:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

explanation
Forgive me, but I am going to take a step I would not do without a good reason. I said I was concerned that if any of us mentioned a certain individual, by name, or even hinted at their relationship with Derek Chauvin, it would trigger the entire discussion being brought to a screeching halt by a revdel. It has happened before to discussions of this issue.

You included this individual's name. And I am going to obfuscate it, to try and prevent another revdel. Geo Swan (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is unnecessary caution. I already raised this at BLPN anyway - I think we're done with trying to keep that one under wraps. Guy (help!) 17:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard
Hi JzG, I have noticed that you are one of the major contributors there. I write you because of the Tell Abyad NPOV noticeboard section, and I was wondering if... you think this is the right section, or if we should look for an other noticeboard. As mentioned in the Tell Abyad Section, the quotes included n the article where highly disputed, and we would like to have a solution. What do you recommend? Is the NPOV notice board the right place or not?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Will there com an answer?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Curcumin for ulcerative colitis
Hi JzG, I saw your recent edit on "Ulcerative Colitis" regarding medical quality references. I would suggest including the data on curcumin, which referenced a Cochrane review. I think this is actually good data (unlike the other alt med therapies). What are your thoughts? I've also included a randomized double blind study below. For now, I'll go ahead and include this in the ulcerative colitis article, but I welcome your thoughts. Rytyho usa (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , see WP:MEDRS. We want review studies, not old, single, primary studies. The second may qualify. The first does not. Guy (help!) 08:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edit
Why on earth did you revert my comment on DGG's talk page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&oldid=prev&diff=969289288 I was pinged to comment, so I did. I cannot see any trace of problems with what I wrote. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , a complete accident, sorry! I think it was due to the issue with "Live Updates" on watchlist delaying, and clicks can go to a completely different target. I have reverted. Guy (help!) 14:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was mystified, but thought it had to be accidental. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, it was. Guy (help!) 15:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Reopen non-admin-closed RfC?
Hey Guy,

Can you re-open Talk:LGBT ideology-free zone? It's been open for less than two weeks, and there seem to be other willing participants. François Robere (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , please ask at WP:AN. Guy (help!) 15:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Why have you banned me from editing an article and talk page 'indefinitely' when there is a dispute taking place about it?
Your ban is totally one-sided. I am not the person who put the tags on the page (but I did revert the edits when they were removed, without following Wiki guidelines, by other users. I have asked a number of questions, relating to Wiki guidelines, that haven't been answered and have every right to discuss what myself (and clearly a number of others) feel is the lack of neutrality on that page. I would appreciate an answer that addresses these points, and note I have remained civil throughout. SR SethRuebens (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , because you're being disruptive. You can still contribute at the other page. Guy (help!) 16:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Disruptive how? I have not attempted to edit the article at all today and have responded in a civil manner to people on the talk page. I have had a number of accusations and things said about the edits that simply aren't true, by others, and am following Wiki's protocol throughout (at least if I've made mistakes with this, along the way, I've apologised and rectified them). SethRuebens (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Red Phoenix
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Euryalus • SQL
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg GB fan
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news
 * There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
 * Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
 * Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
 * There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

How they made us doubt everything
Hi Guy - I've got Radio 4 on at the moment, you might find How they made us doubt everything interesting, comparing climate change denial with the tobacco industry's tactics. Might be useful for expanding that article you wrote? Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  13:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , oh cool, thanks - I'll give it a listen. Guy (help!) 13:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * Thank you! And gluten free, too, so safe for me to eat! Guy (help! - typo?) 14:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I touched those exact same berries months ago, and not just with my hands. I let one into my heart! Not sure how it slipped out, but I saw it hanging around with someone new across the tracks the other week, so it's probably "gone clean", don't worry. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Tribeca Developers
Hi, every now and again I come across an India-related article about a construction company, in this case Tribeca Developers. They always strike me as being entirely promotional, despite an abundance of press coverage. Wondered what you think because I recall you have had some experience of this sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , all the sources in that article are either press releases or mere namechecks. It should be nuked. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I for one am completely shocked that the uber reputable Times of India would ever publish cruft as legitimate journalism. Shocked I say. Praxidicae (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, thanks. I will send it to AfD now. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Borwin, Duke of Mecklenburg
Hello! I know Borwin irl. According to a lovely photo on his Xmas card every year he has 3 lovely children children. OK, I agree that my saying that is not a valid source, but where do you get "misleading information"? We are commenting on real living persons. Shouldn't we watch our language a bit? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the problem is not any specific information in any specific article, it's the sources, which are indeed prone to misleading information. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, but that's not the impression your edit summaries make. I would more clearly criticize the source so that it doesn't look like I'm criticizing the poorly sourced content. I've now looked at more of your similar edits, where the info, I agree, is unsourced, but definitely not "misleading". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

New to RSN
Lately I have been reading people's comments on RSN to try and learn more about how policy is applied. I saw that you said on WP:RSN: "Reliable for news but Requires attribution for comment, due to bias." Doesn't literally every source have bias, and wouldn't we always use attribution for opinion per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? That policy applies should apply to even the most reliable of sources. There were several others who said "attribute for opinions", so I'm wondering if I'm missing something.VR talk 21:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Sovereign Citizens Rise Again
Probably the heat. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * More where that came from. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:STFUALREADY" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:STFUALREADY. The discussion is happening right now at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 13 until a consensus is confirmed, and anyone, which includes you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears at 16:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Bharatpur state lineage not based on facts

 * courtesy link Bharatpur State

The edits made on the page of Bharatpur state before you, about the lineage of the Bharatpur royal family are factually wrong , Historically speaking the jats rose in the 17th century with churaman Jat. The story that the Jat royal family comeing from a Jat concubine and some ruler of karauli ( rajput) in the 11 th century in untrue, infact the jats only migrated to the area around the 16th century. Thus this has been Purposely added to hurt the sentiments of the Jat people. As the Bharatpur state challanged the caste hereditary status of the rajputs as rulers, and thus various groups repeteadly enforce such narratives (that the Jat rulers were actually rajput) to justify their superiority which is promoted by the caste system ( based on discrimination by birth ) and its idea of some groups of people being superior to others. So I would request you to please edit this part out. Meethamonkey (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Also see that the karauli state was only established in the 14 th century. Thus any 11th century lineage comming from the rulers of karauli is not based on facts. Meethamonkey (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , please feel free to fix it. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC on CNN and MSNBC
Guy... I have drafted language (See: User:Blueboar/drafts) for my RFCs on CNN and MSNBC, but would appreciate a quick review and any comments regarding format and neutrality of language. Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , why bother? CNN is reliable, MSNBC is "option 2". Guy (help! - typo?) 22:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion. Blueboar (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Jzg and I both made suggestions on User talk:Blueboar/drafts. You just posted the RfCs without even bothering to respond. Thanks for wasting my time. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , frankly, including CNN or failing to note the specific reason that Fox is considered unreliable for science is pretty close to WP:POINT. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * MSNBC doesn't have a perennial sources entry yet, so at least something productive will come out of it. I do agree that the CNN RfC is a waste of time though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)