Treehugger1492
May 2024
edit
Hello, I'm HMSLavender. I noticed that you recently removed content from American Institute for Economic Research without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I find that AIER is more of an economic research center and should be portrayed neutrally in the intro. Even the CDC and NYT have spread controversial opinions or misleading information before. Fox News is much more controversial and has a neutral issue. The main part about AIER should be that it supports market Econ and Classical liberalism. If there are any controversies, it should be in the controversies section. Treehugger1492 (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- You are mistaken; controversies sections are deprecated. Please see WP:CSECTION. Best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. If negative aspects of a subject have been widely covered in reliable sources (please follow that link), these aspects should be in the article, in proportion to how much attention they have garnered. And if there has been a lot of attention, as in this case, the negative material should definitely be summarized in the lead section, again in proportion. To remove that part of the lead section and replace it with your own unsourced summary, as you did here and here, amounts to original research (this is also an important link), which is not allowed. Wikipedia goes by what secondary sources find, not what you find or what I find. And definitely not by what an organization says about itself (or they'd all look really good). You use AIER's own website as your source. That's not how Wikipedia works. I suggest you self-revert. Bishonen | tålk 10:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC).
- Ok, would this source be good? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-institute-for-economic-research/
- It says that AIER supports the consensus of science and does not deny that climate change is man made. It does say that it has spread covid misinformation in one article where it talks about asymptomatic transfers “never happening…” but leaves out the next part” At least not in the study.”
- I can add a different source later if you want me to, but this is a classical liberal/free-market economic think tank primarily, and its page should demonstrate that. Media Bias fact check also said that it accepts climate science and so by saying it spreads climate misinformation puts it on a level with groups like Heartland, which it is not.
- In regards to the link that you sent me, it says that there should be positive as well as negative. My adding was neutral, but prior to that, there was not anything in the intro that showed what it stood for. There are also criticisms later in the wiki article, which are fine. Treehugger1492 (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- You think your change, which hewed closely to AIER's own description of themselves, was neutral, really? Did you read what I said about "what an organization says about itself"? It's never a reliable source. About the mediabias factcheck that you mention, no, I'm afraid Wikipedia editors have several times found it to be unreliable. See WP:MBFC. The list Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, where the description of mediabias factcheck occurs, is useful altogether. I'll mention another thing, btw: it's not a good idea to change lead sections according to your own preference. A lead section is primarily a summary of the article. It's therefore more logical to change the article below first (always with sources) and the lead second (not necessarily with sources, since the facts are sourced below). Bishonen | tålk 22:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC).
- Also, it’s literally their mission statement. Look at the CDC, Brookings, or CSIS wiki and it will have their mission statement from the cite or what they stand for. Treehugger1492 (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- And I see you think that we should avoid mission statements, well, a lot of the major think tank wikis do it. Treehugger1492 (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- And that’s mainly because some mission statements can be repetitive but not all are. Treehugger1492 (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, wiki sees Politico and CNN as reliable, but here are some articles form the Atlantic and Politico that see CNN as not always reliable. [1]CNN error extends run of journalistic mishaps - POLITICOIMSNBC controversies - Wikipedia CNN controversies - Wikipedia. Of course, I think CNN can be useful, but the wiki good sources seems to be flawed. MSNBC is green when wikipedia itself has a page on problems with it MSNBC controversies - Wikipedia. Even wikipedia sees itself in the red. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia. These things should be case by case. Also, the lead section was not my own preference. I asked others, who saw mine as being more accurate, as it is an economics think tank. During Covid, the CDC, Fox, CNN, etc... all spread misinformation. But you do not see that in the lead section. It was a controversial declaration and should be called as such. But is was similar to what Sweden tried who ended up having one of the lowest deaths. This is from Reason which is in the green. No-Lockdown Sweden Seemingly Tied for Lowest All-Causes Mortality in OECD Since COVID Arrived (reason.com). These things are controversial yes, but should not just be called misinformation. Note, I am a subscriber to the NYT and do not watch Fox, so I am not just some right wing fire starter. But it is what it is and so I will just go on about my day. Treehugger1492 (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Last thing, when looking at the sources that bring up climate change denial. One doesn’t back it up with any evidence, one I couldn’t access, and the other one brings up an article for AIER where the Author literally states “climate change contributes to sea level rise ‒ an uncontroversial statement” Treehugger1492 (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is the wrong place to discuss your edit, you should use the talk page. But you must be more specific. Eg I don't know which sources you are referring to above, and there are more than three. The paywalled one I couldn't see either but did find a correction which I've added with a post.
- Mission statements are publicity by the organisation and nothing more. Sometimes they are accurate, sometimes they are just a smokescreen. As to normally reliable sources not always being reliable, that doesn't make them not reliable as sources, that just makes them run by human beings. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was referring to 17-19. And I agree with your last point, but I feel like when using a source, you can use its background to proceed with caution, but that does not automatically make it usable or not usable. (Also, no way Rotten Tomatoes is better than IMDB ;) ) Treehugger1492 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Those three seem fine now. And most of IMDB is user generated, and we use RT selectively. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ok thanks Treehugger1492 (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Those three seem fine now. And most of IMDB is user generated, and we use RT selectively. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I was referring to 17-19. And I agree with your last point, but I feel like when using a source, you can use its background to proceed with caution, but that does not automatically make it usable or not usable. (Also, no way Rotten Tomatoes is better than IMDB ;) ) Treehugger1492 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Most initial reporting is considered both unreliable and primary anyway, I'd say to avoid them. This is reflected in the guidelines at WP:RSBREAKING. These things are case by case, but through the number of cases that have already been dealt with, there have been some general rules that people can spot. Policies and guidelines on Wikipedia in general are descriptive rather than prescriptive, if you see a rule, it has most likely been raised many times. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Last thing, when looking at the sources that bring up climate change denial. One doesn’t back it up with any evidence, one I couldn’t access, and the other one brings up an article for AIER where the Author literally states “climate change contributes to sea level rise ‒ an uncontroversial statement” Treehugger1492 (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, wiki sees Politico and CNN as reliable, but here are some articles form the Atlantic and Politico that see CNN as not always reliable. [1]CNN error extends run of journalistic mishaps - POLITICOIMSNBC controversies - Wikipedia CNN controversies - Wikipedia. Of course, I think CNN can be useful, but the wiki good sources seems to be flawed. MSNBC is green when wikipedia itself has a page on problems with it MSNBC controversies - Wikipedia. Even wikipedia sees itself in the red. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia. These things should be case by case. Also, the lead section was not my own preference. I asked others, who saw mine as being more accurate, as it is an economics think tank. During Covid, the CDC, Fox, CNN, etc... all spread misinformation. But you do not see that in the lead section. It was a controversial declaration and should be called as such. But is was similar to what Sweden tried who ended up having one of the lowest deaths. This is from Reason which is in the green. No-Lockdown Sweden Seemingly Tied for Lowest All-Causes Mortality in OECD Since COVID Arrived (reason.com). These things are controversial yes, but should not just be called misinformation. Note, I am a subscriber to the NYT and do not watch Fox, so I am not just some right wing fire starter. But it is what it is and so I will just go on about my day. Treehugger1492 (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- And that’s mainly because some mission statements can be repetitive but not all are. Treehugger1492 (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- And I see you think that we should avoid mission statements, well, a lot of the major think tank wikis do it. Treehugger1492 (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, it’s literally their mission statement. Look at the CDC, Brookings, or CSIS wiki and it will have their mission statement from the cite or what they stand for. Treehugger1492 (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- You think your change, which hewed closely to AIER's own description of themselves, was neutral, really? Did you read what I said about "what an organization says about itself"? It's never a reliable source. About the mediabias factcheck that you mention, no, I'm afraid Wikipedia editors have several times found it to be unreliable. See WP:MBFC. The list Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, where the description of mediabias factcheck occurs, is useful altogether. I'll mention another thing, btw: it's not a good idea to change lead sections according to your own preference. A lead section is primarily a summary of the article. It's therefore more logical to change the article below first (always with sources) and the lead second (not necessarily with sources, since the facts are sourced below). Bishonen | tålk 22:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC).
- You are mistaken; controversies sections are deprecated. Please see WP:CSECTION. Best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. If negative aspects of a subject have been widely covered in reliable sources (please follow that link), these aspects should be in the article, in proportion to how much attention they have garnered. And if there has been a lot of attention, as in this case, the negative material should definitely be summarized in the lead section, again in proportion. To remove that part of the lead section and replace it with your own unsourced summary, as you did here and here, amounts to original research (this is also an important link), which is not allowed. Wikipedia goes by what secondary sources find, not what you find or what I find. And definitely not by what an organization says about itself (or they'd all look really good). You use AIER's own website as your source. That's not how Wikipedia works. I suggest you self-revert. Bishonen | tålk 10:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC).
Introduction to contentious topics
edit
You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Doug Weller talk 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to COVID-19, broadly construed. This is a standard message to inform you that COVID-19, broadly construed is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
You have recently made edits related to climate change. This is a standard message to inform you that climate change is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.