User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

edit[edit]

Hello. Would you please tell me what is wrong I did in editing Brian Krzanich? I checked the page again and all what I did is formatting a reference.Harley.M.X (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@HarleyM.X: If you look at the edit in read mode, it somehow totally broke the formatting of the page and I'm unsure what you broke and how to fix it, so I just reverted the whole thing. I have no opinions about the content, but the formatting had fatal flaws. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that now. Thanks.Harley.M.X (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

CSPI and Type 1 Diabetes[edit]

The claim is that CSPI believes there is a link between sugary foods and type 1 diabetes. Two communications directly from CSPI support that claim (there are probably more if I look enough). My editing is based on the direct words of CSPI and CSPI staff themselves:

1. The first is a tweet of an ad campaign from Food Fit Philly. The misinformation in the campaign has been countered by many health care officials and type 1 diabetes advocates (see original news articles). 2. The second is from a senior policy associate at CSPI. Here is the direct quote:

“Snack cakes may be convenient but that convenience comes at a cost. Cinnamon rolls, doughnuts, cookies and other baked goods are a top source of sugars, flour and saturated fat. These are empty calories that fuel disease,” said Joelle Johnson, senior policy associate for the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

This quote is, obviously, false. It's established science there is absolutely no link between "empty calories" and type 1 diabetes. You can consult any basic, introductory medical textbook, but here's a brief description: https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/guide/types-of-diabetes-mellitus#1

So, I fail to see how the edits are "disruptive" when they are based on CSPI's stated position on the matter and it's own words. Additionally, the claim that "the sources in question do not support the claims made" is false. The sources are CSPI's words themselves. Literally. I don't understand the logic of how an organization's own stated position can't be gleaned from it's own words - please explain this to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlsmith1994 (talkcontribs) 13:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rlsmith1994: I don't believe the sources support your claim. The first source says nothing about the different types of diabetes. While it may seem frustrating that the author of that source failed to distinguish between Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, our job on Wikipedia is not to fix perceived omissions in sources, nor is it to demand an "apology or retraction" for those perceived issues. Neither of your other cited sources mention the CSPI in any way. That is a textbook example of prohibited synthesis. If we have an article on "Food Fit Philly" or its sponsor, the Philadelphia Department of Public Health, some discussion of the material in question may be relevant there. But it's not relevant to the CSPI, because the reliable sources do not link it to, or discuss, the CSPI in relation to the apparent controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: I understand how the argument of prohibited synthesis works the first source (the retweet). I am not convinced, however, in regard to the 2nd source. This source directly mentions CSPI in relation to Food Fit Philly's campaign - https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2019/07/17/philadelphia-health-department-debuts-campaign-on-dangers-of-children-eating-sugary-snacks-obesity-diabetes/. Here is the quote: “Snack cakes may be convenient but that convenience comes at a cost. Cinnamon rolls, doughnuts, cookies and other baked goods are a top source of sugars, flour and saturated fat. These are empty calories that fuel disease,” said Joelle Johnson, senior policy associate for the Center for Science in the Public Interest." Another source (assuming it's reliable) states CSPI and Food Fit Philly were partners in the campaign - https://www.phillyvoice.com/obesity-philadelphia-kids-public-health-diabetes-ad-campaign-sugary-foods/. Here, the prohibited synthesis test doesn't work because 1) it's reliabily sourced by a reputable news entity (channel 3 Philadelphia), 2) the individual making the comment is a senior policy associate and is clearly speaking for CSPI, not as an individual, and 3) the source states a causal relationship between diet and diabetes, which is false (hence the inclusion in the opposition section of CSPI's site).

Since CSPI has made an official statement to the press (as cited) and were direct partners in the production of the campaign (as cited), I think it passes the "explicit statement" by the source test of probited synthesis (unless the source is wrong about CSPI's direct role in the campaign). As a compromise, I can make the comment without manipuation or comment, something like the following. (I preferenced with a quote from Dr. Farley to clarify the disease the CSPI policy associate is referencing is diabetes, which I would think any reasonable person would infer from the source):

"In a news article titled "Philadelphia Health Department Debuts Campaign On Dangers Of Children Eating Sugary Snacks, Philadelphia Health Commissioner Dr. Tom Farley stated “We can’t let diabetes overtake the next generation." In the same article/source, a senior policy associate for the CSPI stated, 'Cinnamon rolls, doughnuts, cookies and other baked goods are a top source of sugars, flour and saturated fat. These are empty calories that fuel disease.' CSPI and Food Fit Philly were partners in the campaign.

You're missing the point. None of the sources you have cited which are critical of the campaign in any way mention CSPI. At all. Anywhere. So you can't use them to criticize the CSPI. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution[edit]

Just a heads up if you want to take part, discussing Oath Keepers via dispute resolution, link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Oath_Keepers Barwick (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello NorthBySouthBaranof,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)