Talk:Ben Swann

Archives (Index)

2017/August 2017/December 2018/January 2018/April 2018/May 2018/June 2018/July 2019/February 2019/March

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

NewsMax TV

NewsMax TV is listed in the Infobox - indicating that Swann worked there in 2014. I am not finding that. It seems that he may have done a story for NewsMax in 2016, per this.

I didn't come across NewsMax in any of my newspaper or books searches for Swann. Is there any indication of where this might have come from?

As an aside, I did remove primary sources, including a public speaker bio.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with removing that. I also didn't come across that and one story is not enough to make it summarizing-his-career-in-the-infobox worthy. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Section 3. Controversial views and claims

The middle of the fourth paragraph of section 3. Controversial views and claims has run off the grammatical rails:

The piece used language that was similar to Russian propaganda about Syria. In addition, Russian-backed production and distribution of polished videos that were spread on Facebook and websites in the United States.

I'd boldly edit, but am not sure of the intent. — Neonorange (Phil) 05:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I just edited this... at first removing the word "that"... but then removing the second sentence entirely. It's not necessary and gets a little off point for this article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all the reconstruction. After the considerable back-and-forth, excess was bound to linger. — Neonorange (Phil) 17:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In all fairness, that addition came from me... and was clearly a mistake.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Liberty Nation

Jytdog, I am a little confused why this content was removed.

The edit summary makes is seem that if we don't approve of the site where he's a contributor, then we shouldn't include the information. That doesn't make sense to me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The biggest problem was the description of the site ("Libertarian and Conservative"), sourced to the site itself. Even without that, I generally remove content like "X has published pieces in Y", sourced to Y's website, from bio articles. I looked and have found no sources mentioning that Liberty Nation is publishing him now. If it is super important to somebody I wouldn't object to something like "Starting in 2018 he published pieces in Liberty Nation" sourced to his page there, but this is not great... Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I would have liked to have had a secondary source in general. But, there are several cases where the tv news sources were used as sources for this article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I think "I publish here now," in a primary source is good enough sourcing to say "X publishes here now." Although I wouldn't use that source to describe the site, only to name it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

That sounds good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I did this. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Vaccines/autism sentence

Tornado chaser, I was formatting the bare link that you added. Here's the citation for your bare link See this diff. The URL stayed the same, I just added the rest of the citation information.

If you are going to use a video as a reference, please see Wikipedia:Videos as references for the proper way to cite a video.

I don't see what was wrong with the original sources, the one the Jytdog reverted the article to here or What's all the fuss, we just need a source that says that he spread these theories?

References

I do like your wording a bit better: "Swann has suggested that vaccines can cause autism." Still keeping the two sentences.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine is not a blog, not even an expert blog. It is an Online magazine with a sterling reputation, except among lunatic charletans. It has editors, a reputation for fact checking and error correcting, and all the other features of an impeccably reliable source. It is, in other words, a completely WP:BLPRS-compliant source, and as such is preferable to a primary source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: While I endorse the source fully; it does not support the "activist" label. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I fixed the wording. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Great!

As an aside, I am kind of on a campaign for civility... to focus on the content and not make things personal. MPants at work, your sentence would still make a strong point without "except among lunatic charletans". I am assuming it's the result of a period of editing history, but it makes things more contentious than they need to be and just makes animosity more likely to fester. Just something to consider.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstood: my choice of words was a reference to a statement made by Jimbo in response to a petition to permit more favorable coverage of fringe theories on WP. By definition, such people oppose everything done by SBM, and also do not include any honest Wikipedians. As far as I know, there are no editors involved in this discussion that would self-identify a belonging to that group, even under a more complimentary name. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for the unnecessary confusion, I had SBM and respectful insolence confused, I do not object to SBM as a source, and I did not intend to edit war. I did not see removing the word "activist"[1] as edit warring, and did not realize that I was switching the citation to respectful insolence. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

So are you happy with how it currently looks?

BTW. In case my last comment wasn't clear: I wasn't calling you a lunatic charlatan, just referencing the group called out by Jimbo in general. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with the current wording, and no I didn't think you were trying to call me a loony, but thanks for clarifying, as I have received somewhat similar comments that were' meant as PAs from other editors in the past. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with CaroleHenson on the "Swann has suggested that vaccines can cause autism." wording. It's a lot more simple and succinct.--98.173.248.2 (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with CaroleHenson on the "Swann has suggested that vaccines can cause autism." wording. This wording is more accurate. FastEddieo007 (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to let this go, per statements below.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I prefer Jytdog's (the current) version because it states the fact and is perfectly clear on the implications of those facts, and is fully supported by the sources used. From the source: "...examination failed to find evidence of a coverup, no matter how much antivaccine-sympathetic journalists like Ben Swann tried to make them." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• I prefer Jytdog's current version as well. ""Swann has suggested that vaccines can cause autism" considerably understates things. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• For the avoidance of doubt, we should not use Moskowitz. Ever. Anywhere. Read the Acknowledgements. Robert Mendelsohn, Tinus Smits, Sherri Tenpenny, Suzanne Humphries, Viera Scheibner, Lucia Tomljenovic, Chris Shaw, Tetyana Obukhanych, Chris Exley, Stephanie Seneff - "and of course Andrew Wakefield, whose findings that autism is an autoimmune condition with measles antibodies and lesions of inflammatory bowel disease have opened up a vast new field of study". I don't think there's a single prominent anti-vax crank he doesn't cite and/or acknowledge. Guy (Help!) 07:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Shit... Yeah, that's true. I hadn't noticed before, though it's fucking obvious. Hell, read the foreword, where it straight-up announces itself as an antivaxxer book.

• "There are many books critical of vaccines on the market today. What is unique about this one..."
• "Like my own, Dr. Mostowitz's oppositon to mandatory vaccination..."
• "Passionately committed to safeguarding these right [to not vaccinate one's children]..."

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

On second look, it doesn't matter. It appears CaroleHenson left that ref out during her re-write, or else it got removed in the meantime. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, see here on July 29. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I have brought up whether SBM is an appropriate source in this context at RSN[2]. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It clearly is, since this is absolutely in their area of expertise. And Swann does not "suggest" that vaccines cause autism, he has asserted it multiple times, and asserted that the CDC and others are covering it up. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Narrative vs Propaganda

Apparently there are editors that want this statement The piece used language that was similar to the Russian narrative about Syria. To read The piece used language that was similar to Russian propaganda about Syria. The source used for this material seems pretty clear on this issue. This mirrors a narrative within several stories written by Kremlin state media outfit RT in the past several weeks. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

And "stories written by Kremlin state media" is another way of saying "propaganda." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't override what the sources say. We go by sources. Please self-revert and restore the material that reflects the source. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

How about "no"? Is that sufficient? No? Too bad. --Calton | Talk 01:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The sources use "narrative" and not "propaganda". The word "propaganda" is a loaded term that carries a lot of connotation problems for this. Lets stick with the source. We go by sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FastEddieo007 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You don't have consensus for your proposed change; moreover, this is the second time your account has magically shown up to extend whitewashing revert wars by the above IP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

There is already a community consensus that edits supported by reliable sources are accepted and those supported by OR are not. No consensus is required. Not even a discussion in talk is required. The reason this is your objection rather than a valid argument is because 1) you don't have a valid argument and 2) You know that most of the maintainers of this article are anti-Swann and anti-Russia and are more than willing to push this pov with you. However, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We don't need a long process to say what the sources undeniably say.

• But the narrative that Aleppo had not been bombed at this point was already widespread.
• This mirrors a narrative within several stories written by Kremlin state media outfit RT in the past several weeks.
• The narrative that Aleppo bombings are “fake news” are taking traditional paths to viral success in America
• Watts believes this “just asking the question” narrative about the atrocities in Aleppo isn’t new

The sourse refers to it as a "narrative" 4 times. It refers to it as "propaganda" 0 times. You changing the wording to fit your pov is textbook pov pushing. You rationalizing it by saying that a narrative from state media is the same as saying "propaganda" is textbook OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.159.155 (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Synonyms aren't original research, they're just knowing the language. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Narrative and Propaganda are not synonyms. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Narratives from state-run media" is synonymous with "state propaganda." It is the primary example of propaganda. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Read it again Propaganda is often associated with material prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies, religious organizations and the media can also produce propaganda. "often associated with" ≠ "synonymous with". Regardless, it's still OR since it's not contained in the source used to justify the claim. Even if you count the one time the source uses the word "propaganda" in a different context then it would sill violate WP:DUE since it's offset by the use of narrative many more times. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)