Talk:Milkshaking

Recent neologism

This article is recording recent news reporting rather than notable UK political terminology. "The trend gained popularity in the United Kingdom in May 2019 during the European Parliament election" -- It is still May 2019. This event is so current the results of this election have not even been released yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.203.107 (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

And now it's more than 5 years later. 2A0E:CB01:87:7900:2422:8F08:77C6:B057 (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Flavours

Should the milkshake flavours be included? It would add much flavour to the article. :P wumbolo ^^^ 11:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not think the flavors of the milkshakes are important. I think the flavor is unimportant to the throwers of the milkshakes. ValentinesDay88 (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Purported cement claim

What source says the police definitively have determined (not "received reports" from unspecified anonymous unverified whatever) that such a thing happened, and what source definitively attributes these purported actions to antifa activists? Partisan political blogs are obviously not acceptable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I've been concerned about this since reading Andy Ngo which only mentions the tweet. Here's more I found: Snopes calls this false and has a quote from Portland officials. "Portland city officials admitted in a July 1, 2019, phone call with reporters that the evidence for the statement made in the tweet was based solely on an observation of a police lieutenant in the field that day who, according to the Portland Mercury, “‘saw a powdery substance that appeared to cause some irritation [when in contact with skin].’ The lieutenant also said the milkshake smelled similar to wet concrete, a smell they were familiar with from ‘having worked with concrete before.'” Also "Alex Zielinkski, news editor for the Portland Mercury, told us the claim that any of the milkshakes contained cement appeared to be nothing more than a likely hoax."[1] This is causing the milkshake distributors to receive death threats. See also[2] [3] and [4] Doug Weller talk 09:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

How many sources to join the list?

Page has a long list of "milkshakings" including non-bluelinked individuals. How many WP:RS should we require before adding the milkshaking of a non-notable person to the page?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Just say no to WP:CRUFTy lists per WP:NOT. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

good guideline. the laundry list aspect of this article was getting our of hand.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ridiculous see-alsos

My opinion is that only other food throwing should be see-also'd off this page. That said, any inclusion of Acid throwing is a gross violation of WP:NPOV and deep into WP:WEASEL territory. Please stop. Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You have deleted several "See Also" that were mentioned at AfD including: Glitter bombing (throwing glitter at political figures as an LGBT protest), Inking (attack) (throwing Ink at political figures in India), Shoe-throwing (throwing shoes at political figures from middle east), and Zelyonka attack (throwing ink at political figures in Russia Ukraine). All of these are forms of political protest by throwing something that is relatively harmless at a political figure. Deleting these from a See Also is not helping readers who are interested in the general topic-area. Britishfinance (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem also including Acid throwing, given it is a "See Also" section; accusations of gross violation of WP:NPOV and deep into WP:WEASEL territory are wrong and disproportionate language to use in discussing such an edit. Britishfinance (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Well let's wait for some other editors to weigh in before including these contentious labels. Frankly if you think acid throwing is analogous to throwing a dairy treat at somebody and don't see the problem with that I don't know what else to say. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to "power-down" you responses here which are dis-proportionate; you have deleted many "See Also" to other interesting and related Wikipedia articles on forms of non-violent, but humiliating, attacks on politicians; I have no strong opinions re Acid attack, but will let others decide. Britishfinance (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to just merge this to Pieing?

Recent news notwithstanding, this doesn't seem to be a meaningfully distinct phenomenon. (Even egging seems potentially mergeable in the context of throwing stuff at people, rather than buildings, but I don't see why the summer 2019 rash of throwing sweet foods at politicians wouldn't just be a subsection in a longer article.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing false information and tangential information

I have been trying to sanitize this article by removing pieces which are objectively false (like the claim that Fraser Anning's entourage violently treated Will Connelly).

I have also removed several pieces of information which are tangential to the topic. Such as adding that Fraser Anning holds anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim views. Even if that view were true, which would require a separate investigation, I highly doubt that bit of information deserves a place in the article about milkshaking.

Similarly, I have removed content which talk about the prior political leanings of the perpetrator of milkshaking on Tommy Robinson or the threats that he claims to have received. Since those claims cannot be verified separately, it is not worthy to mention those claims here. Even if they were, they should be better mentioned on a separate article on death threats to protestors.

I request all of you to please provide proper reasoning before reverting these edits. If you really claim to keep Wikipedia neutral, it would help if you don't gang up on new users and revert their edits and then threaten them of edit-blocking.

Agent raymond232 (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

"Proper reasoning" is that the process we generally follow is WP:BRD - Be Bold (make an edit), Revert (the bold edit is reverted), Discuss (talk page discussion happens). Not "I was reverted, so I'll keep reverting to my preferred version even while we discuss things", which is edit warring and will get you blocked. You have already reverted twice on this article; a third revert will likely get you blocked. As to the content you removed - I haven't examined it in detail, but generally, removing reliable sources and citations without very good reason is rarely a good idea. Please take this as your warning not to revert again, or you will be reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, as you have mentioned, read the details of the edit before chiming in too soon. There are tonnes of reliable sources for everything. However, what information is relevant needs to be considered too. What is the relevance of the "anti-Muslim", "anti-immigrant" nature of Fraser Anning's opinions to the topic of Milkshaking?

Also, what is the relevance of mentioning the death threats to the perpetrator of milkshaking on this topic, particularly when there has been no official corroboration about it. Are we just allowed to write hearsay on Wikipedia on a slightly related topic, just because there are too many news sources copied and pasted the same words on to their headlines? Of course, if the goal here is to make Wikipedia a playbook of left wing politics, sure go ahead. Revert anything that comes in the way.

Agent raymond232 (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The relevance of Anning's stance on Muslims and immigation is that he got egged while he was talking about Christchurch mosque shootings, the day after they'd happened. The milkshaking death threats are cited to a published press source and are phrased as being "claims" by the victim. Both these aspects are useful for putting the subject into context, particularly when the milkshaking trend continued for months despite an early thrower reported receiving death threats over it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Your removal of the reliably-sourced debunking of the extremely dubious and unsupported "concrete milkshake" claim is right out - the fact that there is no physical evidence of such a thing ever happening is indisputably relevant to our inclusion of the claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he was egged while talking about the Christchurch mosque shootings. But mentioning that here is implying that his stance was to blame for the egging, which it was not. For example, if we compare this Wikipedia article on a Pakistan internet sensation whose raunchiness did not go well with her conservative brother, ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qandeel_Baloch ), should that article mention the attributes of the victim which provoked the perpetrator to commit the act too? As it stands, that article talks about what her brother gave as the reason for murdering her, but this article doesn't do that. This article just calls Fraser Anning anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim, rather than saying that that is what the perpetrator Will Connelly gave as a provocation to egg him. I see a clear double standard here. If the standards of this article were to be applied to the other article I referenced here, then there Wikipedia would have started the article something like "Fouzia Azeem (Urdu: فوزیہ عظیم‎; 1 March 1990 – 15 July 2016), known by her stage name Qandeel Baloch (Urdu: قندیل بلوچ‎), was a Pakistani model, actress, social media celebrity and activist known for uploading raunchy content on her social media." Can you please explain how this is not a clear double standard?

I did not remove the debunking of the dubious "concrete milkshake" claim. I just edited the part out which says "and that no journalist had published any photo evidence or witness reports of such an activity". Please check the edit before commenting. I removed this part because a journalist not publishing photo evidence of something or not witnessing something does not automatically rule out the occurrence of such event, hence it is redundant to use that information here. Willamette Week consulted the Portland police and found that this claim was only based on what an office noticed on a milkshake cup. Hence the claim was dubious and unsupported and I certainly did not remove that part.

Ultimately, I also removed the false information that the egging of Fraser Anning " was met with a violent response from Anning and his entourage". His own actions can be judged as acting in self defence by any neutral viewer of the video evidence and his entourage just separated and restrained both of them. So it is completely false that his entourage violently responded to Will Connelly. I also don't understand why the reliably sourced information on the identity of the perpetrator was left out of the article and was again reverted when I added it.

Agent raymond232 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your rationale, oppose any removal of the Willamette Week discussion, and you'll need to get consensus to change this long-standing material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, you are not reading the entire edit. I am not removing the Williamette Week discussion. Please read my above comment to see which part I removed.

Agent raymond232 (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any updates to this after more than ten days. Either you have points contrary to mine or supporting mine. Just not responding is a rather easy way of ensuring that falsehoods and inappropriate details are present in the Wiki page. We are not going to arrive at any consensus if nobody responds. Agent raymond232 (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverted your most recent edit, which removed relevant and cited information (the information you claim is "incorrect" is cited to the Washington Post). The source does not name who threw the milkshake, and furthermore, it would appear to be a minor. Alleging someone did this, without a source, is a breach of WP:BLP. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Agent raymond232 you appear to be edit warring and to be in breach of 3RR. You are removing referenced content, without consensus. You are doing so with misleading edit summaries. And you are inserting malformed content. You have been reverted, so the next step in the WP:BRD process is to discuss, not to re-revert to your preferred version without discussing on the talk page. If you continue in this vein, you will be blocked. I invite you instead to self-revert and discuss your proposed edits here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Bastun One can only discuss if the other people respond. It is a much too easy and deliberate attempt to keep misinformation here on Wikipedia by just not responding to discussions. Read above to find how people have not responded to my concerns and queries. Also, the response to the egging is neither relevant nor correct as mentioned here. This page about milkshaking only brings up egging as a potential starting of milkshaking, so what was the response to that egging incident is hardly relevant here. And just because it is cited does not make it correct, be it from the Washington Post or the BBC. If you don't believe me, feel free to watch the video of the incident yourself, where you will find that the victim of the egging incident responded in the exact same way as anyone who would get attacked from behind and that his entourage only restrained both of them, they were not violent to the perpetrator. Hence, the reaction to the perpetrator is neither relevant on this page, nor correct as you can find out yourself. Finally, whether or not the perpetrator was a minor is hardly a concern here, I have cited another 7 News website which mentions the perpetrator by name. So I am not alleging anybody's name without citation. Please don't allege me of falsehoods. Neither do I understand what you find misleading in my edits or their summaries. Let me know which part you find misleading. As per your suggestion to me to discuss the changes here, I have already started a discussion on much larger set of changes, but as you can see, my Wiki co-editors are either too lazy or complicit in spreading misnformation. I would counter-suggest you to actively participate and help me close this discussion. Agent raymond232 (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

One can only discuss if the other people respond. I referred you to the talk page in my edit summary of 19:46, you didn't discuss and just reverted. the response to the egging is neither relevant nor correct. On relevance, hard disagree, precisely because the article is about milkshaking - its targets, origins, consequences and ethics. So the reaction is absolutely WP:DUE. As to accuracy - all you had to do was exactly what Lembit Staan later did, namely, remove three words. So I am not alleging anybody's name without citation. No? That appears to be precisely what you did, here. The only source then in place for the Australian egging incident, the Washington Post, does not mention the perpetrator by name, only calling him "Egg Boy." So yes, you did name someone without a source. And while it is absolutely WP:DUE to name the target of an incident, and how they responded, naming some completely non-notable teenager really isn't. Lastly - please stop with the personal attacks on other editors. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Without a link here to the contentious material, it's hard to follow, but I support the inclusion of sourced material about Anning's violent response from the Washington Post which is clearly not incorrect, oppose the naming of the egg boy as an unnecessary BLP mention, support the inclusion of "far right" and "anti-Muslim" descritions for Anning which is supported by his WP article and the sources cited. I don't see any clear argument made here against the stable, consensus version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Photo

Is there no available picture of the act in question? 2A0E:CB01:87:7900:2422:8F08:77C6:B057 (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Robbinson

Do the sources say he was the first major public figure, I cannot find it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian article supposedly being cited certainly doesn't. I've removed the claim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)