m Signing comment by 88.6.179.104 - "" |
98.228.253.244 (talk) →the criticism section is hilarious: new section |
||
Line 50:
:::Wikipedia articles are based on [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. We "pick and choose" sources based on their reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Blaming "higher ups" for how reliable sources describe someone is indistinguishable from playing victim to a grand conspiracy, but it has nothing to do with reliability, or with bias. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 05:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::*Wikipedia reflects the academic / cultural mainstream; that's the purpose of an encyclopedia. So if the overwhelming academic consensus is "this book promotes baseless antisemitic conspiracy theories", we have to reflect that assessment. Ignoring that sort of consensus among the sources would violate both [[WP:FRINGE]] and [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 20:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
== the criticism section is hilarious ==
Jewish surname after Jewish surname.
|
Revision as of 17:23, 6 November 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Spanish Inquisition
"the Iberian inquisitions from the fourteenth century”
I have no idea what is meant by this, what inquisitions the writer is talking about. If you look at the Spanish Inquisition article, you'll find it was established in 1478. deisenbe (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Too much criticism?
The criticism section is more than half of this article. Surely the key criticisms can be summarized more succinctly. This is an encyclopedia article after all; not a manifesto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.83.227.76 (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed it looks like another Wikipedia smear piece instead of an objective article. Sad how this site has fallen in recent years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.179.104 (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Fictitious Reference in the Summary
The summary section has a sentence:
"The overwhelming majority of academic and journalistic reviews of MacDonald's work have dismissed it as pseudoscience grounded in conspiracy theories, and replete with misrepresentations and cherry-picking of sources." and cites Jewish Folklore and Ethnology Review, 19(1-2), 36-38, 1997.
The problem is that this article is actually complementary of MacDonald's work. The sentence which cites this journal a second time in this article portrays the content of the journal more accurately:
"On the other hand, Laurence Loeb of the University of Utah, (writing for the Jewish Folklore and Ethnology Review in 1997), gave A People That Shall Dwell Alone a positive review, calling it a "tour-de-force" and a "watershed contribution to the understanding of Judaism and Jewish life" based on a "cautious, careful assembling of evidence".
Having looked up and read the journal, it's clear that the first usage of the source is incorrect and the second usage is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:1260:4a4b:5416:8d7a:8b24:6c1b (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- The lede is a summary of the body, and there are many sources in the body explaining the trilogy's abysmal reputation. The first book had a mixed to negative reception, but as a whole they are not treated as serious for many reasons. Wikipedia isn't a platform to right great wrongs, so this isn't the place to defend these pseudo-academic works. Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
NPOV
The problem with the intro is that, rather than laying the information out for readers to draw their own conclusion, it cites some biased article to try to justify defining these books in a certain way. This is a big problem with Wikipedia as a whole at the moment: As long as you cite a source, you can make the article as NPOV as you want. For an example of what I mean, imagine if I opened the article for Gloria Steinem by saying she was a misandric. anti-white activist, and cited The Daily Stormer or Return of Kings as my sources. 12.154.111.67 (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- We don't summarise non-fiction books the way we do fiction, we rely on secondary sources. We can't have editors deciding which bits to quote or use in some way. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- All that does is cause editors to pick and choose which sources they want to use. So it doesn't actually solve the problem. This policy has caused Wikipedia to become incredibly biased in its articles on non-fiction and political topics. But I suspect the policy won't change anytime soon, because the higher ups on the site seem to share that bias. 12.154.111.67 (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. We "pick and choose" sources based on their reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Blaming "higher ups" for how reliable sources describe someone is indistinguishable from playing victim to a grand conspiracy, but it has nothing to do with reliability, or with bias. Grayfell (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia reflects the academic / cultural mainstream; that's the purpose of an encyclopedia. So if the overwhelming academic consensus is "this book promotes baseless antisemitic conspiracy theories", we have to reflect that assessment. Ignoring that sort of consensus among the sources would violate both WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- All that does is cause editors to pick and choose which sources they want to use. So it doesn't actually solve the problem. This policy has caused Wikipedia to become incredibly biased in its articles on non-fiction and political topics. But I suspect the policy won't change anytime soon, because the higher ups on the site seem to share that bias. 12.154.111.67 (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
the criticism section is hilarious
Jewish surname after Jewish surname.