Slatersteven (talk | contribs) |
JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
:::::::::::::So, your opinion is that the "News Desk" of a reliable source is an "opinion piece", and you combine your opinion with a policy to generate an opinion-policy conglomerate. Then you use this as a "policy-based objection". |
:::::::::::::So, your opinion is that the "News Desk" of a reliable source is an "opinion piece", and you combine your opinion with a policy to generate an opinion-policy conglomerate. Then you use this as a "policy-based objection". |
||
:::::::::::::That one doesn't fly. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 06:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC) |
:::::::::::::That one doesn't fly. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 06:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::::The very first line of the New Yorker piece is "One consequence of the coronavirus pandemic is that we’ve all become amateur epidemiologists." Do you think we can use that as a source for a claim in the Epidemiology article that says "Since 2019, every person in the world is an amatuer epidemiologist"? If no, why not? [[User:JungerMan Chips Ahoy!|JungerMan Chips Ahoy!]] ([[User talk:JungerMan Chips Ahoy!|talk]]) 15:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources]] says: "There is consensus that The New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process." --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 21:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC) |
:::::::::::[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources]] says: "There is consensus that The New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process." --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 21:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::So there is no policy based objection.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 21:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC) |
::::::::::::So there is no policy based objection.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 21:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:43, 8 May 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Budding edit war
See WP:BRD. Make an edit, edit is reverted, start a discussion. Not "Make an edit, edit is reverted, edit is reinstated". User:JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, you should start reading and applying the rules.
Since you tried to force your opinion into the article instead of starting a discussion, as the rules say you should, I will start that discussion.
RS say it is misinformation, not just alleged. So, what is your justification for your edit? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- As I noted in the edit summary. Media Matters for America is not a reliable source for making such claims in Wikipedia's voice , as if it was fact. At most you can say that according to MMFA, this was misinformation. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds right. Using one opinion site to refute another makes for good flame wars, but doesn't implicate reliable sources on either end. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- I see the NYT, WaPo, New Yorker all noting that this publication has spread clearly false information. Basically any reliable source that acknowledges this junk dismisses it out of hand. We are not required to represent fringe theories, and reliable sources seem unanimous in their characterization that the information spread by Federalist about COVID-19 was false. Alleged is not necessary. These conclusions are not in doubt among reliable sources. WP:ALLEGED. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- The material in the article is currently sourced to an opinion piece. We can't used opinion pieces, even from the NYT or WaPo, to state things in Wikiepdia's voice. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Errr I see one source marked as "/news/news-desk", that is not an op-edd piece, another is the one marked "article", thats at least three sources that are not opp-edds.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- The two sources used to support "The Federalist published numerous pieces that contained false information" are opinion pieces. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, no they are not, if they were they would not be "news desk" (for example) but "opp-edd". So I suggest you drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, yes they are. Neither Media Matters nor the New Yorker are newspapers - they are entirely opinion, no matter which heading they decide to put their opinion pieces under. If you truly don't get that, consider just the very first line of the New Yorker piece: "One consequence of the coronavirus pandemic is that we’ve all become amateur epidemiologists." Do you think we can use that as a source for a claim in the Epidemiology article that says "Since 2019, every person in the world is an amatuer epidemiologist"? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- and not being published in a newspaper is irrelevant, as magazine (and even websites) are still. rs. An opp-edd is a specific thing, its is not a term for "not a news paper". Now I suggest you point to where we say magazines are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- You're apparnelty unaware of what WP:RSN contributors think about this. From a recent discussion I was involved in : ([1]): " "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- So, your opinion is that the "News Desk" of a reliable source is an "opinion piece", and you combine your opinion with a policy to generate an opinion-policy conglomerate. Then you use this as a "policy-based objection".
- That one doesn't fly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- The very first line of the New Yorker piece is "One consequence of the coronavirus pandemic is that we’ve all become amateur epidemiologists." Do you think we can use that as a source for a claim in the Epidemiology article that says "Since 2019, every person in the world is an amatuer epidemiologist"? If no, why not? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- You're apparnelty unaware of what WP:RSN contributors think about this. From a recent discussion I was involved in : ([1]): " "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says: "There is consensus that The New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process." --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- So there is no policy based objection.Slatersteven (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- See above for the policy-based objection. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- I see two users telling you that the sources are RS. This is my last word, stop now this is getting [wp:tenditious]].Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- See above for the policy-based objection. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- So there is no policy based objection.Slatersteven (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- and not being published in a newspaper is irrelevant, as magazine (and even websites) are still. rs. An opp-edd is a specific thing, its is not a term for "not a news paper". Now I suggest you point to where we say magazines are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, yes they are. Neither Media Matters nor the New Yorker are newspapers - they are entirely opinion, no matter which heading they decide to put their opinion pieces under. If you truly don't get that, consider just the very first line of the New Yorker piece: "One consequence of the coronavirus pandemic is that we’ve all become amateur epidemiologists." Do you think we can use that as a source for a claim in the Epidemiology article that says "Since 2019, every person in the world is an amatuer epidemiologist"? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, no they are not, if they were they would not be "news desk" (for example) but "opp-edd". So I suggest you drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- The two sources used to support "The Federalist published numerous pieces that contained false information" are opinion pieces. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Errr I see one source marked as "/news/news-desk", that is not an op-edd piece, another is the one marked "article", thats at least three sources that are not opp-edds.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- The material in the article is currently sourced to an opinion piece. We can't used opinion pieces, even from the NYT or WaPo, to state things in Wikiepdia's voice. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- I see the NYT, WaPo, New Yorker all noting that this publication has spread clearly false information. Basically any reliable source that acknowledges this junk dismisses it out of hand. We are not required to represent fringe theories, and reliable sources seem unanimous in their characterization that the information spread by Federalist about COVID-19 was false. Alleged is not necessary. These conclusions are not in doubt among reliable sources. WP:ALLEGED. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds right. Using one opinion site to refute another makes for good flame wars, but doesn't implicate reliable sources on either end. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- There is a clear consensus against the addition of "alleged".[2]. I also point JungerMan Chips Ahoy to the discretionary sanctions warning regarding COVID-19. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Simply declared that there is "clear consensus" for your position is unlikely to persuade. The way I count it, you , Wikieditor19920, Slatersteven , Hob Gadling and Doug Weller are on one side, and me, Coemgenus and AzureCitizen are on the other. That's not a consensus. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- AzureCitizen literally removed "alleged".[3] The only people who arguing for adding the fringe nonsense is you and one other editor. There are 6 vs. 2. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes you are correct , I mistyped. AzCit is on your side, I meant to write Thenext20feet . The point still stands - there is no consensus, one way or the other. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)
- AzureCitizen literally removed "alleged".[3] The only people who arguing for adding the fringe nonsense is you and one other editor. There are 6 vs. 2. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Supreme Court vacancy question
I deleted a section per WP:COATRACK and was reverted, so let's discuss it here. This whole section is about Sean Davis, not the Federalist. No Federalist article is cited, just a tweet from Davis's personal twitter account. It's crammed in here because Davis doesn't have his own article, but the solution to that is to create one (if he's notable,) not to cram controversies about him into this article. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- The only reason Sean Davis is of any note is because he founded the Federalist. That is why the academic publications cite him, and that's why it belongs on this page. It's an example of the publication's influence. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- That could be, but this is not an article about Davis. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- One is not distinct from the other. All the cited sources link him to the Federalist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Of course they are distinct. This is a personal tweet he made, not something posted on the Federalist website. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Right, everyone is distinct from the places they work. We don't fill up the articles about companies with talk of their employees' personal social media posts. If Davis is notable—and I'd say he is—then this information should absolutely be added to his article, should it ever be written. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Of course they are distinct. This is a personal tweet he made, not something posted on the Federalist website. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- One is not distinct from the other. All the cited sources link him to the Federalist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- That could be, but this is not an article about Davis. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Fringe views
wp:npov does not trump wp:fringe. We do not give equally weight to pseudoscience or out right lies as we do expert opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)