→Toronto Sun op-ed: Replying to CatCafe (using reply-link) |
→Toronto Sun op-ed: elaborate Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
I've once again removed information cited to [https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/fatah-anti-islamophobia-motion-taking-more-fire this op-ed], as it's not reliable for this context for two reasons. The first is that as an opinion column, it's not a reliable source for anything other than attributed statements of opinion (see [[WP:RSEDITORIAL]]). The second issue is that the author has a clear conflict of interest, as they literally introduce Mohammed as {{tq|The next speaker was my friend, Yasmine Mohammed}}. More generally, in response to some of the recent edit summaries, simply throwing citations from newspapers into the article regardless of content is not an improvement. I removed these sources because they do not provide any secondary information about Mohammed that isn't already established by other sources; the sources in question largely mention Mohammed to quote her on a separate topic, they do not provide any secondary coverage of her. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 14:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
I've once again removed information cited to [https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/fatah-anti-islamophobia-motion-taking-more-fire this op-ed], as it's not reliable for this context for two reasons. The first is that as an opinion column, it's not a reliable source for anything other than attributed statements of opinion (see [[WP:RSEDITORIAL]]). The second issue is that the author has a clear conflict of interest, as they literally introduce Mohammed as {{tq|The next speaker was my friend, Yasmine Mohammed}}. More generally, in response to some of the recent edit summaries, simply throwing citations from newspapers into the article regardless of content is not an improvement. I removed these sources because they do not provide any secondary information about Mohammed that isn't already established by other sources; the sources in question largely mention Mohammed to quote her on a separate topic, they do not provide any secondary coverage of her. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 14:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
||
: I think you neglected to read the rest of the rule you quoted: '(op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author' and 'The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint'. [[Tarek Fatah]] is certainly authoritive in his field according to his wiki page. So I will fix it for you and word it the way you demand, that being: "In the opinion of [[Tarek Fatah]], Mohammed spoke in the Canadian Parliament in opposition to Motion 103, a non-binding motion to condemn Islamophobia in Canada." If you think that makes improving the encyclopaedia, over the previous way the sentence read, then good for you. I would prefer to you fix issues and retain the sources you are demanding, rather than delete them. [[User:CatCafe|CatCafe]] ([[User talk:CatCafe|talk]]) 21:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
: I think you neglected to read the rest of the rule you quoted: '(op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author' and 'The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint'. [[Tarek Fatah]] is certainly authoritive in his field according to his wiki page. So I will fix it for you and word it the way you demand, that being: "In the opinion of [[Tarek Fatah]], Mohammed spoke in the Canadian Parliament in opposition to Motion 103, a non-binding motion to condemn Islamophobia in Canada." If you think that makes improving the encyclopaedia, over the previous way the sentence read, then good for you. I would prefer to you fix issues and retain the sources you are demanding, rather than delete them. [[User:CatCafe|CatCafe]] ([[User talk:CatCafe|talk]]) 21:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
||
::{{tq|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.}} |
::{{tq|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.}} Using it in the article to support the claim that Mohammed spoke is using it as a statement of fact; it does not confer weight in this context. If, on the other hand, we had an opinion piece saying something like {{tq|Yasmine Mohammed is an important voice in global discourse}}, then ''that'' would be a situation where an attributed opinion would be useful. |
||
:: |
:: |
||
::At any rate, the point is moot because of the glaring conflict of interest. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 21:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
::At any rate, the point is moot because of the glaring conflict of interest. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 21:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:51, 19 August 2020
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article creation by removing redirection
Previously this article had been redirected to World Hijab Day#Criticism of the event by User:Werldwayd.
Proposing to shift redirection link to see also section and accepting content from stub Draft:Yasmine Mohammed
Thanks and regards
Bookku (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Primary sources and undue weight
A significant amount of the content in the article is cited to interviews with the subject, rather than coverage in independent secondary sources. The sections about Mohammed's activist work also appears to include a fair amount of WP:COATRACK content about issues that Mohammed has commented on that isn't due for inclusion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- As I said {prim sources issues = maybe, {Undue weight = no, I do not concur. - IMHO. CatCafe (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- The subsections about M103, Rahaf Mohammed and International Women's Day appear undue to me. I could be convinced otherwise by evidence in the form of secondary coverage in RS that is primarily about Yasmine Mohammed and makes significant mention of these subjects.While it's probably due to make some mention of her views on the hijab, the level of depth and laudatory tone in this section is also undue. signed, Rosguill talk 22:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- OK so the things that appear undue to you is not the issue, and what you are referring to is that you would like more prim sources. I'm sure the creator will address this when he/she can so prim sources tag is all that's needed. Thank you for raising here, in the meantime I will remove your undue tag. CatCafe (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Eh, no, while these concerns are related I do think that they are distinct and the undue tag should remain on the article until it is addressed. signed, Rosguill talk 23:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Alhill42, an editor feels that introducing more secondary sources to the article would address the 'undue' and 'prim sources' concerns she has - particularly in the "subsections about M103, Rahaf Mohammed and International Women's Day". Perhaps some more secondary sources can be added and then the tag on the page can be removed. Thanks. CatCafe (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- The article needs fewer primary sources, not more. It needs more secondary sources. signed, Rosguill talk 23:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- OK corrected, I have addressed your concerns and you have said your concerned relate to the primary sources - so that's the only tag you require now that we have clarified your opinion. CatCafe (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- CatCafe, I put that tag there for a reason, and while you're welcome to disagree with my perspective I don't appreciate you trying to tell me that my concerns have been addressed when they have not. There are two separate issues with the article. The first is that the article relies too much on primary sources in general. The second is that a lot of the content is not due for inclusion; whether or not content is due is dependent on the weight placed by reliable secondary sources. signed, Rosguill talk 23:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- OK corrected, I have addressed your concerns and you have said your concerned relate to the primary sources - so that's the only tag you require now that we have clarified your opinion. CatCafe (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- The article needs fewer primary sources, not more. It needs more secondary sources. signed, Rosguill talk 23:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Alhill42, an editor feels that introducing more secondary sources to the article would address the 'undue' and 'prim sources' concerns she has - particularly in the "subsections about M103, Rahaf Mohammed and International Women's Day". Perhaps some more secondary sources can be added and then the tag on the page can be removed. Thanks. CatCafe (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Eh, no, while these concerns are related I do think that they are distinct and the undue tag should remain on the article until it is addressed. signed, Rosguill talk 23:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- OK so the things that appear undue to you is not the issue, and what you are referring to is that you would like more prim sources. I'm sure the creator will address this when he/she can so prim sources tag is all that's needed. Thank you for raising here, in the meantime I will remove your undue tag. CatCafe (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- The subsections about M103, Rahaf Mohammed and International Women's Day appear undue to me. I could be convinced otherwise by evidence in the form of secondary coverage in RS that is primarily about Yasmine Mohammed and makes significant mention of these subjects.While it's probably due to make some mention of her views on the hijab, the level of depth and laudatory tone in this section is also undue. signed, Rosguill talk 22:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- And all in 'your opinion' Rosguill, so go easy on the newbie OK. Let's sort it out here, tags are disheartening and as a sort of seen as vandalism to some newbies. CatCafe (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- nu, if Alhill42 has an issue they can raise it themselves. Get off your high horse. signed, Rosguill talk 23:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Why thanks for the two personal insults Rosguill, I asked you to act as per the spirit of WP:BITE, but you refuse and now get insulty. Pot, kettle, black? You say you edit based on 'practices you've adopted', not necessarily based on policy - that's concerning. CatCafe (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- And I will say it again Rosguill, leaving just the one 'prim sources' tag addresses both your concerns as you've articulated, so your message has been received. That's why I removed the fortuitous 'undue weight' tag you added, I think I have the right to after I considered your concerns - i.e. addressed them. CatCafe (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Why thanks for the two personal insults Rosguill, I asked you to act as per the spirit of WP:BITE, but you refuse and now get insulty. Pot, kettle, black? You say you edit based on 'practices you've adopted', not necessarily based on policy - that's concerning. CatCafe (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- nu, if Alhill42 has an issue they can raise it themselves. Get off your high horse. signed, Rosguill talk 23:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've addressed the main concerns that I had about undue weight. The article still leans a bit too much on primary sources, but in its current state these sources are mostly used to establish biographical details from before Mohammed became a public figure, so I'm not as concerned about due weight issues there. signed, Rosguill talk 15:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Not Canadian
Rosguill why remove reference to her citizenship in description? The sources say she's Canadian. CatCafe (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- I was just trying to make it shorter, as it was way too long earlier. I generally don't include nationality in short descriptions unless it's directly related to their field of work (e.g. politician, athlete at the international level), but I wouldn't oppose inclusion if you think it should be added. signed, Rosguill talk 23:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. Can you quote the policy that suggests one's description should not contain citizenship? CatCafe (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's not policy, it's a practice I've adopted when doing new page reviews. Because nationality can often be a contentious category, I stick to only mentioning it when it's clearly relevant. But as I said, I don't have an issue with it being added here. signed, Rosguill talk 23:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- So you say "it's a practice I've adopted", not based on policy - thanks for clarification. Well her citizenship is not a contentious issue with this person, so your argument to removing it is rubbish. CatCafe (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's not policy, it's a practice I've adopted when doing new page reviews. Because nationality can often be a contentious category, I stick to only mentioning it when it's clearly relevant. But as I said, I don't have an issue with it being added here. signed, Rosguill talk 23:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. Can you quote the policy that suggests one's description should not contain citizenship? CatCafe (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Toronto Sun op-ed
I've once again removed information cited to this op-ed, as it's not reliable for this context for two reasons. The first is that as an opinion column, it's not a reliable source for anything other than attributed statements of opinion (see WP:RSEDITORIAL). The second issue is that the author has a clear conflict of interest, as they literally introduce Mohammed as The next speaker was my friend, Yasmine Mohammed
. More generally, in response to some of the recent edit summaries, simply throwing citations from newspapers into the article regardless of content is not an improvement. I removed these sources because they do not provide any secondary information about Mohammed that isn't already established by other sources; the sources in question largely mention Mohammed to quote her on a separate topic, they do not provide any secondary coverage of her. signed, Rosguill talk 14:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think you neglected to read the rest of the rule you quoted: '(op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author' and 'The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint'. Tarek Fatah is certainly authoritive in his field according to his wiki page. So I will fix it for you and word it the way you demand, that being: "In the opinion of Tarek Fatah, Mohammed spoke in the Canadian Parliament in opposition to Motion 103, a non-binding motion to condemn Islamophobia in Canada." If you think that makes improving the encyclopaedia, over the previous way the sentence read, then good for you. I would prefer to you fix issues and retain the sources you are demanding, rather than delete them. CatCafe (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
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.
Using it in the article to support the claim that Mohammed spoke is using it as a statement of fact; it does not confer weight in this context. If, on the other hand, we had an opinion piece saying something likeYasmine Mohammed is an important voice in global discourse
, then that would be a situation where an attributed opinion would be useful.- At any rate, the point is moot because of the glaring conflict of interest. signed, Rosguill talk 21:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)