→Input, please: new section |
155.19.91.37 (talk) →2019-12 Politics: politics |
||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
About [[User:JzG/Politics]], I suggest reading [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html this] and [https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xgq5/why-wont-twitter-treat-white-supremacy-like-isis-because-it-would-mean-banning-some-republican-politicians-too that]. [[User:Visite fortuitement prolongée|Visite fortuitement prolongée]] ([[User talk:Visite fortuitement prolongée|talk]]) 13:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC) |
About [[User:JzG/Politics]], I suggest reading [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html this] and [https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xgq5/why-wont-twitter-treat-white-supremacy-like-isis-because-it-would-mean-banning-some-republican-politicians-too that]. [[User:Visite fortuitement prolongée|Visite fortuitement prolongée]] ([[User talk:Visite fortuitement prolongée|talk]]) 13:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
* The UK just elected the largest conservative government in 30 years and it will likely be in power for five years, at least. Brexit will happen and there will be immigration controls put in place. They might even rescind some of those economically damaging global warming/carbon reduction initiatives! Looks like all those hours you've put into editing political topics in Wikipedia and making your political views known elsewhere on the Internet have really paid off. Who knows, instead of history being a constant move towards a more liberal/progressive/leftist culture, perhaps it's actually circular, as in conservative-liberal-conservative-liberal-conservative, etc. If that's true, then this saying may also be true: hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men, weak men make hard times. Cheers. [[Special:Contributions/155.19.91.37|155.19.91.37]] ([[User talk:155.19.91.37|talk]]) 16:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Input, please == |
== Input, please == |
Revision as of 16:16, 16 December 2019
Discretionary sanctions
|
---|
- Smelling pistakes
In addition to bone-deep burn scars on my left hand I now also have C7 radiculopathy, so my typing is particularly erratic right now. I have a spellcheck plugin but it can't handle larger text blocks. You're welcome to fix spelling errors without pinging me, but please don't change British to American spelling or indeed vice-versa.
MEDPRICE RfC
I thought we were making some headway in how we could possibly find a solution, but you closed the side conversation [1]. This is feeling like a huge waste of time. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ronz, whether they are encyclopaedic or not is not a thing you'll fix there. That's a question for the RfC, because I am pretty confident that the two "sides" will divide exactly as expected. Guy (help!) 17:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
That's missing a final }}
. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- The "... predatory open access journal" should also be updated to predatory journal or publisher, since it will catch some non-journals. Also the This filter catches journals that use these DOI prefixes or URL domains: is no longuer needed since it's in the table. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Please reconsider
Could I get you to review the discussion and reconsider your position at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Southern Poverty Law Center? This source is being used in BLPs to label people as belonging to a hate group, sometimes despite abundant evidence that the hate group doesn't exist and has never existed. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Guy Macon, SPLC is treated as reliable-with-attribution by a large number of sources we habitually trust. Many of the allegations against them noted by Atsme are simply smears (though others may not be). I don't use SPLC as a source other than for its own attributed statements, but this does not seem to be our problem to fix. Guy (help!) 11:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon:
This source is being used in BLPs to label people as belonging to a hate group
This sounds like it might be a problem of inappropriate synthesis. 1) SPLC says Group X is a hate group. 2) Person A is a member of Group X. 3) Synthesis: Person A belongs to a hate group. Would any of the BLP problems you mentioned fall into that category? ~Awilley (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)- Awilley, X belongs to Y (RS), described by SPLC as a hate group (RS) would work, but I would not primary-source to SPLC Guy (help!) 16:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- No,
"X belongs to Y[1], which is described by SPLC as a hate group[2]"
is textbook synthesis. The only way that works is if you have a secondary source that supports the entire sentence."X belongs to Y, which is described by SPLC as a hate group[3]"
. If the fact that Person X belongs to a hate group is notable enough to be in Wikipedia it won't be hard to find reliable sources that support the whole sentence. ~Awilley (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)- Awilley, no it's not. "X is a white supremacist" based on "X is a member of Y" and "Y is a white supremacist group" is synthesist. "X is a member of X, a group identified by SPLC as white supremacist" is absolutely not SYN. Guy (help!) 21:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Only if you have a source that supports the entire sentence. Look at the first sentence of WP:SYNTH:
Stating that X is a member of a white supremacist group implies that X is a white supremacist. To do that in a BLP you'd need a source to support the entire sentence. Here's an example of a sentence that (AFAICT) your definition of SYNTH would allow:Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
Any objections to that sentence? Both parts of the sentence are factually accurate, but it implies that you are OK with using Daily Mail as a source. ~Awilley (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)JzG is an administrator on Wikipedia,[1] an online encyclopedia that uses The Daily Mail as a source more than 10,000 times.[2]
- Only if you have a source that supports the entire sentence. Look at the first sentence of WP:SYNTH:
- Awilley, no it's not. "X is a white supremacist" based on "X is a member of Y" and "Y is a white supremacist group" is synthesist. "X is a member of X, a group identified by SPLC as white supremacist" is absolutely not SYN. Guy (help!) 21:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- No,
- Awilley, X belongs to Y (RS), described by SPLC as a hate group (RS) would work, but I would not primary-source to SPLC Guy (help!) 16:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon:
References
Please see this report from the Iowa City Press Ciitizen:[3] Apparently, someone with the screen name "Concerned Troll" posted "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub was a success!" on the Daily Stormer website, claiming that this "book club" met sometime in September 2016 at an unnamed restaurant somewhere in the Amana Colonies, Iowa. Based upon nothing more that that single post, the SPLC called the Iowa town a "refuge of hate" and listed them as as the home of the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub neo-Nazi group. Later, facing a storm of criticism, the SPLC changed the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub’s designation to "statewide." One small problem: The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub never existed. They never met in Amana or anywhere else. The restaurant was never named. The local police did a thorough investigation and found zero evidence for the meeting ever happening or of the group ever existing. The real neo-nazis mock the SPLC for this and have invented hundreds of book clubs such as the "1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Stormer Bookclub" which meets "every Friday at 11:00 AM in the Vermeil Room". Seriously. Someone with the user name Concerned Troll posted something on the Daily Stormer website and that's all the "evidence" the SPLC needed, and yet we treat them as a reliable source about hate groups. The SPLC vigorously stood by its claim for a full year[4], ignoring all calls for any actual evidence, and only after there there was a huge public backlash reluctantly posted a "correction" that still insists that the nonexistent group exists on a statewide level. Needless to say, there is zero evidence for the "statewide" claim. David Rettig, executive director of the Amana Colonies and Visitors Bureau, says that he attempted to reach out to the SPLC as soon as he learned about the map, but nobody from the civil rights organization would return his message. "It was a shock to us when we found out," he said. "We’ve checked around with the sheriff (Rob Rotter) and he indicated to me there is absolutely no hate group operating in the Amana Colonies, and he checked with his superiors in Des Moines and there are no reports ... we’ve seen nothing of this, visitors or residents." Rotter backed up Rettig’s remarks: "There is no such neo-Nazi group in Iowa County." and that the SPLC was "irresponsible at best. I would hope that the SPLC is a more responsible organization than this example of their professionalism exhibits." The Des Moines Register contacted the SPLC, and Ryan Lenz, a senior investigative writer for the SPLC initially told them that claims by community and Iowa County leaders that no such groups exist in the town are wrong. Then later, after there was a storm of controversy, the SPLC changed the claim and now says that this imaginary hate group is "statewide". And the SPLC still to this day refuses to provide any evidence other than the internet post by "Concerned Troll", and refuses to retract the bogus claim that their is such a hate group in Iowa. This is despite multiple media outlets asking for evidence backing up the claim. When you make a claim without a shred of evidence[5] other than a post on a neo-nazi website by an admitted troll, and then stand by your claim for well over a year without providing a shred of evidence, you no longer have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as required to be considered a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC) |
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sennen goroshi. Lepricavark (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
It’s that time of year!
Happy Holiday Cheer!! |
in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required. |
and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉 |
The MCS SPI
Hey, thanks for supporting the SPI re. multiple chemical sensitivity. I dispute one of the findings: see User_talk:Bbb23#Disagree_with_part_of_your_SPI and would like the closing and archiving of the investigation to be placed on hold until User:Bbb23 logs back in and considers my concern. Is it possible to stall the closing and archiving of that investigation? Thanks!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
You did not sign your comment, it looks like I wrote it, lol.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
2019-12 Politics
Hello,
About User:JzG/Politics, I suggest reading this and that. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- The UK just elected the largest conservative government in 30 years and it will likely be in power for five years, at least. Brexit will happen and there will be immigration controls put in place. They might even rescind some of those economically damaging global warming/carbon reduction initiatives! Looks like all those hours you've put into editing political topics in Wikipedia and making your political views known elsewhere on the Internet have really paid off. Who knows, instead of history being a constant move towards a more liberal/progressive/leftist culture, perhaps it's actually circular, as in conservative-liberal-conservative-liberal-conservative, etc. If that's true, then this saying may also be true: hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men, weak men make hard times. Cheers. 155.19.91.37 (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Input, please
Guy, to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS with reference to the university a doctor attended back in the 1950s, would painbytes.com be acceptable to cite? Also, if the biographical info of a notable published doctor is included in a 2014 journal by a listed predatory publisher, are we not allowed to cite that source for that info only or are we blacklisting all such journals because of their unethical practices? The doctor was attending the medical university in Budapest nearly 70 years ago when the Hungarian Revolution broke out so it’s probably assumed to be the one and only at the time. A couple of sources refer to him as attending medical school at the university in Budapest but don’t name it, whereas the few I’ve found online do name it. Atsme Talk 📧 13:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)