User talk:BSMRD
April 2021
- The "unreliable" source I used was Chinese state media, to source what Chinese media was saying, I don't see how that is "unreliable". I did not assert their statements as fact, merely included what they said, quoting them, to improve the articles completeness and neutrality. BSMRD (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- CGTN is WP:NPOV before making any more comments about what you think neutrality is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)]
- The section being edited was about reactions to allegations against the Chinese government. What Chinese state media is saying about said allegations is relevant to the section, I did not cite CGTN's statement as fact, and included citations to other articles by different state media sources. I would not use a source like that to ascertain the facts of a situation, but as an example of what Chinese media is saying about the allegations, it seems to me a perfectly valid use. WP:DEPRECATED I did not use CGTN to source a claim about a situation's reality (which CGTN is known to be a poor source for, hence it's deprecation), but rather to know what Chinese state media is saying about the issue (CGTN is a perfect example of Chinese state media, which is partially why it is deprecated). If you would like to cite a western source about what Chinese media is saying I suppose I could, but it seems faster to simply cite the Chinese media itself. BSMRD (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)]
- Try again, WP:NPOV says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” Cherry picking policy like that in the future could get you in trouble, I’d recommend not doing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- CGTN is a Reliable Source on the contents of what Chinese media is saying, because it is the Chinese media saying it. If a section about the contents of Nazi propaganda cited Der Sturmer as an example, linking directly to an article, that would be a valid citation, even though the claims within the article were bunk, because it isn't about the accuracy of the claims, merely that they were said at all. A CGTN article is a Reliable Source on what that article says, and should be allowed to be cited as such. BSMRD (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- A section about the contents of Nazi propaganda could not cite Der Sturmer as an example, however they could use what a reliable source says about Der Sturmer. Where are you getting these ideas about how things work on wikipedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Context_matters and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources I am stating that a statement was made, and using the statement as a source that it was made. No value judgements were made and I did not present CGTN's statements as fact, merely that they were stated. As far as I can tell that seems to be a valid use of a primary source, which in this case CGTN is. Had I used the cited CGTN article to say "the allegations are baseless", I agree that would be against both WP:NPOV, however using CGTN as source on "CGTN stated the allegations were baseless" by linking to them saying that is fair, and it's presence in that section of the article is justified by it being a reaction against the allegations made by the group it was made against, making it significant. BSMRD (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)]
- Even if it could be used there would still be a lack of WP:DUEWEIGHT without coverage by an independent reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)]
- Even if it could be used there would still be a lack of
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Context_matters and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources I am stating that a statement was made, and using the statement as a source that it was made. No value judgements were made and I did not present CGTN's statements as fact, merely that they were stated. As far as I can tell that seems to be a valid use of a primary source, which in this case CGTN is. Had I used the cited CGTN article to say "the allegations are baseless", I agree that would be against both
- A section about the contents of Nazi propaganda could not cite Der Sturmer as an example, however they could use what a reliable source says about Der Sturmer. Where are you getting these ideas about how things work on wikipedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- CGTN is a Reliable Source on the contents of what Chinese media is saying, because it is the Chinese media saying it. If a section about the contents of Nazi propaganda cited Der Sturmer as an example, linking directly to an article, that would be a valid citation, even though the claims within the article were bunk, because it isn't about the accuracy of the claims, merely that they were said at all. A CGTN article is a Reliable Source on what that article says, and should be allowed to be cited as such. BSMRD (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Try again, WP:NPOV says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” Cherry picking policy like that in the future could get you in trouble, I’d recommend not doing it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- The section being edited was about reactions to allegations against the Chinese government. What Chinese state media is saying about said allegations is relevant to the section, I did not cite CGTN's statement as fact, and included citations to other articles by different state media sources. I would not use a source like that to ascertain the facts of a situation, but as an example of what Chinese media is saying about the allegations, it seems to me a perfectly valid use.
- CGTN is
For the record
I think you are completely right in using CGTN to cite a claim specifically made by Chinese state media. Just because a source is deprecated by RSP does not mean it cannot be used to discuss claims specifically made by the source itself, especially with in line attribution and as long as the claims are not put in wiki voice, as RSP states a deprecated source "may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions." I'd also like to let you know there are MANY people who believe RSP to be an imperfect system that has especially been used to favor western perspectives in articles. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Appreciate it, I enjoy wikipedia as a repository for knowledge however I find some of it's policies lead to... gaps, especially WRT information on actively ongoing subjects.BSMRD (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm in the same boat. I think it's a glorious thing (especially on non-controversial topics, although they aren't immune to edit wars either), but there are situations where the policies can lead to very rigid constrictions that prevent articles from giving a WP:NPOV. Although the hope is that eventually things set themselves straight, it can be a long process and requires a lot of discussions between editors. I'm hoping we eventually see a cultural change that is more lenient in regards to claims that are properly in-line attributed by controversial subjects. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)]
- Yeah, I'm trying to take a step back from active controversies and am trying to de-essayify John Brown (abolitionist). It's nice to work on something relatively "uncontroversial".BSMRD (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Anytime I get too frustrated with current event articles I dial back and go work on an archaeology page (did some cleanup for a few ceramics sites in Japan earlier). I do at least enjoy that I can take a break from conflict when I need to, which is much harder on other sites. John Brown is a damn amazing figure in American history so I'd be grateful for anyone improving his article. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I will freely admit to being a fan of his as well, I took a look at his article about a week ago though and it was something of a mess. The info is... decent, though lacking in citations, but the way it is written reads more like a commercial biography than an encyclopedic article, so I took the time to properly tag it up and have been slowly trying to put it in order, some other editors seem to have joined in, so thats nice.BSMRD (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Anytime I get too frustrated with current event articles I dial back and go work on an archaeology page (did some cleanup for a few ceramics sites in Japan earlier). I do at least enjoy that I can take a break from conflict when I need to, which is much harder on other sites. John Brown is a damn amazing figure in American history so I'd be grateful for anyone improving his article. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm trying to take a step back from active controversies and am trying to de-essayify John Brown (abolitionist). It's nice to work on something relatively "uncontroversial".BSMRD (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm in the same boat. I think it's a glorious thing (especially on non-controversial topics, although they aren't immune to edit wars either), but there are situations where the policies can lead to very rigid constrictions that prevent articles from giving a
RfC: Azov Battalion (review before posting)
- Good afternoon, I'd like to start an RfC about determining the status of the Azov Battalion and what how to describe their links to/descriptions as a neo-Nazi group. I would like you to share your opinion on the format, correctness and content of the questions before I start the RfC.The draft is here. Thank you in advance for your participation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good as a base, I would remove question 3 as I have seen nothing to indicate an ideological shift from 2014, and reformulate some of the options for question 2 that mention "characterize" per MOS:DOUBT. The problem with question 2 is that it is an objective fact that many (I would argue most) commentators and observers have characterized Azov as Neo-Nazi, what is in dispute is whether or not those observations lend themselves to a wikivoice statement of Neo-Nazism. Presenting them as alternatives creates an implication that the characterization is false. BSMRD (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)]
- Please copy the comment in the Azov Battalion's talk, so that we have all opinions in one place, possibly modifying for my clarifications made below.
- As for "characterise", this is a proposal for a general guideline about what to write and what not to - exact words will be chosen later on, with the general guidance of the RfC settled on the matter; but you can of course propose a better synonym. Opinions about which option you prefer most are not relevant at this moment, just evaluate the wording of the options and all potential options that could be argued. Thank you for your input. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good as a base, I would remove question 3 as I have seen nothing to indicate an ideological shift from 2014, and reformulate some of the options for question 2 that mention "characterize" per
- Good evening, I would like to notify you that an RfC on the topic has just started. It is located here. Yours, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)]
Hi BSMRD, please consider contributing to the John Brown article. I hope you find it a bit cleaned up now. Attic Salt (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for taking up the mantle of cleaning it up, it looks much better than when I found it. BSMRD (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
FYI
This user is trying to get you banned as a Sock puppet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MPSCL
- Appreciate the heads up. BSMRD (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not to open an old wound, but I notice one of the users very active in making sock puppet accusations in that discussion has also attempted to use sanctions to “gotcha” me into administrative actions. I don’t think this behavior bodes well for those editing controversial topics. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)