Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Polling: Part 1 (SPLC): Reply |
→RFC: Southern Poverty Law Center: option 2 |
||
Line 696:
:With any of SPLC's opinions, they should be attributed. Some editors have argued that this is an additional consideration, however this is not the case. [[WP:RSOPINION]] is a standard consideration applying to all sources. Not one editor has demonstrated any reason for why SPLC's factual claims are anything but [[WP:GREL]]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 04:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
::The consideration is potentially that they are specifically getting called out as biased or activist in certain areas which should be attributed. The question in my view is whether this is beyond the normal RSOPINION that would apply to say the WSJ or NYT opinion sections. Relevant questions for the community to weigh in on are whether there is a clear delineation of opinion from fact or whether the reality distortion field of the publication starts to extend its distortive effect into questions such as "alternative facts" or disputed subjective labelling, or the existence of actual litigations as pertaining to BLPs, or something else. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 22:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. They are a traditionally respected source of information about American racist groups, with little dissent, but outside that familiar territory there is nontrivial dissent from other respected sources (e.g. from the NYT and many others cited above). They should not be used to support contentious labels for groups and individuals outside of their core competency area of American racist groups. [[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]] ([[User talk:Barnards.tar.gz|talk]]) 22:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
==== Discussion: Part 1 (SPLC) ====
Line 993 ⟶ 994:
*::More to the point, it's a false premise. It presupposes that a group is a "hate group". Many are going to be groups we all agree are hate groups. However, it isn't clear that all will be and if such a designation was based on poltics rather than any sort of objective standard then we should question the WEIGHT given to the opinion. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 13:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' - Per my arguments above in Part 1 of this RFC and because there is a distinct lack of any evidence that SPLC's Hatewatch isn't under the same level of editorial control as the rest of SPLC's publications. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 04:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option 2'''. It's a publication of the SPLC so no more or less reliable than its parent org. [[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]] ([[User talk:Barnards.tar.gz|talk]]) 22:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
==== Discussion: Part 2 (Hatewatch) ====
| |||