Talk:The Rise of Victimhood Culture

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 January 2019. The result of the discussion was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator).

Requiring Author's Help Across the Sea

Hi there,

I've just opened a parallel page in Hebrew wikipedia and it was closed for "not being notable enough". If the authors may advice me with sources to prove the centrality of the Book/claim it may help me.

Yours, --Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources

@Horse Eye Jack: can you explain why you believe these three sources [1] [2] [3] are not reliable for the purposes to which they were being put here?

Can you also explain why you removed Victimology from the cats on the basis that it wasn't "mentioned" on the page... even while the other ones there are not specifically mentioned? In the victimology article we learn that "Victimology is the study of victimization, including the psychological effects on victims, relationships between victims and offenders, the interactions between victims and the criminal justice system—that is, the police and courts, and corrections officials—and the connections between victims and other social groups and institutions, such as the media, businesses, and social movements." That seems relevant to a book about so-called "Victimhood Culture", does it not?

Finally, I would like to know whether you came across this page yourself, or you have been looking at my contribution history and following me around to undo my edits? Thanks. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Review articles are reliable, their blogs aren’t. In order to put a category on the page it needs to be either obvious to a casual observer or mentioned explicitly on the page, victimology is neither. American politics, especially the right fringe, is well within my wheelhouse. If I see poor sources I either remove or tag them, this has always been true and will always be true. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS I’ve addressed the diffs you posted but just FYI two are the same one. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After consulting the record I can tell you how I first stumbled across this page, it was while investigating the page’s creator E.M. Gregory who has since been blocked as the sock of an extremely disruptive user. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK so I guess it was just a coincidence that you came to edit the page, and edited the material I had added, a day or so later.

You didn't address why the www.jamesgmartin.center is not reliable for this specific reference? I guess it's neither here nor there with National Review, since the citation was fairly basic anyway. But again, I cited the definition of "victimology" and we have here a page about "victimhood culture," and you're saying that the connection is not obvious? I am struggling to understand that. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the policy on RS says "Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format." Does National Review not fall into this category? Note that the citation is basically for a question of scholarly opinion, not empirical fact. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not, we are talking about a blog separate from news reporting not a blog style format used by a regular reporter. You didnt put a link to the jamesgmartin.center change so I didn't address it, The James G Martin center is a fringe think tank of little notability. Its not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. Why would you think it was reliable? That confuses me, it very obviously isn't. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I had not even heard of it until I found the reference on Google, but for the specific content it was being cited for, it hardly seemed problematic. I'm also not sure what the basis of the claim that it's a fringe think tank of little notability? It has a Wikipedia page and is probably only one of a dozen or so similar institutions in the country. I don't particularly care for its politics but I thought that was beside the point. In any case, the specific information in question can be found elsewhere. I'll come back to this later. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Martin Center is highly unreliable and most certainly fringe, if you’re not familiar with their work thats ok but its out there (and often rather provocative, for instance they’ve advocated shutting down *all* gender studies programs which is a fringe view even among anti-intellectual conservatives). Think Tanks that describe themselves as “watchdogs” are generally an issue for us as far as using them as a reliable source. Their politics largely align with mine but I would never consider them reliable, this isn't about politics. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]