User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2021/November
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Horse Eye's Back. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Further deletions on Monisha Shah
(Note: Rodw has disclosed a Wikipedia:conflict of interest[1] in regards to Monisha Shah Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC) )
I noticed on Monisha Shah you removed a recent edit "and was a trustee of Tate until 2015, served on the board of the National Gallery representing Tate, and has been a member of several other boards and panels." This was cited to a government publication already cited in the article. Your edit summary was "SPS can’t be used for claims not related to themselves" - I presume this relates to self-published sources - if so can you expalin how this government site, which is already cited in the article and you haven't previously removed when you removed loads of others, is a self-published source?— Rod talk 18:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- What is it if not a SPS? Its a government press release published by the government. Its perfectly acceptable to use a press release from the Committee on Standards in Public Life for information about themselves, but not for information about the Tate. Also "and has been a member of several other boards and panels.” is weirdly promotional. Do you not see the promotional issues here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- FYI I have also removed Times of India as unsuitable for a BLP per consensus (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
What you said at Black Rifle Coffee Co was not correct
Not sure where you got all that from. Even if one agrees with the over generalization of wp:deprecating sources, the National Examiner is not one of them It's a high quality publication, albeit with it's editorials being conservative leaning which would put them in some people's WP:I don't like it category. I'm fine with adding attribution as you did, but it looks unneeded for the pretty straightforward factual stuff. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- @North8000: I think you’re mistaken, the outlet in question is the Washington Examiner[2] not the National Examiner. The Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources entry for the Washington Examiner states "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled with the appropriate guideline.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I got the name wrong in this post. I don't think that that changes the rest of my post but I think 'nuff said. North8000 (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- You also appear to have gotten wrong that we treat it as a high quality publication, we clearly don’t. You also appear to be wrong that attribution "looks unneeded for the pretty straightforward factual stuff” given that "Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- I know about that non-policy non-guideline record of conversations when I made my last post. I don't know who "we" is but.... Even that doesn't have anything anywhere near "shouldn't be used at all" as you indicated. I agree that it is partisan, just like nearly all of the other major news publications and media outlets. IMO it has a journalism quality that equals matches any of them. And I would agree that any statement sourced by them that there is any question about / is disputed should be attributed. IMO attributing other routine facts is unneeded but OK. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- My own personal opinion of the Washington Examiner is higher than the consensus, but that is as it may be. I think perennial is generally accepted as a record of consensus but I will digress. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Cool. Thanks for the exchange. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- My own personal opinion of the Washington Examiner is higher than the consensus, but that is as it may be. I think perennial is generally accepted as a record of consensus but I will digress. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- I know about that non-policy non-guideline record of conversations when I made my last post. I don't know who "we" is but.... Even that doesn't have anything anywhere near "shouldn't be used at all" as you indicated. I agree that it is partisan, just like nearly all of the other major news publications and media outlets. IMO it has a journalism quality that equals matches any of them. And I would agree that any statement sourced by them that there is any question about / is disputed should be attributed. IMO attributing other routine facts is unneeded but OK. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- You also appear to have gotten wrong that we treat it as a high quality publication, we clearly don’t. You also appear to be wrong that attribution "looks unneeded for the pretty straightforward factual stuff” given that "Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I got the name wrong in this post. I don't think that that changes the rest of my post but I think 'nuff said. North8000 (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)