Talk:Brett Stevens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlevi (talk • contribs) 13:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

use of self-published sources by Brett Stevens to describe the views of Brett Stevens[edit]

@Llll5032, you have made a number of edits, removing Stevens from the category "American Zionists", complaining that this fact is not reliably sourced, as well as removing all additions I made in regards to Stevens political views, complaining that they are from self-published sources. If you were to read one of the pages that you linked to, you would find that Wikipedia may consider self-published sources to be reliable, when discussing themselves:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;it does not involve claims about third parties;it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; andthe article is not based primarily on such sources."

As you can see, my additions fit these requirements to the letter. I must assume good-faith, so you must not have been aware of these guidelines. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sentences in question fail to meet the ABOUTSELF requirements, because the claims are potentially exceptional (see WP:ABOUTSELF #1) and the passage is long (see WP:ABOUTSELF #5). Also, more importantly, the sentences contain several general claims ("Stevens supports Zionism", "Stevens opposes anti-Semitism" and "Stevens affirms the Holocaust") that per WP:PRIMARY can only be made by third-party reliable sources: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." The onus is on you to find third-party reliable sources that can support the claims. Llll5032 (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You will then have to explain why these claims could possibly be considered "self-serving" or "exceptional". Why do you consider it to be self-serving or exceptional of Stevens to claim that he supports Zionism and believes in the Holocaust?
You also seem to be attempting to take issue with the lack of secondary or tertiary sources. However, this is only needed to interpret information contained within primary sources, yet you deleted direct quotations from Stevens, as well, which do not consititute intrepretations, and hence cannot be deleted.
WP:ABOUTSELF #5 is irrelevant here; "the article" may not be primarily based on self-published sources. May I remind you that you are suggesting the deletion of a section, not the entire article. Harry Sibelius (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The claims may be exceptional because none of the other cited sources make any note of them.
If you are are aware, as you wrote, that secondary sources are "needed to interpret information contained within primary sources", then please either remove the interpretive claims immediately or cite reliable secondary sources for them.
Specific quotations are usually cited to a reliable source for WP:DUEWEIGHT, to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Can you find a reliable source that includes them?
WP:PRIMARY advises that primary sources are "easy to misuse". WP:INDY says we should instead rely on independent third-party sources to ensure "that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an ax to grind". Llll5032 (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to have the consensus to keep the ABOUTSELF sentences, and the onus is on you to prove that they are worth including in an encyclopedia, so I will remove them again unless other editors object. I would agree to re-including such content if it accurately summarizes a third-party RS. Llll5032 (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the sentences. ABOUTSELF is sometimes used for simple facts, but many other guidelines (such as WP:PSTS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:DUEWEIGHT, and WP:SYNTH) discourage sections consisting only of primary sources selected and analyzed by Wikipedia editors. Even more care should be taken for contentious topics. Llll5032 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you for being so helpful. I will then remove the interpretive claims. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I do not think we can use the quotations unless they are noted by a high quality third-party source (per WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION). If the explanations in WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:PRIMARY, and the WP:INDY essay are unpersuasive, you could perhaps ask for more opinions at the NPOV noticeboard. Llll5032 (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brett_Stevens&oldid=1174927439"