This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
@Ɱ: Hello. Regarding this edit, based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#City Journal as a source covering RationalWiki there is growing consensus that City Journal and its publisher Manhattan Institute for Policy Research are unreliable and should not be cited except for opinions with attribution. That website has a history of promoting factual errors and pseudoscience, and an unclear track record for retractions and fact-checking, and of the sample of articles I have looked at from the site too many include distortions or cherry-picking at the expense of accuracy to ignore. If Aaron M. Renn is an expert and his assessment is important enough to cite, it should be with attribution so that readers can evaluate directly, and it should be from a better outlet. While some uses of this website, like this one, seem anodyne, this can no longer be taken as a given, and a better source should be found. Grayfell (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not arguing about the source; I simply don't accept cutting content in articles unless you absolutely cannot find a replacement source. ɱ(talk) 21:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Since you didn't leave a summary, I didn't know why you reverted.
The content was a summary of a specific source. Sources decide what belongs and what doesn't. Replacing the source is fine, but we would have to summarize what the new source says, not what the unreliable source it's replacing says. Grayfell (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Argue however you wish; I find it unacceptable to cut up article content simply because you don't find the source reliable enough. Do your due diligence and find one you do like. ɱ(talk) 00:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
No idea why you're so confrontational about this. You can restore the statement with a Template:CN if necessary. This isn't just about my personal preference, the source is unacceptable and should not be restored. As we both know very well, WP:V is policy. I will trust that you know a lot more about this topic than I do, so I trust you can more easily find and summarize a usable replacement source. Otherwise, I do not accept that this specific statement is automatically important enough to require inclusion without any source. Since you feel differently, you can either find a reliable source or use a CN template. Grayfell (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay well now I have time to look into the issue in more detail. The conversation you linked is not a vote, does not look like it came to a conclusive close (yet?) and it mostly relies on discussing conservative views and "disinformation about climate change". For this article about Columbus, Ohio, it is written with good detail and extremely factually. I see no reason why this article is unacceptable. WP:RS/N doesn't need to be a be-all-end-all, similar to how RS/P is a guide to generally follow, and there will be exceptions. This is a clear case of a fine exception. ɱ(talk) 15:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Do you think the source would pass if it went to RFC? I don't, because consensus seems clear based on specific examples of the site's poor reputation for accuracy and fact checking. So I disagree that this is an exception. Specifically for this source the author doesn't appear to be a topic expert. (It appears he mostly to focuses on Evangelical Christianity, but I'm not sure if he's an expert on that, either.)
City Journal has a clear history of pushing a very specific agenda involving urban planning and pro-business libertarian politics, and the cited source isn't an exception, and isn't particularly subtle about it. If this specific point from this source is important to the article it should be possible to find a reliable source instead. That source would also provide better context for what this means and why these specific neighborhoods and parks are encyclopedically important as examples, instead of being examples chosen by an unreliable source out of convenience. Grayfell (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
This is a wikilawyer-type answer, just avoiding the point that I made above. There wasn't a close, wasn't a consensus to my eyes, and the conversation doesn't even relate to urban articles. Come back when these things happen. ɱ(talk) 03:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
What point did you make above? That the article was written in good detail and is factual? Or that the discussion hasn't been formally closed yet? I'm trying to explain the problem and you're not giving me a lot to work with. Above you said "I'm not arguing about the source", so what are you doing? Your edit summary said "Nothing summarizes the city's recent focuses as well as this does, factually." Why, exactly, are you saying this source from an unreliable outlet must be factual, and must be an exception? I'm trying to explain why the outlet is unreliable, citing a discussion with specific examples and not a single editor defending the source, even for opinion. WP:CONSENSUS doesn't have to be formalized, because Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, and if you insist on using this source despite the problems which have already been mentioned, you will have to defend that source on its own merits. If you cannot or will not do that, than the source should again be removed. Grayfell (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2023
This edit request to Columbus, Ohio has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP(talk • contribs) 06:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2024
This edit request to Columbus, Ohio has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 06:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Done Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 22:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)