Talk:A Letter to Liberals

Citing The American Conservative
I don't think citations to this are appropriate. It is a propaganda or opinion site founded by Pat Buchanan and it is not usable under the Reliable sources policy. Saikyoryu (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it's a fair point to raise. I did revert your edit, but I accept I could be wrong. I think in the context of it being an inline citation "The American Conservative said..." it is acceptable and normal. I could reject it as a citation for a statement of fact, but not for quoting their opinion. Obviously we disagree on this and therefore probably need the input of others. I'm keen to see what others think. CT55555 (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just realised you reverted my revert, which is disappointing, considering WP:BRD. I had hoped and assumed you'd discuss the revert before reverting the revert, but here we are... CT55555 (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a reliable source so it should be discussed before inclusion right? And Reliable sources and undue weight says that "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all" while also basically everything that RFK believes is under Fringe theories. Saying that "The American Conservative Praised" while not saying what or why they praised feels like it's trying to avoid saying the what was praised. Which is really important since basically everything in the book is in the Fringe theories and Conspiracy theory categories. The whole lead probably needs to be rewritten because "The book accuses the United States Democratic Party of lacking critical thinking and urges the party to protect civil liberties" is a REALLY bad description of what the book actually says? The book is almost entirely conspiracy theories about vaccines and COVID.


 * A bigger problem for this article is that of 3 sources only one is Reliable and that's Current Affairs. The Skyhorse is the publisher page and the other stuff spammed over it is American Conservative. I removed another line that used some loaded language and only cited the unreliable source of American Conservative.Saikyoryu (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's in the yellow category at WP:RSP. As per the notes, it should not be used as a source for facts. But opinions (which is what this was, what you removed) should be accompanied with in text attribution. This is what existed.
 * WP:BRD is not policy, but it is good practice. I'm going to seek input from others at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard CT55555 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have requested more input [] CT55555 (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * wp:undue is a valid objection this is one source making a claim, moreover, it is not attributed and thus puts the claim in Wikipedia's voice. Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven, I belive you are mistaken (edit, I see now you were not mistaken, I was, realising now it was used for two things, I"m focussed on the second and you are commenting only on the first) : Here is how the article looked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Letter_to_Liberals&oldid=1166049781
 * It said "The American Conservative magazine described Kennedy's message as urgent." CT55555 (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The text (before the last removal) was: "The book advocates to liberal Americans to protect the civil liberties and the First Amendment, and to reject what the author describes as cancel culture." There was no mentioning of this being an opinion, or even from The American Conservative in-line.
 * That said, including TAC in the review section is fine. Cortador (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is helpful. I had missed that it was used twice.
 * Propose that we all agree to use it for the "critical reception" part and not for the "synopsis" part. Presumably a sensible compromise? CT55555 (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Cortador (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a book put out to promote his political campaign. Describing it as "urgent" is kind of like calling water wet. Using just the The American Conservative line doesn't seem to follow the undue weight guideline and just saying "they called it urgent" is so vague that it's meaningless. I don't think it should be used unless there are other reviews in the critical reception section and the wording is fixed to be more specific on what American Conservative meant.Saikyoryu (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Speculation (even if credible) about RFK's motivation to write the book is way off topic here. There are other reviews in the Critical reception section so I don't understand your concern there either. "urgent" is a quote. It is true. That is what they said. It seems due, i.e. a brief mention, I am struggling to understand your objections. CT55555 (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)