Talk:In Search of Aliens
Appearance
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sources
[edit]These are potential additional sources that have been mentioned at the fringe theories noticeboard (WP:FTN) (or at least possible indications of notability):
- https://fortune.com/2020/01/21/project-blue-book-aliens-ufos-history-channel/
- https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/01/02/close-encounters-racist-kind
- http://www.jasoncolavito.com/in-search-of-aliens-reviews.html
—PaleoNeonate – 16:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- I added the second two, but don't wish to register to access the content on Fortune.com. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- The author of the article on the Southern Poverty Law Center's website, Alexander Zaitchik, is a free-lance writer who is not listed as being on the official staff of the organization. Attributing the criticism of the show to SLPC and not the writer doesn't seem right. It'd be different if he was a full-time staff writer. His Wikipedia article doesn't even mention the SPLC. The lines in the article need some tweaking in my opinon, as the citation goes to a non-staff-written article on the organization's website and not an official editorial or position statement of the SPLC. 5Q5|✉ 12:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- I would support revision to read “according to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch blog...”, which is how it’s referred to in RS news outlets reporting on material published there. FWIW, I have not seen reporting that disconnects material published by SPLC Hatewatch from the SPLC, as if the opinions were not endorsed by the organization. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- The proposed revision looks good. I would use as a comparison the possible confusion to a reader of citing organizational level support for a position vs lower related entities and authors with this example: CFI vs CSI vs Skeptical Inquirer vs Skeptical Inquirer column vs column author/contributor. Since SPLC doesn't make clear if everything they publish is official position or the opinion of the writer, some extra clarification is helpful. 5Q5|✉ 13:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't compare it to a column. Hatewatch is an SPLC project that was originally launched as "Klanwatch" in 1981. Similar to SPLC's "Intelligence Report", Hatewatch includes writer bylines or "Hatewatch staff" bylines [1], but the material is fully endorsed rather than disclaimed by the organization. For example, Hatewatch's release of Stephen Miller's emails was universally credited to the SPLC with no mention of its Michael Hayden byline.[2], [3]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree, some articles appear to labeled as staff written and others attributed to a specific writer (the one in question the latter). According to the SPLC's entry on the list at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the SPLC is a generally reliable but biased source and such per the requirement of WP:RSOPINION given in the entry, sourcing it requires mentioning the writer's name of the article, which in this case is Alexander Zaitchik. Can you insert his name somewhere in the material you added? On another matter, with some levity, this morning I came across a gif on Twitter from the show. I don't know how widespread it is being used, first I've seen it, ha. 5Q5|✉ 15:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't compare it to a column. Hatewatch is an SPLC project that was originally launched as "Klanwatch" in 1981. Similar to SPLC's "Intelligence Report", Hatewatch includes writer bylines or "Hatewatch staff" bylines [1], but the material is fully endorsed rather than disclaimed by the organization. For example, Hatewatch's release of Stephen Miller's emails was universally credited to the SPLC with no mention of its Michael Hayden byline.[2], [3]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- The proposed revision looks good. I would use as a comparison the possible confusion to a reader of citing organizational level support for a position vs lower related entities and authors with this example: CFI vs CSI vs Skeptical Inquirer vs Skeptical Inquirer column vs column author/contributor. Since SPLC doesn't make clear if everything they publish is official position or the opinion of the writer, some extra clarification is helpful. 5Q5|✉ 13:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- I would support revision to read “according to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch blog...”, which is how it’s referred to in RS news outlets reporting on material published there. FWIW, I have not seen reporting that disconnects material published by SPLC Hatewatch from the SPLC, as if the opinions were not endorsed by the organization. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- The author of the article on the Southern Poverty Law Center's website, Alexander Zaitchik, is a free-lance writer who is not listed as being on the official staff of the organization. Attributing the criticism of the show to SLPC and not the writer doesn't seem right. It'd be different if he was a full-time staff writer. His Wikipedia article doesn't even mention the SPLC. The lines in the article need some tweaking in my opinon, as the citation goes to a non-staff-written article on the organization's website and not an official editorial or position statement of the SPLC. 5Q5|✉ 12:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)