User talk:GenoV84/2022/July

Archives

Myatt

To have removed the sources I added for the claim that David Myatt was a neo-nazi was right. Regarding the sources for the claim that David Myatt "has written extensively about his rejection of his extremist past and about his rejection of extremism in general", what source could be better than the extensive writings of Myatt himself about his rejection of his extremist past and about his rejection of extremism in general? Myatt is the consummate subject matter expert in what he writes. His credibility is irrelevant, because his writings are direct evidence for claims about his writings. It is forbidden to include self published sources even from subject matter experts in articles about living people, if the source is a third-party source. The sources written by Myatt are not third-party sources. The claim is about something that he wrote, so they do not need to be third-party sources. Any third-party source that would prove Myatt has written extensively about his rejection of his extremist past and about his rejection of extremism in general would have to cite the same writings of Myatt as its only source. There can be no other source for that claim than the writing of Myatt. Cameron Brow (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cameron Brow: You have no idea how Wikipedia works, don't you? Here's the answer that you are looking for, and the reason for removing the content that you previously added on that article: WP:SELFPUB, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:PROMO. You're welcome. GenoV84 (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ABOUTSELF Cameron Brow (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cameron Brow: Nope, that's not how Wikipedia works; read WP:PRIMARY. GenoV84 (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

The claim that Myatt "has written extensively about his rejection of his extremist past and about his rejection of extremism in general" is in no way an interpretation of anything. It is a descriptive statement of fact about what he wrote. Any educated person can understand what he wrote to be direct evidence for claims about what he wrote. This is actually the only evidence there can be for such claims.

And, anyway, WP:ABOUTSELF addresses the issue of primary sources, as: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", and any self-published source which gives information "about itself" is necessarily a primary source. Cameron Brow (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cameron Brow: Myatt's website and self-published books are not reliable sources. In any case, we can't use whatever he wrote because it would always be a bunch of dubious claims written by a primary, self-published, non-neutral, unverifiable and unreliable source, and on top of that, the author is too closely related to the subject of that article to be considered anywhere near truthful or reliable by WP standards. I suggest you to get familiar with WP policies and realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the proper place to make apologies for Neo-Nazi political militancy and links to Jihadist and Satanist terrorist groups (as Myatt allegedly attempted to do), and its content relies exclusively upon academic, reliable secondary and tertiary references. GenoV84 (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, per WP:ABOUTSELF, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves".

Again, this implies that primary sources may also be used in these cases, and also "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

It also says directly that self-published sources may be used in these cases.

If there is some other reason this edit cannot be allowed, make it more obvious for me. Cameron Brow (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cameron Brow: WP:ABOUTSELF clearly states that "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 published 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; and
the article is not based primarily on such sources."

As you can see, I have already expained far too well in my previous replies why books and blog posts written by Myatt himself violate the 1st, 4th, and 5th requirements of the WP policy that you are trying to appeal to. No matter how many times you try to make it look legit, it won't work. As I said above, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the proper place to make apologies for Neo-Nazi political militancy and links to Jihadist and Satanist terrorist groups (as Myatt allegedly attempted to do), and that totally qualifies as a bunch of exceptional claims that cannot be verified through academic, reliable secondary and tertiary references, unless you can find and cite reliable references that could support the verifiability of those exceptional claims (I doubt it, but you can try...). GenoV84 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]