![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 September 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Bitter Winter page were merged into CESNUR on 27 October 2019 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Before the creation of this, the major contributor of this article, Aidayoung, had extensively cite sources affiliated to Massimo Introvigne. After the creation of this article, Aidayoung has been inserting links to Bitter Winter in various articles. In one instance, a non-affiliated source (Paul Farrelly's dissertation, according to the article) is available yet not used. The statement in the article is not in the Bitter Winter article cited.
In this article in particular:
Those are signs of advocacy and even potential conflict of interest. - Mys_721tx ( talk) 20:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I included additional references to outside sources and checked and corrected the Porfiri quote. IMHO I do not believe as it is the article relies excessively on inside sources but hope others can contribute in the expansion/cleanup Aypedrito ( talk) 16:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Aypedrito
I hope I got your point; I changed "some international media" by listing the three medias that quoted Bitter Winter. I also deleted the statement that these media reported authenticity was confirmed by Uyghur sources, as this is not true for all medias. Obviously you are the expert here but I wonder how many media are "some media" under the policy. Perhaps three are not enough for "some"? Aypedrito ( talk) 14:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I would also need clarification about the notion of "primary sources." I may be wrong, as I am new here, but by reading the Policy I would conclude that "primary sources" in this case are sources associated with, or close to, Bitter Winter. Obviously Business Insider and Yeni Şafak have no association with Bitter Winter. Does the fact that Radio Free Asia shares some (or most) political opinions about China with Bitter Winter make it a primary source? In which sense, the article "relies mostly on primary sources"? The editor who created the article included a promotional section that was certainly based on primary sources, that I deleted, but the other references to Italian daily La Stampa and weekly L'Espresso etc. do not seem to correspond to what I understand to be the definition of primary sources. Aypedrito ( talk) 14:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps I got it. I cannot say that newspaper X "used" Bitter Winter because this would mean guessing how the journalist worked and, even if I am right, it would be original research. I substituted the word "mentioned," as that Business Insider, Radio Free Asia and Yeni Şafak "mentioned" Bitter Winter is a fact supported by the links in the References section. This applies to the sources I quoted but, if you confirm my understanding is correct, I can check all the sources the other editor quoted and eliminate the original research Aypedrito ( talk) 21:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I cleaned up other sentences, substituting expressions such as "several media" with enumerations of the specific medias, and making the quote from Manila Times more specific (to be strict, they quoted the editor-in-chief of Bitter Winter rather than Bitter Winter per se). Aypedrito ( talk) 04:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: For most news outlets, and especially for advocacy outlets, being cited by a reliable source can be an indicator of significance or reliability, although not always a definitive one. However, merely being mentioned is not, by itself, significant. If the "use" of Bitter Winter's work is somehow significant, use these sources to explain why it is significant, otherwise it appears to be name-dropping for promotional effect. More alarmingly, not all of these sources are reliable. Including obscure unreliable sources is not appropriate, and all sources must be judged in context. On this note, I would also appreciate a time-stamp for this link, since the text version does not mention Bitter Winter, making it difficult to properly evaluate. Grayfell ( talk) 03:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 September 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Bitter Winter page were merged into CESNUR on 27 October 2019 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Before the creation of this, the major contributor of this article, Aidayoung, had extensively cite sources affiliated to Massimo Introvigne. After the creation of this article, Aidayoung has been inserting links to Bitter Winter in various articles. In one instance, a non-affiliated source (Paul Farrelly's dissertation, according to the article) is available yet not used. The statement in the article is not in the Bitter Winter article cited.
In this article in particular:
Those are signs of advocacy and even potential conflict of interest. - Mys_721tx ( talk) 20:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I included additional references to outside sources and checked and corrected the Porfiri quote. IMHO I do not believe as it is the article relies excessively on inside sources but hope others can contribute in the expansion/cleanup Aypedrito ( talk) 16:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Aypedrito
I hope I got your point; I changed "some international media" by listing the three medias that quoted Bitter Winter. I also deleted the statement that these media reported authenticity was confirmed by Uyghur sources, as this is not true for all medias. Obviously you are the expert here but I wonder how many media are "some media" under the policy. Perhaps three are not enough for "some"? Aypedrito ( talk) 14:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I would also need clarification about the notion of "primary sources." I may be wrong, as I am new here, but by reading the Policy I would conclude that "primary sources" in this case are sources associated with, or close to, Bitter Winter. Obviously Business Insider and Yeni Şafak have no association with Bitter Winter. Does the fact that Radio Free Asia shares some (or most) political opinions about China with Bitter Winter make it a primary source? In which sense, the article "relies mostly on primary sources"? The editor who created the article included a promotional section that was certainly based on primary sources, that I deleted, but the other references to Italian daily La Stampa and weekly L'Espresso etc. do not seem to correspond to what I understand to be the definition of primary sources. Aypedrito ( talk) 14:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps I got it. I cannot say that newspaper X "used" Bitter Winter because this would mean guessing how the journalist worked and, even if I am right, it would be original research. I substituted the word "mentioned," as that Business Insider, Radio Free Asia and Yeni Şafak "mentioned" Bitter Winter is a fact supported by the links in the References section. This applies to the sources I quoted but, if you confirm my understanding is correct, I can check all the sources the other editor quoted and eliminate the original research Aypedrito ( talk) 21:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I cleaned up other sentences, substituting expressions such as "several media" with enumerations of the specific medias, and making the quote from Manila Times more specific (to be strict, they quoted the editor-in-chief of Bitter Winter rather than Bitter Winter per se). Aypedrito ( talk) 04:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: For most news outlets, and especially for advocacy outlets, being cited by a reliable source can be an indicator of significance or reliability, although not always a definitive one. However, merely being mentioned is not, by itself, significant. If the "use" of Bitter Winter's work is somehow significant, use these sources to explain why it is significant, otherwise it appears to be name-dropping for promotional effect. More alarmingly, not all of these sources are reliable. Including obscure unreliable sources is not appropriate, and all sources must be judged in context. On this note, I would also appreciate a time-stamp for this link, since the text version does not mention Bitter Winter, making it difficult to properly evaluate. Grayfell ( talk) 03:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)