KMCN43
Joined 22 October 2022
Latest comment: 2 years ago by KMCN43 in topic Reverted your edit to Sacheen_Littlefeather
Saleki Atsa! Feel free to leave me a message here, I look forward to connecting with you. --KMCN43 (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)KMCN43
Reverted your edit to Sacheen_Littlefeather
editI had to revert your edit to Sacheen_Littlefeather, because the sources you used were all tweets from third parties. Per WP:RS, twitter is not a reliable source. Thanks for your contributions, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for including that powows source. I'm not certain if it's reliable, but I'll let others opine before stepping in. Could I suggest you remove the twitter links? Hipocrite (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, if you have a better way to ensure the broader public is aware of the controversy regarding Jacqueline's allegations (not just re: Sacheen) is posted, I would be happy to help you add those sources to the citations and linked resources. That information cannot be ignored due to the ongoing, and well-known discourse happening in Indian Country that the public is generally unaware of. KMCN43 (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- I do. It's imperitive that if you want to influence Wikipedia's coverage of a topic, you not become "the problem," as if the dispute becomes inflamed, one of the easiest ways to deescalate is to get rid of "the problem." I am further informing you that Twitter is an exceptionally bad source to link outside vanishingly few exemptions (hyper-recognized experts saying inoffensive things and people tweeting nice things about themselves, basically) and that if you are the person frequently inserting things from twitter, you will become "the problem." I would readily say this to people on the other "side" of this dispute (which I decline to take a side in,) but they have not been inserting twitter links. Hipocrite (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- I understand and have read WP:RS. However, you have not answered my question. What sources do you know of, outside of twitter, convey the controversy surrounding J. Keeler's allegations and, her 'pretendian' list at large? It makes no sense that her SF Chronicle article be cited without also alerting readers to the questionable verifiability of her research. I will continue linking whatever sources I can find outside of twitter, but context matters; the context those twitter links provide is pertinent information for the reader. KMCN43 (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't. The SF Chronicle is not cited with respect to the truth of the matter, rather that the allegations have been made. I believe the PowWows source is enough to convey the controvercy - certainly, it does not make you "the problem" the way linking twitter will make you "the problem." You should allow certainly reliable sources to develop - there is no rush here. Hipocrite (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Understandably so to allow more reliable sources to develop. Unfortunately, that will not match the current urgency the SFC article has created. Also, 'according to' and 'alleged by' carry different weight in current vernacular, which is why my edit included the later. Lastly, I wanted to let you know that I have requested permission to link the twitter search for J.K. rather than the specific tweets currently linked so that folks can see all sides of the discourse, including her own opinions. Apologies for failing to alert you to this originally, it is one of the first sources I tried to link and why I linked the other two in its place. As already said, I will refrain from posting any other twitter links moving forward and will update to only the search link if that is approved for a more evenly balanced citation. KMCN43 (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'd note that you could use what I believe is reliable [1] to both bolster the reliability of PowWow and include as fact that "Keeler and her list are considered controversial within the Indigenous community, with some arguing that her research methods are unclear and that she has doxxed individuals without strong evidence." Hipocrite (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is great, thank you for the link! I will add it. KMCN43 (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't. The SF Chronicle is not cited with respect to the truth of the matter, rather that the allegations have been made. I believe the PowWows source is enough to convey the controvercy - certainly, it does not make you "the problem" the way linking twitter will make you "the problem." You should allow certainly reliable sources to develop - there is no rush here. Hipocrite (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- I understand and have read WP:RS. However, you have not answered my question. What sources do you know of, outside of twitter, convey the controversy surrounding J. Keeler's allegations and, her 'pretendian' list at large? It makes no sense that her SF Chronicle article be cited without also alerting readers to the questionable verifiability of her research. I will continue linking whatever sources I can find outside of twitter, but context matters; the context those twitter links provide is pertinent information for the reader. KMCN43 (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- I do. It's imperitive that if you want to influence Wikipedia's coverage of a topic, you not become "the problem," as if the dispute becomes inflamed, one of the easiest ways to deescalate is to get rid of "the problem." I am further informing you that Twitter is an exceptionally bad source to link outside vanishingly few exemptions (hyper-recognized experts saying inoffensive things and people tweeting nice things about themselves, basically) and that if you are the person frequently inserting things from twitter, you will become "the problem." I would readily say this to people on the other "side" of this dispute (which I decline to take a side in,) but they have not been inserting twitter links. Hipocrite (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, if you have a better way to ensure the broader public is aware of the controversy regarding Jacqueline's allegations (not just re: Sacheen) is posted, I would be happy to help you add those sources to the citations and linked resources. That information cannot be ignored due to the ongoing, and well-known discourse happening in Indian Country that the public is generally unaware of. KMCN43 (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)