Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Boynamedsue (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 123:
:::verified is a tricky word. Most sexual assault claims are unverified. The complaints about her job performance centered on other issues, like not taking care of prisoner exchanges. I don’t understand the determination to make this woman out as crazy or a liar. There are plenty of solid secondary sources that rapes occurred. Pick a different rape if you must. It isn’t your job to “verify” these sexual assaults, and frankly with war crimes so thick on the ground in Ukraine I don’t see why you two are obsessed with this. You are making false and possibly libelous statements — not sure if she counts as a public figure — and you really need to stop with the BLP violations. You are misrepresenting the sources as well. Deutsche Welle did not say she was unreliable. That would be libel, since the actual issues cited were pretty different than that. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 09:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
::::I'm sorry, but the reason I am talking about this is because her words do not meet the standards of inclusion in wikipedia without the serious qualification that what she said may not be true. If the information is agreed by everybody unverified, we shouldn't be publishing it without stating this. Denisova has personally [https://babel.ua/en/texts/79700-when-you-shout-they-stop-listening-to-you-ex-ombudsman-denisova-published-details-of-the-rape-of-children-by-the-occupiers-lawyer-larysa-denysenko-explains-why-this-contradicts-international-law-and-h admitted to exaggerating] her reports for propaganda purposes, so the information she provides has no place in our coverage until a reliable source appears. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 08:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::I fully agree with Boynamedsue that Denisova's declarations (unless "qualified" with elaborate and possibly off-topic explanations) don't satisfy a reasonable threshold of notability/inclusion in an article on War crimes: simply put, there's no good reason for having them there, they are not informative enough with regardto the subject of the article. However, I also think that these declarations should be treated as (unreliable) sources. I quote from the essay on interviews linked in my opening comment: {{tqb| The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material. Statements made by interviewees about subjects unrelated to themselves (e.g., the historian interviewed on the radio about local history) are independent and may be either primary or secondary.}} This looks crystal-clear and irrefutable to me. Denisova's declarations about sexual violence are a secondary (alas, unreliable) source on war crimes in Ukraine. [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 08:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
== Cambridge Scholars Publishing ==
| |||