Jump to content

Talk:Nuclear-powered cruisers of the United States Navy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Refs

[edit]

@Horse Eye's Back: you removed several cites of globalsecurity.org as "Not WP:RS".

Per WP:RSP: "There is no consensus on the reliability of GlobalSecurity.org. It is not to be confused with globalresearch.ca." (globalresearch.ca has been blacklisted as unreliable, among other problems.) Perhaps you were seeking to remove the latter? As the refs were citing the former, I've restored them.

Also, I might as well ask; is it possible you've removed any other cites of gs.org instead of gr.ca from other articles? - wolf 19:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mistake. I've removed them again as GlobalSecurity.org is not a reliable source, you either need to get a local or community consensus that it is before restoring the challenged material. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: Well, it could be said there is already a consensus for this material source (more on that in a bit). Also, there is something to be said about honoring WP:BRD. That aside, I must ask: do you intend to remove every instance of globalsecurity.org being used as source? And, along with the multiude of other sources you're removing as "non-rs", is it your intention to just replace all of them with "cite needed" tags? Are you going to make any effort to find and add sources for any of this content?
Also, while taking a look through the previous discussions at RSN regarding globalsecurity.org (gs.org) over the years, I did notice a few interesting points;
  1. at one point it was indicated that gs.org has been cited over 8000 times (you gonna remove them all?)
  2. more than once, when an editor took issue with gs.org being a questionable source, it was pointed out by multiple editors that the cite in question was for a non-military subject, and that for military subjects, gs.org is a reliable source as the military content is usually written by subject matter experts or military historians.
  3. in many of the these discussions, gs.org was grouped in with other sites, and it appears the focus ended up on those other sites instead.
  4. I also noticed that globalsecurity.org has been confused with globalreseaech.ca before... more than once.
  5. the fact that gs.org has been cited on so many articles, by so many editors, repeatedly over so many years, is in of itself an WP:IMPLIEDCONSENSUS. Enough such that you should at least hold off on the mass-removal of this source, (on military-related articles at the very least). As it is, you appear to have many other cites to focus on at the moment anyway. - wolf 20:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you need to go to RSN and open an RFC then. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh jesus christ, it doesn't take more than one click on their site to find a completely unacknowledged copyvivo from RFA [1][2] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RSN opened, this is clear cut 8,000 cites or not... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you might calm down some? There is no need to get so snippy here. First you say "go to RSN..." which I did. Then you respond to that with blasphemy. Relax already, it'll get sorted out one way or another. Either it's considered RS and things will be just as they've been, which is just fine. Or its considered non-RS, and then I guess you get to hunt down all 8000 cites and remove them (and hopefully find new sources), and then make sure no one ever adds gs.org again. Either way life will go on. - wolf 21:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not even going to check the blatant copyright violation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked. I saw some duplication, and apparently RFA failed to give credit to GS.org for it. I'm sure it was a simple mistake. What's your point? (And how does that even help you?) - wolf 22:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You genuinely think that the real media organization copied the sketchy website and not the other way around? You understand that RFA originally published that article in mandarin and then translated it into english right? How can an article written in mandarin copy verbatim something written in english and then have it survive translation back into english? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meh... speculation. One questionable aeticle doesn't justify removing 8000 refs. A long-standing, widely used source doesn't suddenly become unreliable just on your say so. Surely you realize this? - wolf 01:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you haven't checked RSN recently? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Naw, not lately... once I saw the direction it was being steered in early on, I didn't bother going back. Cheer-picking a handful of questionable examples doesn't measure against the numerous (innumerable, really) suitable refs from the site. Removing 8000 refs will create quite a vacuum. In other words, you're creating more problems than solutions with this, and there are far more pressing issues that could and should be dealt with. But, if this your thing... go nuts. - wolf 19:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The hope with RSN is to prevent future disruption, not to clean up whats already been disrupted. I agree that we can't just snap our fingers and make the problem go away, but on the other hand you can't just ignore a problem because it is large or hard to solve.... Those are often the problems most worth solving. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's good that we can agree on something. Always better to leave things on a positive note ;-) - wolf 20:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuclear-powered_cruisers_of_the_United_States_Navy&oldid=1213144131"