RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation

Moderator noticeboard Welcome, BoN Use this talk page to contact the mods and report behavioral problems. The RationalWiki moderators are: Bongolian • CorruptUser • Techpriest • Plutocow • Spud • KarmaPolice

Ages...

If this isn't supposed to be here, sorry.

So, I was looking at 2020 U.S. presidential election and noticed out of the corner of my eye - 'Joe Biden, Age: 81'. Issue is, he was not 81 at the time of election [or nomination]. I think we should stop using the 'Age template' on these articles - reasoning, it's confusing [someone could read this and think he was 81 in 2020, making him 85 now].

Solution; we manually put in the age on dated event pages like this, possibly also adding 'Born, XXXX' allowing folks to make the mental maths on how old now. Or XXXX-XXXX if they've died since. In a way, this protects in advance if somone wanted to re-do the older election pages in the same style [otherwise the 1992 election shall feature a race between one 100-year old and one 77-year old. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. It can also also be written as something like "X was age Y in year Z", where Z is the year relevant to the article. Bongolian (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Overturning category/topic ban

I’d like to request overturning my sanction, it’s been nearly a year since I was sanctioned, and I have improved greatly in regards to adding categories when necessary (I can send proof via draft categories I added with sources). Rational Dude (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You could start by giving a few links to draftspace pages that you've worked on. Bongolian (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, here’s one. I also added a reference to a sentence for Charles Manson (he’s missing a lot of citations on there). Rational Dude (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I also removed the fascists category from a couple of drafts, like for Roseanne (since they lacked references and their labeling didn’t make sense anyway). Rational Dude (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the Jacobin citation is best source on Subianto, particularly since Jacobin is described by us as propaganda. For the fascism category, I think that there are two ways that a page would qualify, either self-admitted or definitionally fitting one of the three definitions on our fascism page. Since the page does not go into a definitional qualification, I think that this Intercept article[1] (rather than the one that's there now,[2] which is sort of secondary and not used in reference to fascism) would be a better source for Subianto's admission on fascism, where Allan Nairn (a respected journalist) interviewed and quoted Subianto. This is another source from Nair's website.[3] Bongolian (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Jacobin is rated as 'High' on factual reporting. Sometimes, 'propaganda' can simply be 'reporting stories which wouldn't be covered otherwise'; something which I note in the UK is sometimes filled by the communist Morning Star [who must not be trusted ever in foreign affairs coverage]. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there are problems with citing RW as an authority here, because of the loose editing standards we employ and the variable quality of our articles. Also, keep in mind that The Times can be considered a propaganda outlet of the state department, but it's still considered a reliable source. Carthage (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I sorta agree on that. 'Propaganda' is a loaded term, after all. While I would argue that while Jacobin has 'an agenda' and 'has a bias' [but then again, every outlet does!] it is not a 'propaganda outlet' in the respect, say Russia Today is. I personally try to follow WP's judgements on sourcing [which I shall point out green-ticks Jacobin] but will cut a bit of slack when it comes to less-covered topics or decently-written op-ed pieces [including the occasional blog].

Speaking of which, not only is Jacobin 'good enough for WP' but I shall also point out that the article writer personally [Michael G Vann] is a specialist in the region, including Indonesia. Coupled with the usual Anglosphere myopia and lack of really decent English-language reliable/impartial outfits in the region [The Straits Times and New Straits Times are known to 'bend' under govt pressure] there is a decent chance you're looking at the best opinion-piece on Subianto outside of niche, paywalled academic papers. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, how am I supposed to know which source is safe for ratwiki and which isn’t? All sources we use have bias to some degree. So it’s probably going to be impossible to find a source that we can universally agree on is best. I prefer using sources that are reliable on the topic for whichever subject we have a page on. Rational Dude (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't exactly trying to say that Jacobin was a bad source in this case, just that Nairn's own transcript on his website, which gives more context, is a better source. The word 'propaganda' is right on the first sentence of our page and appears no where else on the page. Perhaps it should be removed or clarified elsewhere on the page? Bongolian (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Jacobin is no more propaganda IMHO than the National Review is IMHO; both I see as extremely biased and opinionated sources, but neither have *direct* ties to a political party that I am aware of (even though the National Review heavily favors conservatism and Jacobin clearly favors socialism / "hard left"). Sometimes you get fuzzy cases; Fox News is one of those which is not full-on propaganda in the style of RT, but displays many characteristics and evidence of being a propaganda arm of the GOP, and even the other Wiki notes that as such. Jacobin is IMHO not even close to being a similar case based on the evidence I know of (same with NR); unless we can source some details proving otherwise, we probably can remove the "propaganda" description from the Jacobin article, methinks. BobJohnson (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What transcript and who is Nairn? KarmaPolice (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Allan Nairn is a journalist who did some brave reportage from East Timor during the war. He was imprisoned in Indonesia for it at one point. The transcript is the 3rd linked citation above. Bongolian (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What definition of propaganda are we using? This seems to be a very arbitrary category here. Clearly, if we mean an outlet that pushes a specific narrative that benefits specific interests, then The Times fits that bill clearly with its pushing of narratives promoted by the US state department. Do we mean outlets with provable ties to established authorities? We can call The Post the propaganda arm of Jeff Bezos, then. I doubt many people here would like that however, befitting this vibes-based analysis y'all are doing. Carthage (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The other Wiki provides a definition. It's admittedly fuzzy to distinguish between "the persuasive op-ed" and propaganda (the distinction between straight news and propaganda OTOH is pretty clear). I do like the NATO definition in the article ("information, ideas, doctrines, or special appeals disseminated to influence the opinion, emotions, attitudes, or behaviour of any specified group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly"). Generally speaking, I think some form of "manipulation of the truth" also has to be involved.

To me, what makes Fox News propaganda and the WaPo / NY Times "not quite as much" is:

A) There is a more direct link between politics and media at Fox News. I certainly am not aware of cases similar to the case at the other sources where Republicans groveled at the feet of Tucker Carlson, to give one example. Rupert Murdoch is way more "hands on" with his media than Bezos, at least as far as I know.

B) Even the "news" division of Fox News is under pressure to align with the GOP, in a way that I'm not aware of for Wapo / NY Times. In fact, arguably the later two are more guilty of the opposite; those two papers of late have been infected by balance fallacy problems (False balance.)

That being said, since this is "fuzzy", it's certainly possible that Wapo / NYT have done some "propaganda" things from time to time. I just don't think simply "having an opinion" qualifies as propaganda... which is why I don't consider Jacobian or NR as such. To me, there has to be some stronger institutional ties. BobJohnson (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I removed 'propaganda' from the Jacobin page. Can we move on to the question the category ban on Rational Dude? Bongolian (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)