Talk:Charisma (magazine)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charisma (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090223130836/http://www.charismamag.com:80/columnistbio/index.php to http://www.charismamag.com/columnistbio/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Controversy

I am removing the controversy section. The sourcing (Salon and Newsweek) are not strong sources to be singly used to make such a claim. Until better sourcing is found making these claims about the magazine, please do not reinsert. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Materialscientist, since you reinserted, do you think the sourcing is strong enough? Salon and Newsweek are not considered strong RS per [1] and Right Wing Watch certainly isn't. WP:UNDUE may also be applicable here. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Added citations to HuffPost and The Independent. These have drawn noticeable commentary. --GRuban (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The HuffPost isn't really a strong source for that either. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The two together, however, are fine. There are others. This is probably the capstone, an academic journal: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/627332. In fact, your query has prompted me to notice that there are so many others, that it may be worthwhile to expand this into a larger section than the single sentence it gets now. --GRuban (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that several poor sources combine to form a better one. But if there is enough sourcing to expand, that isn't a problem, as long as the sourcing is ok. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If better sources can be found, then Salon, RWW and Newsweek should all be pulled; they don't become stronger sources by association, and if another source, in turn, is strong enough to replace them it should do so. Incidentally, Materialscientist, for our (or his) convenience doesn't get pings. SERIAL^# 13:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would think it should be pulled until better sourcing is found, but I'm not going to revert an admin. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't be afraid of admins, they're people too. In fact, as a rule, they're more reasonable than most editors. It's kind of a requirement to be an admin! Discuss. For example, discussion of the most recent edit to this article: User_talk:Yamla#Charisma_(magazine)_cover_removal. --GRuban (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the Rick Wiles stuff needs better sourcing, and more important is unjust; it's apparently a rebuttal by Wiles to an anti-Wiles article, so describing it as "Charisma lets Wiles publis anti-semitic screed" is not really correct. --GRuban (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)