Talk:Triggernometry (podcast)

Edit warring

Owain.davies keeps putting the Sam Harris stuff back in despite pushback, most recently with original research and unreliable sources. This is not how things work. What in blazes is going on? Bon courage (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be sidestepping any sort of good faith assumption.

Your first undo made a vague reference to an essay (rather than policy).

After your second undo, I've taken that on board, and completely rewritten the paragraph in question in order to try and make it even more in line with policy.

More than happy to discuss, but this is neither OR nor unreliably sourced. This is mainstream media coverage of something that happened on this podcast, with sources.

Maybe "the blazes" would like to consider what the actual issue is? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

What rubbish. Have you never heard of WP:BRD? The New York Post is a junk source and the stuff about 'has received international attention' (whatever that is supposed to mean) is entirely your editorial. Poor show all round, especially in a WP:CTOP. I have raised a query at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

BRD duly noted, but your first revert was very much a fly-by with a vague reference to an essay, rather than policy. That meant that I restored it whilst I was trying to marshal some extra references and consider rewrite, but you then reverted again too quickly for me to do that.

On the second go, I have entirely rewritten it, to try and remove any bias or controversy.

Twitter and social media storms, like the one around Harris in this instance, are hard to cite, but there are a number of citations which support that his comments on this podcast drew attention from publications around the world. And I've tried to stick with written publications rather than the dozens of podcasts which have referenced it.

The intent of this remains to show that some people appearing on the podcast make comments which end up with media attention. Would you have any further suggestions? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the poor sourcing or your OR. Bon courage (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

at least we're now getting to substance of the issue.

I've made some further updates and added additional cites, including the Spectator, USA Today, and Sky News. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The WP:REFBOMB doesn't solve the WP:SYNTH problem. Bon courage (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm genuinely not seeing how that is synth. Synth is specifically reaching some sort of conclusion, whereas the point is that this episode was discussed in media, which is supported by the multiple refs. At no point have I attempted to make any position on what Harris said. The original had a quote, but if that's contentious, then its not worth dying in ditch over. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"this episode was discussed in media" is not something any source says. You've assembled a bunch of sources and made that assessment yourself. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Bon courage (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Whilst there is an ongoing dicussion, it is exceedingly bad faith to redirect the page without discussion. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 10:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Further to this - key points are that the redirect was done, but since then there are reliable sources which talk about the podcast itself. That changes the discussion, and redirecting on the basis of an old conversation isn't helpful. At a minimum this should be rediscussed. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 10:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any significant coverage in independent sources as WP:GNG requires, just lots of passing mentions in generally poor sources. Might need to go to AfD again. Bon courage (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Original research

For this edit[1] where in the source does it say George Galloway is considered 'left-wing' !?!? Bon courage (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

per WP:V, I would say that is a very attributable property for George Galloway, and rather than link bombing a dozen or more sources which say that, I'm not sure it is contentious? Unless you think that he isn't left wing? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

What I think, is not the issue. We are meant have content that is mirrored in reliable sources. It seems your novel thought about the range of political views of the guests on this podcast is OR, which is prohibited by policy. Also prohibited is adding unsourced material about living people (and these days Galloway is apparently pro-Putin, which is a lot more complicated than 'left wing'). Per WP:BLP I am removing all this unsourced content about living people and claiming a reversion exemption. Bon courage (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I made no OR assertions here, just named guests who are reliably attributable as left, right and centrist, as well as cited source for those non-political.

It was in no way "unsourced". The only part that wasn't directly sourced was George Galloway being left wing, and that is easily fixed. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 14:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It could only be fixed by WP:SYNTHESIS which is also a problem. What was your source for Farage being right-wing? Bon courage (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It isn't SYNTH to cite the left-wing part separately, and same for Farage, but if it makes you happy i'll remove him, and then we'll be cited all through within policy OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 14:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It would be textbook synthesis to combine different sources to arrive at a thought no source contains. And in fact was Farage even mentioned in any source you cited? Bon courage (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

but that isn't what is happening here. You're holding what to me seems a warped view of SYNTH. I am trying to show no conclusion or advance any OR, simply to show who has been on the show. Having separate ascription to different parts of that sentence isn't anywhere near SYNTH, as no new claim is being made.

In either case, I have a new proposed one

Political guests have included self-declared marxist Aaron Bastani,<ref>{{Cite web |title=An Honest Conversation with a Marxist - Aaron Bastani |url=https://www.imdb.com/title/tt28780334/ |website=IMDb}}</ref>, those more associated with right-wing views such as Jordan Peterson ,<ref>{{Cite news|last=Solon |first=Olivia |date=18 September 2018 |title=YouTube's 'alternative influence network' breeds rightwing radicalisation, report finds |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/18/report-youtubes-alternative-influence-network-breeds-rightwing-radicalisation}}</ref>, and those with centrist views such as Sam Harris.<ref name=spec/> OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 14:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You are trying to make the dubious point that the show has guests with a balanced range of political views. No sources (that have been produced) makes this point so you would need to combine unrelated sources to make it. If in doubt, ask at WP:NORN. (As a side note, WP:IMDB is a terrible source for anything, and should never be used.) Bon courage (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the point is that I'm not making that SYNTH. What I am doing in presenting a range of guests who have been on the show, who do represent a range of views, and readers can make their own conclusions, so exactly as policy. IMDb is good for its purpose, which is showing the existence of some sort of media, there's no use of it here to try and give any qualitative value. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 14:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said, WP:NORN is thataway. IBDM is not a trustworthy source period. Bon courage (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Article evaluation

So much puff-puff and going off into the weeds in this article. Most of the citations are passing mentions, none cover the podcast in any depth. Not one!

I quit deleting stuff after a while, though I did check out all of the remaining citations. No one cares who their agency is; if that's important then just mention it, not the "act" of signing up with an agency that doesn't even have a Wikipedia page of its own. There's nothing about a "roadtrip" in the Guardian/Joe Rogan source (SYNTH or OR). What is this, a bunch of namedropping? A lot of SYNTH; the final straw was "Iain Dale made Triggernometry one of his three recommended podcasts in his list of Top 50" as if Trig was one of his top 3—it wasn't!

This article was up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triggernometry (podcast) in 2020. The result was redirect to Konstantin Kisin, and it was redirected. Three years later it gets resurrected into an article. If this is all you've got after 3 years, I'm sorry but this does not pass Wikipedia's notability standards... or Wikipedia editing standards.

I recommend turning it back into a redirect. If not, then I would be happy to resubmit to AfD.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The only thing that gives me pause it that the podcast gets scrutiny in the 'Decoding the gurus' podcast[2], but ultimately I don't think this source is usable. So yeah, an AfD looks inevitable. Not this is also being discussed at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Notability requires the subject be covered (1) in detail, by (2) multiple (3) independent (4) reliable sources. Resurrected after three years, and working on it for three weeks, and it doesn't show this. Despite the arguments in edit summaries and on the talk page, it doesn't show notability. If persons are so persistent as to want to keep this article, they should have come up with some evidence of notability by now... if there was any. Assuming an AfD in a new unit of time results in another delete result, then methinks a little salt would also be in order.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

There's a specific review of the podcast in the Times, and it appears in a Telegraph recommendation list.

And it specifically was one of the three recommended ones in that Iain Dale article, if you read it!

So for notability -

• in detail - this is the weakest of the four, admittedly, but those ones above I think are more than passing mentions
• multiple sources - yes
• independent sources - yes
• reliable sources - yes

I don't see this being close to deserving AfD OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 14:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

But no significant coverage. Bon courage (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I restored the redirect because nothing of significance has changed since the AfD. XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

As the person who AfD’d it the first time, I largely agree. I do think it is borderline, so I have kept my mouth shut till now, hoping someone would add something substantial, but the new sources that I have skimmed through have given no depth on the podcast itself (ie: significant coverage), and really only seem to mention the podcast in the context of other topics. A source was offered on my talk page earlier this year (here), by another editor hoping to restore, but even that was pretty scant. — HTGS (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Ghostarchive to the rescue. It had been added to the new version of this article, and I reviewed it (via ghostarchive). It's a short opinion piece review from a Times columnist, not a reporter. You can see the SYNTH it was used for in my edit here [3].   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)