User talk:HandThatFeeds

This is HandThatFeeds's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024Auto-archiving period: 14 days

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: the Arab–Israeli conflict abortion complementary and alternative medicine post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people Falun Gong governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed pseudoscience and fringe science the Troubles They should not be given alerts for those areas.

HandThatFeeds is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Jorts

You undid my edit stating that "Slate and CNet are reliable sources". Well, first, Slate hasn't been evaluated and CNET hasn't been considered reliable since 2022. But that's not the issue. As I put in my justification, their articles aren't written from their own investigations. They have relied, by their own admission, entirely in the Reddit thread, which is NOT a reliable source. There's no dispute that the "story" of Jorts and Jean has been created by the Reddit and Twitter creator(s), but there is no evidence that any of the events related have ever occurred. That is what makes the sourcing unreliable—the article authors haven't interviewed the creator(s). The entire section is based on a Reddit thread. The whole article is a disaster, but the section on Office Events is particularly problematic. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misunderstanding of what "reliable source" means. We definitely could not use the original posts as reliable, but these are independent secondary sources, reporting what those posts said. Whether or not they interviewed the creator(s) is irrelevant. RS do not have to perform investigations to still be reliable for our purposes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]