Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Talk:Scientific Blackpill: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Sources
(→Sources: new section) |
|||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
As a suggestion, sources should absolutely be kept to prestigious and reputable journals, articles, studies, etc. | As a suggestion, sources should absolutely be kept to prestigious and reputable journals, articles, studies, etc. | ||
Non-reputable sources, even if it´s just one for a particular item, work as cherrypicking arguments for ignorant people. I suggest if there are any like these they be pushed to the supplemental part. | Non-reputable sources, even if it´s just one for a particular item, work as cherrypicking arguments for ignorant people. I suggest if there are any like these they be pushed to the supplemental part. | ||
:This is generally a good heuristic, but there are other heuristics to determine the trustworthiness of a source. For example, Rudder's graphs were also published in his book so they were reviewed by himself and others. Which sources do you find particularly questionable? [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 02:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC) | |||