Talk:The Truth About Guns

Contested deletion

This page is definitely not unambiguously promotional now, nor was it when it was first written and reviewed by AFC reviewers and it has barely changed since then. That tag is ridiculous and was probably added by someone who just dislikes the website it is covering, I created the article because it is a major website and is notable for inclusion and I used multiple reliable sources including a newspaper of record. - SantiLak (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This was created by a member of the blog in question to promote their non-notable blog. The citations provided are mainly self cites. Which is also in violation of rules. User:SantiLak has instead engaged in an edit war and retaliation to preserve a non-notable entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.30.8 (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The CSD was already rejected in November. I am not a member of the blog, it is notable, and the citations are overwhelmingly from reliable independent sources. I am not retaliating, i'm trying to discuss. - SantiLak (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Take it to AfD if you feel the atricle should be deleted. IP users can not create new articles, so please add an AfD template and summarize (concisely) the reason for deletion here, Someone would help you to open the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent reviews to improve reliability and quality of article

It has come to my attention that in response to an AN/I thread about an editor's behavior, that my edits are being called "unnecessary". To preempt the forthcoming reversion this editor is in probably planning, I decided to address his accusations and detail point by point the issues with the version of this page before I began editing it.

• First the change to the Alexa rank.

The rank was a month out of date (and while this is not a big duration) this website has seen a 2.5% drop in traffic in a single month and is now trending down on Alexa. These changes are factual and can be changed again as needed.

• Second the article read as such:

The staff updates the site with about 15 or more article's per day, with reduced updates on weekends.

However there is no information on the "About Us" webpage detailing the number of updates per day. This was most likely original research by the person that first wrote it.

• Third the article had this passage:

after founding the popular website The Truth About Cars in 2002.

This is misleading information first since more than a year before founding TTAG, Farago was forced to leave The Truth About Cars amidst a series of scandals involving potentially illegal pay rates and business practices, poor public relations, and feuds with other car blogs. We can put this bit back in, but it really isn't relevant to TTAG.

• Fourth the article had this passage:

The website has grown in staffing and now includes a total of 3 full time staff members and 2 to 3 regular part time contributors along with other associated staff and is now the most popular firearms related blog in the world.

I read the blurb and listened to the entire radio segment. The size of the staff is never mentioned and the assertion that they are "the most popular firearms related blog in the world" is a claim being made by Farago and not verifiable information. If a citation that supports either of the statements can be found, I would welcome its reinclusion.

• Fifth the article had this passage:

In April of 2013 the website was approaching nearly a million dollars in revenue per year which comes mostly from ad revenue and donations.

After reading the New Republic article, I could find no information about where the revenue comes from. Additionally doing some searching, I could not find anything on TTAG or state and federal filings that would suggest the webpage was using donations. It appears to be an unregistered sole proprietorship. Again if a source can be found, I welcome its reinclusion.

• Sixth I added this passage:

Currently the site's registered address is a P.O. Box in a UPS Store in San Antonio, TX.

This information supported by the references given.

• Seventh was the change from "Political Activism" to "Criticism" this was motivated by the following changes to this section to better reflect the section.

• Eight this passage was in the article:

The Truth About Guns blog has been highly vocal in its opposition to gun control measures that have emerged since its founding such as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, the Connecticut Assault Weapons ban of 2013, the New York SAFE Act, and numerous other gun control measures on the local, state, and federal level.

There is no citation for this. I will admit this probably just needed a citation needed tag instead of straight removal.

• Ninth this passage was in the article:

They recently held a campaign on their website called "Stand Strong Connecticut" in which readers of the website sent in pictures of themselves and a sign that said Stand Strong Connecticut in support of gun owners in Connecticut who were beginning to receive letters from the Connecticut State Police stating that they were no longer legally entitled to own some of their firearms which were banned under 2013 Gun Control Legislation.

The provided citation while mentioning the CT legislation makes no mention of either TTAG nor "Stand Strong Connecticut" and instead highlights other sites and groups unrelated to TTAG. If a source that does credit TTAG can be found, it can be re-included.

Doing some more looking it appears that the bit about "gun owners in Connecticut who were beginning to receive letters from the Connecticut State Police" was actually a hoax that TTAG fell victim to. See: http://www.guns.com/2014/03/11/breaking-hoaxster-comes-forward-ct-state-police-protest-letter/ Plbogen (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Tenth this passage was in the article:

Robert Farago called the group "our most formidable adversary" and proponents of "anti-gun agitprop".

The article does not say that and instead says:

On Saturday, the anniversary of the school shooting, Moms Demand Action plans to hold vigils, including one in St. Louis outside Central Reform Congregation at 11:30 a.m. On the blog, Farago called the event “anti-gun agit-prop” from “our most formidable adversary.”

I will make an edit shortly clarifying Farago's statement.

• Eleventh I added the following information to the criticism section:

The site has also faced criticism by the gun community for a tendency to express NRA talking points, and for censoring criticisms of the content of the site in comments The site has also faced criticisms of blatant plagiarism and copyright infringement. The site has also been cited using sexist slurs against opponents.

I'm more than willing to discuss wording that would be perceived as less "biased" against the site and I think I notice a couple of errors which I will correct shortly.

• Twelfth I removed the "{{Gun politics interest groups in the United States}}" template from the page. Looking at the list of other entries with this template, it does not appear to include any other weblog or similar news outlet on the list. TTAG's inclusion was an anomaly.

• Thirteenth I removed the "[[Category:Firearms-related organizations]]" category from the page. This had the same issue as the prior template. TTAG was unique in being the only for-profit media page in a category exclusive filled with non-profit activist groups.

• Fourteenth I removed the "[[Category:Gun rights advocacy groups in the United States]]" category from the page. This had the same issue as the prior category. TTAG was unique in being the only for-profit media page in a category exclusive filled with non-profit activist groups.

2620:0:1009:0:AD9F:CE51:2831:F1E6 (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Ooops, my browser logged me out without me noticing it. Plbogen (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

To start off I want to be clear that when I added some of these citations, I was very new to WP and didn't understand ref names so there may need to be more of those for inline citations. To be clear I am willing to discuss this and I am not "planning any forthcoming reversion" as much as the other IP user would like you to think. To go by points one by one that you listed, besides what I just raised, I'll start with 1: I have no issue with an Alexa rank change and if I accidentally reverted that then my bad. Point 2, there is no listing for that in the source and although it is true I do understand that the info needs to be in the source so that should be fine not being in there. Point 3, although those things about Farago at TTAC might be true, it is relevant to the general background of the founding. Point 4, the assertion is backed up by rankings and in the KQED reporting they aren't quoting Farago, the assertion is backed up by facts including here and although yes it is a TTAG source it links to Alexa rankings. Also to point 4, the citation for the staff members should have come from the about section but again as I said in the beginning about my very early experience with ref names and such but that can easily be fixed. Point 5, the info about sourcing coming from ad revenue and donations is again true based on what you can see on the site but it's fine if that part is excluded although the part about the million dollars should definitely be included. Point 6, seems perfectly fine. Point 7, there should still be a political activism section as it is a big part of their blog. Point 8, I think it should be re-added with the CN tag while I find the numerous articles they wrote in opposition to those measures. Point 9, here is a source from TTAG on the campaign, the citation was meant for the info on the events surrounding the letters. Also to the commenter's point about it being a hoax, that is a totally different letter which was a hoax saying that 250 CSP officers signed a letter refusing to enforce the new laws. Point 10, it is in a ton of their articles on the site, here is just one example but I understand what you mean in reference to that specific citation. Point 11, I have some serious issues with the criticism sections which is very full of citations and criticisms that really aren't true. In reference to the sexism claims, that article doesn't reference that and the supposedly "sexist" remarks including "pearl clutching" are just referencing the fact that the shirt might alarm many people on the street in New York and goes on to say that it might cause "leather clearing" which is in reference to a police officer drawing their weapon and stopping a person due to that shirt. The blog posts are really ridiculous for inclusion, you need reliable sources referencing criticism, not just some person who went on blogpost to rant. Point 12-14, despite being a for profit group they are still incredibly influential in relation to gun rights advocacy, very similar to other firearms advocacy organizations. - SantiLak (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Renewed discussion

To be clear I am willing to discuss this and I am not "planning any forthcoming reversion" as much as the other IP user would like you to think.

And yet you reverted it all!

1: I have no issue with an Alexa rank change and if I accidentally reverted that then my bad.

You did it again!

there is no listing for that in the source and although it is true I do understand that the info needs to be in the source so that should be fine not being in there.

And you reverted it still!

Point 3, although those things about Farago at TTAC might be true, it is relevant to the general background of the founding.

Then make a separate edit.

Point 4, the assertion is backed up by rankings and in the KQED reporting they aren't quoting Farago, the assertion is backed up by facts including here and although yes it is a TTAG source it links to Alexa rankings.

No it isn't and no KQED isn't quoting Farago. He just makes the claim himself!

It is backed up, here's the link again, there are Alexa links there, it is the most popular gun blog. -SantiLak (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Then cite that instead of the KQED interview where he makes the claim himself.

Also to point 4, the citation for the staff members should have come from the about section but again as I said in the beginning about my very early experience with ref names and such but that can easily be fixed.

Then why revert it?

Point 5, the info about sourcing coming from ad revenue and donations is again true based on what you can see on the site but it's fine if that part is excluded although the part about the million dollars should definitely be included.

Wikipedia is not for original research.

Point 6, seems perfectly fine.

Then why revert it?

Point 7, there should still be a political activism section as it is a big part of their blog.

Find some citation of it then.

Point 8, I think it should be re-added with the CN tag while I find the numerous articles they wrote in opposition to those measures.

Still waiting....

Point 9, here is a source from TTAG on the campaign, the citation was meant for the info on the events surrounding the letters. Also to the commenter's point about it being a hoax, that is a totally different letter which was a hoax saying that 250 CSP officers signed a letter refusing to enforce the new laws.

That source doesn't show that and you're wrong about the hoax.

The letter that was a hoax had nothing to do with the "Stand Strong Connecticut" campaign, and that source shows what that campaign was about so yes it does show that, it had to do with the Connecticut "assault weapons" registration. It had nothing to do with the hoax letter which is a totally different thing. - SantiLak (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't! The campaign was about the hoax letter! The facebook page says "Messages of support for Connecticut gun owners facing firearms confiscation." Plbogen (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Read the TTAG article where they ask for support for connecticut gun owners, it doesn't reference that at all, read the linked article that goes into more depth, it doesn't reference that at all. - SantiLak (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

IT SAYS IT ON THE FACEBOOK PAGE WHERE THEY POSTED THE IMAGES. Plbogen (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Link it here, because from all the articles listed on TTAG, they don't seem to be referencing that letter. - SantiLak (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

[[1]] "Messages of support for Connecticut gun owners facing firearms confiscation."

Has nothing to do with the letter, it has to do with the letters sent by the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection to gun owner's who missed a registration deadline, letters that were confirmed as real by NBC connecticut. - SantiLak (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Point 10, it is in a ton of their articles on the site, here is just one example but I understand what you mean in reference to that specific citation.

Then cite it.

Point 11, I have some serious issues with the criticism sections which is very full of citations and criticisms that really aren't true. In reference to the sexism claims, that article doesn't reference that and the supposedly "sexist" remarks including "pearl clutching" are just referencing the fact that the shirt might alarm many people on the street in New York and goes on to say that it might cause "leather clearing" which is in reference to a police officer drawing their weapon and stopping a person due to that shirt.

"pearl clutching" is a sexist remark that both casts male who disapprove of the shirts as being effeminate and references negative female stereotypes.

They were using idioms to describe alarm that people might have to a t shirt, not sexism, and they aren't referring to anyone specifically at all, they are speaking generally, it's not like they are saying "moms demand action are going to be pearl clutching". - SantiLak (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

They are sexist idioms used to demean opponents on the terms of sex-based stereotypes, how would you feel if they compared people who objected to shirt using an anti-hispanic slur? Would it still be speaking generally? Plbogen (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

They aren't using them to demean opponents, they are referring to people who might be frightened by a person wearing a tshirt that looks like a gun holster. It's as simple as that. They also are being criticized by you and not the article so you can't really say that they were criticized for it. - SantiLak (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes they are. They are purposefully invoke a stereotype of women to demean their opponents. It's as simple as that. If they said "People might act like Mexican thugs and shoot at you" would it be racist? Plbogen (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You're saying that by using an idiom in a statement that is viewed as sexist by some including you, that they are demeaning their opponents. That makes no sense, who are they demeaning? Are you saying they are demeaning all women and that all women are their opponents? I'm confused. - SantiLak (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow really? Yes they are demeaning all women. The "pearl-clutching" slur is to describe their opponents as a prudish hysteria-stricken women who can't handle seeing their offensive shirt. Its on the same par as calling them sissies or cunts or a variety of othered gendered slurs. Here is a conservative group discussing it. [2] Plbogen (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Women aren't their opponents, they aren't opposed to people who are scared of that shirt, they published an article that is partially quoted in the article you cited that criticizes people who wear the shirt and say that it would be incredibly stupid to wear the shirt in an urban setting. They are stating what they think would happen if someone wore the shirt in an urban environment and in doing so they used an idiom that some consider inappropriate and they also reference the fact that they think a person could get shot. - SantiLak (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if women are their opponents! The term is degrading to women. Just like calling someone a "fag" or a "pussy" or a "nigger" is degrading to homosexuals, women, or black people even even if it is being used at someone who is straight, male, or white. Its the fact that the term links a stereotype -- women clutching at their pearls in prudish outrage -- to a perceived negative behavior -- being offended by a shirt. It doesn't matter what the point they were trying to make they used a gendered slur to do it! This is Sexism 101 here. Plbogen (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It does matter when in the article you write "The site has also used sexist slurs against opponents, referring to opponents as "pearl clutching" women." - SantiLak (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The blog posts are really ridiculous for inclusion, you need reliable sources referencing criticism, not just some person who went on blogpost to rant.

You're right blogs are non-notable and unreliable, lets just delete the entire entry on this blog then. And if other gun bloggers are not valid sources of criticism for a gun blog than who is?

Your pushes for deletion have been denied over and over, this article went through AFC and was determined to meet the standards for inclusion, give up on that it is a notable article you can't just delete the article because you don't like them. Those criticism are just a bunch of blogspot ranters, not in any way established source of criticism. Gun blogs that are reliable or even Everytown and MDA's criticism's might be valid but googling until you find something bad said about them and finding some obscure random blogs, those don't qualify for inclusion. If blogs are non-notable and unreliable then would you support deleting let's say Talking Points Memo or ThinkProgress because those are blogs too. - SantiLak (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

TTAG isn't reliable. Its for-profit blogspam that fakes their numbers, steals content, ran by a con-artist who took bribes at his previous blog and exposes himself to women. And I love that a child like you can't understand sarcasm. Seriously stick to school. Stop playing at being a wikipedia troll. Plbogen (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a forum on your opinions on TTAG, I can understand sarcasm but you did support it's deletion before so I felt it was appropriate to respond that way. Get over yourself really, have some civility, stop with the childish attacks, all you are doing is being exactly what you so incorrectly claim I am, a childish troll. - SantiLak (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you get over yourself. You don't own this article. And frankly, you are the one who started with the snide remarks.

I know I don't, I'm very familiar with wikipedia rules on ownership, there is nothing wrong with removing unfounded and disingenuous edits and also, not really. - SantiLak (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

And yet there you are waiting until I don't pay attention and reverting edits. 9 times so far. All cited. And yes you did you've been a snide jerk the entire time. Plbogen (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not waiting but if you choose to interpret my actions that way, go ahead, freedom of thought. I haven't been and also really that's the pot calling the kettle black. - SantiLak (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what you did before! And I would bet come a week from now they'll be reverted again! And yes, reverting changes without any discussion in talk. Note that I had to come in here and preemptively address point by point my changes after you reverted the first time in order to get any of it to stick. I wish I had no life so I could monitor wiki pages 24/7. Plbogen (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Really, again with the attacks, it's not getting you anywhere with anyone, it's just uncivil and not contributing to any hopes for the article. - SantiLak (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Point 12-14, despite being a for profit group they are still incredibly influential in relation to gun rights advocacy, very similar to other firearms advocacy organizations.

Do you have citations you'd like to provide for that, or is it more of your original research?

Plbogen (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I'm really too busy to educate you on sexism and etiquette, so I won't be responding to this talk discussion again. If another reversion does happen I *will* file another ANI. Again I'm not opposed to improvements to the article and if you look I have conceded a number of points. Including not including the comments about the sexism on the blog as it is original research. But a full blown reversion will not be tolerated. Plbogen (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Well first off you don't seem that busy as you are editing Wikipedia during general working hours, second you really aren't educating me since I'm not learning anything I didn't already know, you seem to just be trying to yell at me through your keyboard because I disagree with you, also on the discussion point, I think that you are overlooking the D in BRD. - SantiLak (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF and qualifications

The problem with using them to cite this factoid about their recreation is that it's talking up the skills of the people involved, which is self-serving and therefore doesn't pass the WP:ABOUTSELF exception necessary to cite this blog directly. We would need a secondary source that passes WP:RS to include it. I'm inclined to think that there are other problems as well - in context, it feels like WP:SYNTH to try and lead the reader to a conclusion about the outcome of the simulation (ie. that it was because the gunmen were more trained.) That certainly isn't stated in any other source. Without that synth - ie. if we ignore the uncited implication that the sentence is trying to imply - it's trivia whose inclusion seems hard to defend, especially if no secondary source has taken note of it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF supports inclusion here. We are not using the TTAG article to establish weight, only to establish a particular fact regarding how the test was conducted.

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This is information about how TTAG conducted the simulation so it is about their activities. Who the participants were is neither self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It doesn't involve a third party. The claim directly relates to the source. We have no reason to doubt this claim and the article, or even this section, is not based primarily on this source. Thus the limitations and allowances of ABOUTSELF are satisfied. Springee (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It is self-serving in two respects. First, it makes the project sound more professional overall; it's typical peacock talk about how qualified they used are. Second, more importantly, it carries a WP:SYNTH implication that the reason for the outcome was because the terrorists were more skilled; given the blog's mission, this is obviously extremely self-serving. And if we're not relying on TTAG to establish weight (ie. if the factoid of the relative skills of the participants or that they used trained firearms instructors as part of the mission is both true and genuinely noteworthy on its own), why not just find a secondary source saying so? Or, let me ask you this. Assuming that the text doesn't serve to make the event or the site better (which would be self-serving), and assuming it doesn't imply a conclusion about why the outcome occurs and what it means (which would be both WP:SYNTH and self-serving), then... why do you want it included? What does it add, stripped of those contexts? Without the clear WP:SYNTH it's being used for here, it's meaningless trivia - why should anyone care if they used civilians and trained firearms instructors? --Aquillion (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You are really stretching to claim this is unduly self-serving. How is stating that they used volunteers and trained instructors unduly self-serving. Your claim of SYNTH was valid with the previous text but not with the current text. There are some secondary sources that have covered this but they are primarily firearms enthusiast cites. Regardless, this isn't a convincing reason to say a basic statement of fact should be removed. Certainly a link to the source of the study is a potential value add to readers of this article. Springee (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

To me, it still reads like WP:SYNTH - the implication is clearly there (especially since the section of the source it's drawn on unambiguously uses it to push that conclusion!) If there are secondary sources, produce them - firearm enthusiast sites are still usable as long as they pass WP:RS. But if no reliable sources have covered that aspect, I don't see how it belongs in the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; if you want to include something in the article, you have to show that it has significant coverage in reliable sources, or argue that it's noteworthy in some other way. Worse, by arguing that it's not self-serving and carries no implications with regards to the outcome, you're undermining your own argument for inclusion - the primary source you're trying to use to argue for inclusion unambiguously bases its argument about the relevance of the relative skills of the teams on the argument that this affected the outcome. You recognize that we can't use them for that interpretation (it would be self-serving), but if you discard that and yet still want that tidbit included, then there's nothing in the source you're using that would otherwise support inclusion. Again, beyond "this is a random fact that I found cool", why do you feel this is so important that it's worth using a primary source to get it? --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Ammoland.com, a firearms centric news site felt it was important to highlight this information and did so by linking through to an interview with one of the instructors [[3]], [[4]] Springee (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you know I'm going to say this, but that's not an WP:RS. (We can take it to WP:RSN if you want, but I can't see it passing muster - it looks to me like a personal website with no particular reputation; while this isn't the be-all-and-end-all, it doesn't even have a Wikipedia article.) I suggest just sticking with "they used volunteers for civilians" - which we can definitely cite to an WP:RS, now that I look - and avoiding the potential WP:SYNTH of comparing this to the attackers, at least unless we can find an WP:RS overtly making that comparison. --Aquillion (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Why isn't Ammoworld reliable for this topic? Sorry, at some point we are in an area that mainstream media won't be knowledgeable about. The same thing is true if we are talking about many topics. Springee (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I would also point out that many of these people would qualify as "expert opinion" Springee (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't really agree that we have to resort to sources like those (after all, the fact we're trying to cite here is fairly obscure and minor in the grand scheme of the article.) And I'm dubious about them being experts - like I said in the previous discussion, that standard is very high (they have to be a recognized expert in the field whose writing has been published in a reliable third-party publication about that topic, not just a strong enthusiast who says they've been doing this all their life. Otherwise every professional would be a cite-able expert on their job, which isn't the case.) More generally, I don't feel that firearms are as obscure a topic as you think - and if something only appears on obscure blogs or fan-sites, I'm not sure it belongs on Wikipedia at all. I'm also always a bit skeptical about the "we need this otherwise low-reliability source because otherwise its perspective would be under-represented" - WP:BALANCE isn't about covering everything equally; part of the purpose of WP:RS is that things that have broad mainstream coverage belong in Wikipedia, and things that are only covered by obscure enthusiast press with poor reputations generally, well, don't. There's some flexibility in terms of the amount of coverage that represents notability in a particular field, but I feel that relaxing sourcing standards in order to represent a particular perspective is WP:FALSEBALANCE, especially when the undercurrent (even unintentional) is "the mainstream press is getting this all wrong" - and let's be real, just a glance at these sites makes it clear that that's frequently their angle. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but Wikipedia isn't the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; if no mainstream source covers it then their views, interpretations, and "observations" are often WP:FRINGE and should get little or no coverage here. --Aquillion (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

TTAG editors could qualify as experts since we have shown that 3rd party RS have used them as such. Regardless, this is an issue I see when dealing with material where experts aren't likely to have been published in mainstream media etc. To be honest, I'm not sure why this whole section was included. It seems minor in the grand scheme of the subject and I would be OK with removing the whole section. Springee (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion:, it would be better if you proposed your compromise first. Perhaps we should just include a link to TTAG's article but leave out "instructor". That is a compromise I'm willing to accept. Springee (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

To address your SYNTH concerns I have left out the "instructor" part. Since TTAG conducted this simulation a link to their description of what they did is reasonable and complies with ABOUTSELF. Springee (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no particular opposition to including cite to the primary source alongside a secondary one to provide interpretation, although I would probably place it at the end of the paragraph next to that existing source to make the combination clear. --Aquillion (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm OK with moving the citation to the end of the section. Hopefully with that we will have an agreed compromise edit. I'm also OK, as I said above, with removing the entire simulation discussion. It reads a bit like something a previous editor just had to get into the article. When searching for TTAG references earlier this was not one of the first things to show up. Springee (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)