Editing Talk:Cognitive warfare (section)

== Weasel words?? ==

Hey all!

I looked up the definition of weasel words but the definition seems to be just as ambiguous!

SOS wikipedians!

Thanks again!! [[User:CognitiveOP|CognitiveOP]] ([[User talk:CognitiveOP|talk]]) 07:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:[[User:CognitiveOP|CognitiveOP]]: Apologies for the tone; I realise these standardised warnings can come across as impersonal, especially for new contributors.{{pb}}<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>I do hope others stop by and can give a second or third opinion. The fact is, I've made a few attempts at trying to understand this article, and I don't know whether it's my lack of expertise in cognitive science and military matters, or the dense language it's written in, but this article remains inscrutable to me. Therefore I also can't assess whether this is an accurate summary of reliable secondary sources, or contains [[WP:OR|original research]] or [[WP:fringe theories|fringe theories]].{{pb}}<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>To be clear, this is not a judgment of you or your work, but keep in mind that the [[WP:AIM|goal of Wikipedia]] is to build an [[encyclopaedia]], that is, a tertiary reference, accessible to general readers, that summarises topics that have already seen [[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage]] in [[WP:RS|reliable secondary sources]]. To that end, we strive to [[WP:MTAU|make technical or specialised subjects comprehensible to general readers]], while holding fast to our [[WP:PILLARS|fundamental principles]]. You may also find the essay [[WP:Relationships with academic editors|Relationships with academic editors]] illuminates how scholars and Wikipedians may end up at loggerheads despite everyone's best intentions.<span id="ClaudineChionh:1729931064859:TalkFTTCLNCognitive_Warfare" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;'''[[User:ClaudineChionh|ClaudineChionh]]''' <small>(''she/her'' · [[User talk:ClaudineChionh|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/ClaudineChionh|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/ClaudineChionh|email]])</small> 08:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)</span>
::It is completely ok! no offense taken at all! I am currently in the midst of making it more digestible! If you have any more opinions at all don't hesitate to drop them here! The sources are another thing I'm improving upon to make it as reliable and credible as possible! Will doing so begin to remove the caveats at the top of the page? [[User:CognitiveOP|CognitiveOP]] ([[User talk:CognitiveOP|talk]]) 19:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::After revising the article, there's only two top-of-page maintenance tag issues remaining: one for the article itself maybe not meeting the general notability guideline, and one for the sources having questionable reliability. I think we can probably remove the source-reliability one at this point; everything that's left appears to at least facially pass the reliability test. The general notability guideline is topic based, and says that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The main sticking point on this issue would be whether the coverage cognitive warfare has received meets the "significant" bar. I think it arguably does, though it's maybe a bit questionable whether it does so from sufficiently independent sources (e.g. the major sources that appear to discuss cognitive warfare appear to be mostly military entities and defense academia) but I don't think that's enough to suggest it fails the GNG bar. As such, I'm going to remove those two maintenance tags, but if someone disagrees with my assessment there they're more than welcome to revert away. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 20:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)