User talk:HMaloigne/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/2020-21/Seminar group 15/Truth

Hey guys! Just going through and trying to alter grammar, hope thats okay, if someone could look at mine that would be super helpful as I think I'm too used to it - let me know if it doesn't really make sense! (the logic section) Sunnday (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at it! Freeshsalmon (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Shall we have a discussion around the validity of sources like the guardian/independent. They are news sources and tend to be quite inaccurate when compared to the BBC etc? Frenchfries124 (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I would agree with your stance on the issue of validity with these sources in most situations, I believe it depends on which page you are using. In my section, I did not cite a news article from The Guardian, but instead a biographical profile of a practitioner, as the company also reports on and reviews different works in the arts sector. As many articles in the arts centre around a performance process, or the artists personal context, I don't think biases present as much of an issue in this context as they would do in reporting a political event, for example. Freeshsalmon (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, i think for biographical information its fine. For political commentary though it's a no go. Frenchfries124 (discuss • contribs) 16:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that when it comes to political concerns its hard to find evidence as statements always rely on opinion, so the issue spreads wider than the journalistic field (statiscal evidence for example can be tricky). But I think it can be constructive to cite press articles to describe different point of views in a certain context (e.g. a debate on a specific issue) if you refer articles from newspapers that have different political orientations. Empereurthepug (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)