• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is a book or magazine a valid source?

Is a book or magazine a valid source?


  • Total voters
    25

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Is a book or magazine a valid source?

You say something, someone requests your source for said information, you provide a book or magazine as your source. If a book you might even provide an Amazon or Barnes & Noble link. For a magazine, of course you provide which issue. (It does need to be reasonably obtainable)

Is that a valid source?

I say it is, and eff you if it doesn't satisfy your laziness-inspired desire for a clickable link. You wanted a source and you got one. Get over it. The ball's now in your court.
 
Depending on the author, a book is acceptable. Magazine, no.

Of course, for sports information and non-controversial stuff, just about anything is acceptable (and debatable) as long as the source is not known garbage.
 
Last edited:
That would apply to ANY source, paper or internet.

Not really. Some source mediums are simply not acceptable, no matter who they claim wrote the article, like magazines.

Note my edit above.
 
Both are acceptable sources since both books and magazine articles can relay statistical, empirical, anecdotal and other information that can be used to support an argument. Just like all sources, the veracity of the arguments made in the book or magazine article are subject to scrutiny, but there isn't anything inherently untrustworthy about either.
 
Not really. Some source mediums are simply not acceptable, no matter who they claim wrote the article, like magazines.

Note my edit above.
What, specifically, makes a magazine any less reliable than a book or an internet article?


Both are acceptable sources since both books and magazine articles can relay statistical, empirical, anecdotal and other information that can be used to support an argument. Just like all sources, the veracity of the arguments made in the book or magazine article are subject to scrutiny, but there isn't anything inherently untrustworthy about either.
I agree with this. When I see some people get all indignant over having a book cited I sense it's more to do with the fact that they can't remain in their recliner and click on a link, and that disputing the source would involve actual work on their part.
 
Other- it depends on many things such as if the work is opinion or fiction. Many of James Michener's or Tom Clancy's books are a mix of fact and fiction (histirical fiction?) so they may be good references in some cases but pure BS in others.
 
Nope. Only Breitbart and Media Matters are acceptable.
 
What, specifically, makes a magazine any less reliable than a book or an internet article?

One can find critiques of a book, not so of a magazine article.
 
Is a book or magazine a valid source?

You say something, someone requests your source for said information, you provide a book or magazine as your source. If a book you might even provide an Amazon or Barnes & Noble link. For a magazine, of course you provide which issue. (It does need to be reasonably obtainable)

Is that a valid source?

I say it is, and eff you if it doesn't satisfy your laziness-inspired desire for a clickable link. You wanted a source and you got one. Get over it. The ball's now in your court.

No. You have to spend 2-3 years writing a book of your own and it has to be peer reviewed by at least 20 people with a Doctorate degree but even then it's really not valid if I disagree with you. The book or magazine is fine.
 
Ah. It falls into place. You're one of the lazy people who needs to rely on a clickable link. Got'cha.

Carry on.

Wrong.

I'm one of the people that does not accept a source that is void of outside critical analysis (such as magazine articles). I'm sure my discernment of sources is superior to yours, given my education dwarfs yours. One shouldn't get personal about things they're ignorant regarding.


It all falls into place. You're one of those people that thinks he can critically analyze another's work all by himself. You know, one of those people that doesn't understand the purpose of outside review, let alone peer review. You think you know it all and you don't need reviews of material to determine accuracy. And guess what? That's stupid.

:giggling:
 
Last edited:
Both are acceptable sources since both books and magazine articles can relay statistical, empirical, anecdotal and other information that can be used to support an argument. Just like all sources, the veracity of the arguments made in the book or magazine article are subject to scrutiny, but there isn't anything inherently untrustworthy about either.

Exactly. Depends on the book or magazine.

I subscribe to a few magazines whose content is only available online if you are a subscriber (New York Review of Books, for example). They are reputable magazines, but I can't always link to an article. In those cases, I try to be very complete about the source.

I'd prefer a well-edited fact-checked magazine article (or book) to a non-edited blog post, in many cases (depends, of course, on the blog)
 
That would apply to ANY source, paper or internet.

True. That's why I voted other. Books and magazines have as much chance of being right (or wrong) as any other source.
 
One can find critiques of a book, not so of a magazine article.

Actually, yes, there are magazine articles that get reviewed, critiqued, debated. Just depends on the magazine and the topic of the article. Similarly with books. Not all are critiqued. For example, John Grisham's book "The Innocent Man" - it was NOT a fiction book; it seemed to have a firm grasp on the facts in the cases it presented, and it certainly re-confirmed my impressions (from many articles and books and whatnot) that justice is not always fair in our country.

However, I'm not sure I saw a lot of critiques of it, either confirming or disputing it. Maybe I just missed them.
 
Does no one else in this tread understand the importance of outside reviews and that magazine articles have none?

Wtf, did anyone in this thread go to college?
 
Just because something is printed or linked to a website doesn't make it automatically valid, it does depend on the validity and credibility of the source. For instance- Drudge Report, which I find has some interesting News stories that don't get covered by the mainstream press, also uses a source that I thought was legit (Infowars) and have been called out on it several times. And it's no better than a grocery store tabloid. I assumed coming from his site, which is wildly popular, that it had to be good. For the most part I believe a majority of non-opinion or fact based websites that provide information attempt to be accurate.

I've heard Wiki get trounced here quite a bit and haven't seen it to be a bad source overall.
 
Does no one else in this tread understand the importance of outside reviews and that magazine articles have none?

Wtf, did anyone in this thread go to college?

Well, it depends. There are a good number of professional journals which only have peer reviewed content.
 
Actually, yes, there are magazine articles that get reviewed, critiqued, debated.

Not by reputable sources and not in any easily found works. Scientists do not bother reviewing magazine articles - it does nothing for their career and in no way advances science.

You think a blog review of a magazine article is worth a ****? It's not.
 
Last edited:
Well, it depends. There are a good number of professional journals which only have peer reviewed content.

An academic (and I suppose professional, whatever that means) journal is not a magazine.
 
When quoting a source, one is only acknowleding the source, not the veracity, accuracy, integrity, math, etc. In a professional paper, it should be verifiable sourcing to give credibility to peer review. If I need to quote a page and verse from a comic book, I certainly acknowledge the source.
 
Actually, yes, there are magazine articles that get reviewed, critiqued, debated. Just depends on the magazine and the topic of the article. Similarly with books. Not all are critiqued. For example, John Grisham's book "The Innocent Man" - it was NOT a fiction book; it seemed to have a firm grasp on the facts in the cases it presented, and it certainly re-confirmed my impressions (from many articles and books and whatnot) that justice is not always fair in our country.

However, I'm not sure I saw a lot of critiques of it, either confirming or disputing it. Maybe I just missed them.

As far as that book in particular most critiques I have seen have been favorable.
 
An academic (and I suppose professional, whatever that means) journal is not a magazine.

Well, we call them magazines, or at least we do in my profession, and that's essentially what they are.
 
Well, we call them magazines, or at least we do in my profession, and that's essentially what they are.

We, in academia, do not.

Who reviews the 'professional journals' that you read? Where are these reviews available? Do you have an example of a 'professional journal' article and its critical reviews?
 
Does no one else in this tread understand the importance of outside reviews and that magazine articles have none?

Wtf, did anyone in this thread go to college?

No offense meant, but I've read hundreds of peer reviewed magazine articles, and thousands of non peer reviewed blogs, books, and the like. I trust one as much as the other.

I try to do my own confirming. The few times I haven't, I find myself getting shot down with a buttload of facts.
 
Back
Top Bottom