Adrian J. Hunter (talk | contribs) Undid revision 846629616 by 1.152.104.27 (talk) mischaracterises source, WP:NOTFORUM Tag: Undo |
Arianewiki1 (talk | contribs) |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
::How is The Spectator an unreliable source? --[[Special:Contributions/1.136.108.172|1.136.108.172]] ([[User talk:1.136.108.172|talk]]) 09:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
::How is The Spectator an unreliable source? --[[Special:Contributions/1.136.108.172|1.136.108.172]] ([[User talk:1.136.108.172|talk]]) 09:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::Where is the Wikipedia list for what is/is not a reliable source for biographies of living people? --[[Special:Contributions/1.136.108.172|1.136.108.172]] ([[User talk:1.136.108.172|talk]]) 10:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
:::Where is the Wikipedia list for what is/is not a reliable source for biographies of living people? --[[Special:Contributions/1.136.108.172|1.136.108.172]] ([[User talk:1.136.108.172|talk]]) 10:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
::How is The Spectator an unreliable source? [[User:Arianewiki1|Arianewiki1]] ([[User talk:Arianewiki1|talk]]) 08:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Removal: Unreliable sources for biographies of living people == |
== Removal: Unreliable sources for biographies of living people == |
||
Line 105: | Line 107: | ||
:The reliability of a source is determined by the content it is sourcing. The more controversial the content, or in [[WP:BLP|this case]] the more negative, the higher the sourcing standards are. Also can you please look at some of the policies you are quoting. From [[WP:BLPSPS]]] {{tq|Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published '''by the subject of the article'''}} (bolding in original). [[User:Aircorn|AIR<b style="color: green;">''corn''</b>]] [[User talk:Aircorn|(talk)]] 04:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
:The reliability of a source is determined by the content it is sourcing. The more controversial the content, or in [[WP:BLP|this case]] the more negative, the higher the sourcing standards are. Also can you please look at some of the policies you are quoting. From [[WP:BLPSPS]]] {{tq|Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published '''by the subject of the article'''}} (bolding in original). [[User:Aircorn|AIR<b style="color: green;">''corn''</b>]] [[User talk:Aircorn|(talk)]] 04:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
:Not sure why you think whether the link is [[WP:DEADLINK|live or not]] is relevant, but the ''Mamamia'' link is not dead. It is a source written by the subject of this article, so it is acceptable as a source for information about the article. ''Right Now'' and ''Sheilas'' sources are similar. ''In Daily'' is used to support the fact that she worked at a student newspaper; hardly controversial stuff. Why do you think it is an insufficient source for that claim? The ''New Matilda'' piece is an opinion bit, but again the information supported in the article isn't particularly controversial and your claim of it being "tabloid journalism" is unsupported. Yes, I would object to a BLP dispute tag; I do not think it is warranted. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 02:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC) |
:Not sure why you think whether the link is [[WP:DEADLINK|live or not]] is relevant, but the ''Mamamia'' link is not dead. It is a source written by the subject of this article, so it is acceptable as a source for information about the article. ''Right Now'' and ''Sheilas'' sources are similar. ''In Daily'' is used to support the fact that she worked at a student newspaper; hardly controversial stuff. Why do you think it is an insufficient source for that claim? The ''New Matilda'' piece is an opinion bit, but again the information supported in the article isn't particularly controversial and your claim of it being "tabloid journalism" is unsupported. Yes, I would object to a BLP dispute tag; I do not think it is warranted. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 02:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Deliberate Bias??? : Clementine Ford (writer) == |
|||
{{helpme}} |
|||
The continuing behaviour of editors shown here is quite appalling, and the continued protection looks like deliberate [[WP:Bias]]. Notable: [[User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] complaint and [[WP:PA]] here is not legitimate in that: "You are trying to cite an opinion column from a fringe conservative publication in article about a BLP. You have been *specifically* warned about doing this." This is false, because you reverted [[User:1.136.104.66]] '''without any explanation here'''.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clementine_Ford_%28writer%29&type=revision&diff=847854834&oldid=847853562] I've cited zero about this by this revert. |
|||
Q: How does this relevant and notable event actually be able to be added to this article. So far, no one here has provided what IS an acceptable sources? As multiple sources say similar things, suggests the desired item to be added is clearly factual. |
|||
So far,the negotiators have fail to guide how this item can be added, even though many editors have tried to add this item. |
|||
Does a RfC need to be implemented here to force consensus here or go through the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? |
|||
I urgently request that an independent admin help resolve this continuing impasse, without the fear of being trapped by ruthless admin discretionary powers repelling changes. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. [[User:Arianewiki1|Arianewiki1]] ([[User talk:Arianewiki1|talk]]) 08:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::Again: How is The Spectator an unreliable source? [[User:Arianewiki1|Arianewiki1]] ([[User talk:Arianewiki1|talk]]) 08:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:13, 28 June 2018
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What the sources say
I restored 3 edits made by one editor recently without any discussion why and just reverted an attempt to undo my edits again with no discussion why. The way it is worded now is objective and how the sources describe it. The changes made recently seem to be an attempt to cast a positive light on this individual instead of what the reliable sources say and leaving it at that. So instead of edit warring I ask why?Brownlife (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Brownlife, the subject of this article is obviously a polarizing person. Editors here will need to be very aware of the need to be objective and factual and to avoid anything which may be slanderous. There can't be attempts to cast either a positive or negative light on the subject. MurielMary (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah I agree but how is removing the bit about the man having disabilities justified? We also need to report what the reliable sources say. Can you put that bit back in please.Brownlife (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's already there in the next sentence - "sources claim he was autistic". MurielMary (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- But the sources all use the word disabled. I'm also concerned the parts some editors have picked to leave in paint Ford in a positive light and in no way are we just reflecting what all the sources say about the situation nor are we being objective. I removed the part about the disabled man's magistrate appearances too as it was not relevant and is slanderous.Brownlife (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah I agree but how is removing the bit about the man having disabilities justified? We also need to report what the reliable sources say. Can you put that bit back in please.Brownlife (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Brownlife, the subject of this article is obviously a polarizing person. Editors here will need to be very aware of the need to be objective and factual and to avoid anything which may be slanderous. There can't be attempts to cast either a positive or negative light on the subject. MurielMary (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Question over source validity
In 2017, Ford allegedly refused to answer questions from male students during a school presentation, only wishing to receive questions from female students. A move which apparently angered female students, some of whom got up and left in protest over Ford’s discrimination. The only issue is that Ford herself claims this isn't the case.
The two sources are from DailyMail [1], News.com.au [2] and Ford's personal Twitter [3].
Would these sources along with Ford's own Twitter be considered enough for a segment like her bullying of the autistic man, or would these sources be considered too flimsy to use, even with the acknowledgment and citation of Ford's dismissal of the events?
I don't want to post something which is considered vandalism, that is not my intent, so I figured I should ask here first just to make sure if it should or shouldn't go ahead at present with the currently available citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack pipsam (talk • contribs) 12:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4838780/Dad-s-outrage-school-s-guest-speaker-Clementine-Ford.html
- ^ http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/wtf/feminist-clementine-ford-sparks-walkout-by-refusing-to-answer-schoolboys-questions/news-story/281fd397dbef086806910390e5dae120
- ^ https://twitter.com/clementine_ford/status/903117508550451200
- I'm having a fair bit of difficulty with this one. The only source is a single parent, who wasn't there, and rang a talk back radio show to complain about Ford when they were discussing feminism. The school hasn't commented as far as I am aware, Ford has denied it, and it has had very limited coverage. Given that it seems to be a strong claim that is very poorly supported, I'm not sure that it is worth including. - Bilby (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree. There is consensus that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. News.com.au is part of Newscorp, and would be considered a reliable source; but the article is in the "lifestyle" section, not the "news" section. Without stronger, and broader, coverage, I'm not convinced that this is worthy of inclusion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- It has been over a week with no other opinions offered, so I'll pull it and see how we go. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with removing the section on the above argument of flimsy/unreliable sources. MurielMary (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- It has been over a week with no other opinions offered, so I'll pull it and see how we go. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree. There is consensus that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. News.com.au is part of Newscorp, and would be considered a reliable source; but the article is in the "lifestyle" section, not the "news" section. Without stronger, and broader, coverage, I'm not convinced that this is worthy of inclusion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Killing men comment
I have added this section to the article, although it has been reverted with no explanation -
At a book signing for her book "Fight Like a Girl", Ford signed her book and added "Have you killed any men today, and if not, why not?", sparking outrage. Ford defended her comment, writing that it was a "sardonic joke written in a friend and fellow feminist's copy of my book"
The sources used are The Sydney morning herald, the Daily Mail, and the local Cairns Post. --2001:8003:54DA:E600:4D63:99B:887:A5F2 (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for BLP articles, nor are opinion pieces acceptable sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ford herself acknowledges having written it in the Sydney herald source above. --2001:8003:54DA:E600:B43A:FD47:86DF:5F0 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. This is not negotiable, especially on a biography of a living person. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ford herself acknowledges having written it in the Sydney herald source above. --2001:8003:54DA:E600:B43A:FD47:86DF:5F0 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
clementine ford has stated in a piece written by herself that she wrote on a book, asking if someone has killed any men lately, and if not, why not. I believe this to be notable, and there were several news articles on it, so it should be on the page. --1.152.108.49 (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Don't have a problem with using the The Sydney morning herald source in the article, but do have a problem with cherry picking a part of it, taking it out of context and adding it to a WP:BLP article. The proposed addition is WP:Undue as the article currently stands. AIRcorn (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- What Ford is saying in that article is that she wrote a sardonic and private joke in a friends book, and that this has been taken out of context to portray her as a threat. Then in this article, we see attempts to use her description of what happened to take part of it out of context and use it to portray her as a threat. The irony is almost overpowering. Fundamentally, a private joke that is clearly satire is simply not noteworthy, although arguably her treatment is. Perhaps we should be less focused on pulling things she has said out of context, and more focused on mentioning the abuse that she has been receiving. - Bilby (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have re-added and expanded this text, which is reported in a balanced way, is factual and an action has occurred. e.g. Removal as speaker by her comments. Added to the statements made above, consensus agrees with this POV. It does not "taking it out of context and adding it to a WP:BLP article." as stated above, as the context is re-enforced by the banned action. The comments in the last two references meet WP:Neutrality
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
Text also contrasts alternate views, so it should stay. Arianewiki1 (talk)
- I have re-added and expanded this text, which is reported in a balanced way, is factual and an action has occurred. e.g. Removal as speaker by her comments. Added to the statements made above, consensus agrees with this POV. It does not "taking it out of context and adding it to a WP:BLP article." as stated above, as the context is re-enforced by the banned action. The comments in the last two references meet WP:Neutrality
- I'll simply quote the About page of one of the sources you used:
- "The Red Menace was once defeated, but its back in a new form. And this time, it’s stronger and much more pervasive. Not stronger in terms of military power, but stronger when it comes to infiltrating people’s minds, possessing people’s hearts and breaking their souls. The Western world, once the great beacon of freedom and liberty, is now facing an apocalyptic revolution. Its enemies go by many names: the progressive left, social justice warriors and the bearers of politician correctness and identity and victim politics. It is set to undermine what our civilization has worked for, from above and below, inside and out. Formed in the Holy Year 2016 (aka the Current Year), The Unshackled aims to uphold and protect what made western civilization great, those ideas from conservative and libertarian and various other centre-right schools of thought. We will expose the activities of the various enemies and fightback against the advance against their ideas in the media, in politics and popular culture. Whether the issues are economic, social or cultural the Unshackled will fight to expose the truth and protect free thinking and free markets. We will not just expose the various arms of the left, we will tackle the corrupt ideologies within the right-wing that have led to parasitic institutions such as crony capitalism which has ruined the reputation and meaning of the original free market capitalism."
- There's no debate to be had if you're reliant on sources that fringe. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'll simply quote the About page of one of the sources you used:
- Wow, just one objectionable reference (quoted out of context) and you remove the lot without any consensus. OK. If you want to apply these rules absolutely, then much of this text in this section must be removed too. The source quoted above here is where? All the text validated is there is a divergent range of views, and the reference cite matched the stated text. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- WP:Dailymail blogs and other unreliable sourcs. The only decent one in there is the SMH which is self published and has been mentioned above already. This is a no go in most articles, and is certainly one BLPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircorn (talk • contribs)
- Wow, just one objectionable reference (quoted out of context) and you remove the lot without any consensus. OK. If you want to apply these rules absolutely, then much of this text in this section must be removed too. The source quoted above here is where? All the text validated is there is a divergent range of views, and the reference cite matched the stated text. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Primary sources are a no-no, and the SMH is a primary source and is her employer. This [1] is a reliable source, that plainly destroys your weak argument. Furthermore, if you apply this rules, the same applies to the other text I deleted. It is plainly biassed. You can't have it both ways. I caution you for WP:Bias. RfC likely to follow. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I went through the proposed sources, and only one of the new sources mentioned the book signing (with that one only in passing), and none mentioned it as a factor in the decision to cancel the speaking event. They do talk about tweets she has made being why people claimed they were opposing her talk, but the book signing wasn't raised. - Bilby (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Fully protected
As a fair amount of edit warring has been going on, I've fully protected the article for 24 hours to allow for dispute resolution. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, this seems to be an editor conduct issue, and I'll respond accordingly. I've lifted the protection. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Lifeline cancellation of clementine ford's speech
clementine ford has had her speech for Lifeline cancelled. Sources listed here: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. --1.136.108.5 (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- All considered unreliable sources for biographies of living people. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- @The Drover's Wife: I totally disagree. The IP(s) are right. Dailymail and The Spectator (below) is a legitimate source (as does[8] and [9]) and the others have legitimate verifiable evidence. Rather than bickering about this, I will be using a series of request for comment RfC (biographies), the first being is this story legitimate. In the meantime please advise which instead are among "reliable sources for biographies of living people." of all those so far mentioned? Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail is not a legitimate source, and its use is prohibited. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- The Spectator article referred to here is also an opinion article, which aren't suitable sources for facts in any articles, and especially not BLP articles. The article is very hostile to the subject. Please read WP:BLP. Starting a series of RfCs will get you absolutely no-where given that what you want to include clearly breaches core Wikipedia policies. Nick-D (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail is not a legitimate source, and its use is prohibited. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Nick-D: Actually, the IP request (below) was ignored, and I do thank Hawkeye7 for the link (I looked but could not find it nor seemingly could the IP.) As for "
Starting a series of RfCs will get you absolutely no-where given that what you want to include clearly breaches core Wikipedia policies.
" The exact opposite is true.- To make this subject relevant to the article, we need to test whether it is WP:UNDUE. (From the history of edits this assumption is disputable via RfC.)
- To make the subject valid (WP:V), and not defy WP:BLP, we need to determine what sources ARE valid. (We need to validate what sources can be used, so that the text is compliant. )
- As you are seemingly unwilling to help create a compliant article addition, we have little choice than to follow the more difficult path of getting consensus step by step and yet still try and avoid the possible wrath of your discretionary powers in resolving this matter.
- Q: If this were to become valid, how would you express the wording so that it is 100% compliant with the BLP rules? What reference sources are currently acceptable, assuming they complied with the wording? (That is what needs to be finally presented as an RfC to get past any presumed violation.
- So far a few editors are just discounting every source, hiding behind an umbrella of difficult rules. Worst, the are not even one helping those (newbies too) who would like an item added, but then find restricting access and be accused of 'disruptive editing.'
- Believe me, I will not be breaking any BLP rules here again, but will instead follow the path of following it to the letter. (If I make mistakes, then please assist me so this matter can be resolved.)
- Thanks for the input, but you'll excuse me if I ignore "
...RfCs will get you absolutely no-where...
". You've forced the only path available. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Nick-D: Actually, the IP request (below) was ignored, and I do thank Hawkeye7 for the link (I looked but could not find it nor seemingly could the IP.) As for "
- How is The Spectator an unreliable source? Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Removal: Unreliable sources for biographies of living people
The following links in the article all clearly fail as unreliable sources for biographies of living people.
- 1 Mamamia [10] (dead link, pro feminist site, tabloid journalism.) They claim, for example, "
Mamamia is vibrant, warm, inclusive, exciting, dynamic, sometimes controversial and often irreverent place for women.
"[11] - 2 Rightnow [12]
- 3 Sheilas [13] (dead link, pro feminist site under the Victorian Women’s Trust, tabloid journalism.)
- 4 Indaily [14] (tabloid journalism)
- 5 New matilda.com [15] (Plainly tabloid journalism)
Under WP:BLP, none of these are sufficient quality sources, and all suffer the same objections to the sources disqualified by #Question over source validity, #Killing men comment and #Lifeline cancellation of clementine ford's speech the WP:BLPRS, WP:BLPSPS and WP:GRAPEVINE. These links should be removed.
Q: Is there any objection placing BLP dispute and BLP sources templates on the Main article here?
@Nick-D: Also I request that Nick-D adds these two templates for me to avoid any possible BLP violations. I have also attached the BLP noticeboard template above. If I have violated BLP , it is not my intent, and I have been as meticulous as possible to do things by the book here. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- The reliability of a source is determined by the content it is sourcing. The more controversial the content, or in this case the more negative, the higher the sourcing standards are. Also can you please look at some of the policies you are quoting. From WP:BLPSPS]
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article
(bolding in original). AIRcorn (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC) - Not sure why you think whether the link is live or not is relevant, but the Mamamia link is not dead. It is a source written by the subject of this article, so it is acceptable as a source for information about the article. Right Now and Sheilas sources are similar. In Daily is used to support the fact that she worked at a student newspaper; hardly controversial stuff. Why do you think it is an insufficient source for that claim? The New Matilda piece is an opinion bit, but again the information supported in the article isn't particularly controversial and your claim of it being "tabloid journalism" is unsupported. Yes, I would object to a BLP dispute tag; I do not think it is warranted. VQuakr (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Deliberate Bias??? : Clementine Ford (writer)
The continuing behaviour of editors shown here is quite appalling, and the continued protection looks like deliberate WP:Bias. Notable: The Drover's Wife complaint and WP:PA here is not legitimate in that: "You are trying to cite an opinion column from a fringe conservative publication in article about a BLP. You have been *specifically* warned about doing this." This is false, because you reverted User:1.136.104.66 without any explanation here.[16] I've cited zero about this by this revert.
Q: How does this relevant and notable event actually be able to be added to this article. So far, no one here has provided what IS an acceptable sources? As multiple sources say similar things, suggests the desired item to be added is clearly factual.
So far,the negotiators have fail to guide how this item can be added, even though many editors have tried to add this item.
Does a RfC need to be implemented here to force consensus here or go through the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard?
I urgently request that an independent admin help resolve this continuing impasse, without the fear of being trapped by ruthless admin discretionary powers repelling changes. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Again: How is The Spectator an unreliable source? Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)