PackMecEng (talk | contribs) →Climate change: replies |
→Climate change: cmt |
||
Line 217: | Line 217: | ||
::: I started a discussion at the RS noticeboard[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_we_allowed_to_cite_climate_scientists?] about whether we are allowed to cite "a highly respected and influential resource"[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/nov/29/new-study-uncovers-the-keystone-domino-strategy-of-climate-denial] run by recognized experts and whose reviewers are all recognized experts. This is where we are. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 18:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
::: I started a discussion at the RS noticeboard[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_we_allowed_to_cite_climate_scientists?] about whether we are allowed to cite "a highly respected and influential resource"[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/nov/29/new-study-uncovers-the-keystone-domino-strategy-of-climate-denial] run by recognized experts and whose reviewers are all recognized experts. This is where we are. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 18:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::That is great, it has nothing to do with them being a RS or not being part of [[WP:USERG]] since it is still user generated content with no editorial overcite. Please produce a policy that goes along with your theory of how RS work. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 18:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
::::That is great, it has nothing to do with them being a RS or not being part of [[WP:USERG]] since it is still user generated content with no editorial overcite. Please produce a policy that goes along with your theory of how RS work. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 18:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::I was going to make the same point about peer-reviewed journals; if this website is "crowd sourced" then all peer-reviewing is "crowd sourced". The people by themselves would pass [[WP:SPS]], being "established expert on the subject matter"; that there are multiple reviewers and editorial control means it is clearly [[WP:RS]]. [https://books.google.com/books?id=3UdODwAAQBAJ&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184 Here's] a reliable source for it being a reliable source. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 18:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''. Most of the cited experts have an h-index of at least 60, and people in {{category|climatologists}} don't tend to have much more. It's still undue though. <span style="background-color:#cee">[[User:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#066;font-family:Symbol">w</span><span style="color:#066;font-family:Segoe Script">umbolo</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#37C;font-family:webdings">^^^</span>]] 18:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. Most of the cited experts have an h-index of at least 60, and people in {{category|climatologists}} don't tend to have much more. It's still undue though. <span style="background-color:#cee">[[User:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#066;font-family:Symbol">w</span><span style="color:#066;font-family:Segoe Script">umbolo</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#37C;font-family:webdings">^^^</span>]] 18:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
::I no issue citing them or the information. Just not the way it is currently presented. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 18:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
::I no issue citing them or the information. Just not the way it is currently presented. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 18:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:59, 5 October 2018
Conservatism Stub‑class | ||||||||||
|
Infobox: website or newspaper
There's an RfC on whether a news website should use {{Infobox website}} or {{Infobox newspaper}}: Talk:The Times of Israel#RfC on infobox. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Recent edit
Preserving this material here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Reverting per WP:BRD cycle - this material has originally been added by IP; it was challenged & removed." In addition, the edit also change "opinion website" to "news and opinion website", which does not seem to be an accurate portrayal of the site. I would be happy to discuss further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- @K.e.coffman: only the Roanoke ref calls The Daily Wire an opinion website, and it calls it a "news and opinion" website. So that should definitely be kept. wumbolo ^^^ 08:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Here are some descriptors:
- Rep. Mary Franson's Facebook posts appear to link March for Our ...| Minneapolis Star Tribune | Soon after that, she reposted a comment from Ryan Saavedra with the conservative opinion website The Daily Wire.
- The right wing's conspiracy theory network is now going after high ... | Media Matters for America (blog) | Meanwhile, major conservative sites like Breitbart.com and Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire decided that they could produce good content...
- I'm not seeing it consistently described as a "news" site. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Disagree. Almost always it is labelled a "news site", sometimes an "opinion site", and sometimes both. Here are some descriptors for it being a "news website":
- Here are some descriptors:
"Partisan pundits and conspiracy theorists still rule Facebook, analysis shows" | Mic | Of the top 10 reporters who drove the most engagement, Newswhip found that three came from the conservative viral news website Daily Wire... |
"Ben Shapiro: Who is he and why is he so controversial?" | Fox News | Shapiro, 33, is a conservative political commentator and editor-in-chief of the right-leaning news site The Daily Wire. |
"Ben Shapiro's Website May Buy Glenn Beck's Website" | The Forward | The owners of the Ben Shapiro-helmed conservative news website The Daily Wire are in talks to buy... |
"In Defense of Ben Shapiro's Bravery" | National Review | In February of last year on his news website, the Daily Wire, he criticized... |
"UConn College Republicans invite conservative author and attorney Ben Shapiro to speak" | The Daily Campus | Shapiro is editor-in-chief for the conservative news website The Daily Wire and co-founder... |
"Ben Shapiro to Speak at Georgetown in March" | The Hoya | He is the editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire, a conservative news website, and host... |
"UF Students React To Conservative Commentator’s Visit To Campus" | WUFT | Protesters made a stand at the University of Florida-sponsored talk by Ben Shapiro, a conservative political commentator and editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire, a conservative news website Monday night. |
"A Blank Book Making Fun Of Democrats Is The #1 Best-Seller On Amazon Right Now" | BuzzFeed | Self-published in early February by Michael J. Knowles, managing editor of conservative news website The Daily Wire, the book... |
"Ben Shapiro's Website Eyes Buying Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze" | The Daily Beast | The people who head Ben Shapiro's conservative news site are in talks... |
"Inside the bubble: why Roy Moore has conservative media on his side" | Vox | Shapiro is a popular (and controversial) conservative pundit and the creator of the Daily Wire, a conservative news site launched... |
"Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro's campus lecture venue draws criticism" | Minnesota Daily | The Daily Wire, the conservative news site of which Shapiro is Editor in Chief... |
"College Republicans to host Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro" | The Daily Northwestern | Conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro, founder and editor in chief of news site The Daily Wire... |
"University of Tennessee has security in place for Ben Shapiro talk" | Knoxville News Sentinel | Shapiro, 33, is a conservative commentator and the editor of the right-leaning news site The Daily Wire... |
"Tuesday Wake-Up Call: Diesel Made Fake-Looking 'Deisel' Jeans..." | Advertising Age | Ben Shapiro's conservative news site The Daily Wire is in talks... |
"Bernie Sanders to Republicans: Stop saying I support your tax bill" | The Washington Post | In a video for the Daily Wire, a conservative news site, Horowitz made six claims. |
"Class Politics" | Yale Daily News | The piece, titled "Yale 'decolonizes' English dept. after complaints studying white authors 'actively harms' students," was quickly picked up by a number of notable conservative news outlets like The Daily Wire, Washington... |
"UConn Applies New Rules to Speaker Appearances After Arrests" | NBC Connecticut | The group invited Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of conservative news site The Daily Wire. |
"George Pyle: Controversial U. speaker should be criticized for what he says, not what others imagine" | The Salt Lake Tribune | While Shapiro built a following, in part, writing for what's now the alt-right bible, Breitbart News, he has quite publicly broken with that media empire and created his own online news site, The Daily Wire. |
"Trump Energy Official Resigns After Claiming Controversial Comments Attributed to Him Were the Result of Hacking" | The Root | CNN also reports that in the comments section of a September 2016 article on the Daily Wire, a conservative news site, the... |
"Demonize And Divide: Trans Rights And The Far-Right Assault On Civil Liberties" | HuffPost | The person in question had linked an article from the conservative news site, The Daily Wire, entitled... |
"Conservatives Score Victory for Free Speech at California University" | The Daily Signal | According to The Daily Wire, a news site where Shapiro serves as editor-in-chief... |
"Self-hatred: It's not just for self-haters!" | Jewish Telegraphic Agency | In June, a writer for the The Daily Wire, the right-leaning news site, called... |
"Blank book that pokes fun at Democrats tops Amazon bestseller list" | news.com.au | Mr Knowles, who is also the managing editor of the conservative news site The Daily Wire, told... |
"Now UC Berkeley will ensure conservative Ben Shapiro can speak on campus, will even waive venue fees" | TheBlaze | Shapiro told the news site he edits, the Daily Wire... |
"Conservative media struggles with new prominence under Trump" | The Hill | ...Ben Shapiro, a former Breitbart editor who now runs the Daily Wire, another conservative news site. |
"Canadian Jewish Rights Activist Alleges York University Has 'Systemic Antisemitism' Problem" | Algemeiner Journal | Ben Shapiro — the editor-in-chief of conservative news site The Daily Wire — took issue... |
"Who's Afraid Of Linda Sarsour?" | The Fader | Written by a contributor to the conservative news site The Daily Wire, it... |
"After Mike Adams post, UNCW's minority students push for change" | Star-News | But in the days after, conservative news site The Daily Wire published... |
wumbolo ^^^ 12:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2018
Change false stories section because simply using snopes.com and factcheck.com, both democratic leaning outlets, as factual is misleading and makes the page political. Snopes has been caught numerous times actually reporting falsifications, and the same goes with factcheck. Not changing it to something of substance will call in to question the validity of Wikipedia as anywhere near a reliable source of information. 214.13.69.132 (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. Snopes may have been unreliable in the past. However, per WP:RSCONTEXT, we should examine the context under which a specific article is reported. If you have evidence that Snopes is wrong in this specific article, you're welcome to present it. wumbolo ^^^ 12:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018
"...and Harvard University holding segregated commencement ceremonies." Remove the previous line. It was stated as being factually incorrect, but can easily be shown to be true. The following article from the NY Times is, I think, an accurate enough citation. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/us/black-commencement-harvard.html 67.254.228.118 (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. spintendo 22:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Spintendo (talk · contribs) there is a very clear request here to remove text and the OP gives reasons why. As for the merits of the request, Not done: per the source currently on that sentence in the article and another page on that same website, calling them "segregated commencement ceremonies" spins the truth well out of context. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- There is as far as I can tell no substantive difference between the Snopes piece and the NY Times piece. Both note that this was a separate unofficial ceremony. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Liberal bias
Criticism makes up more than half of the article but you cannot find much criticism in articles dealing with left-wing sites like TYT. Where is the balance here?80.131.52.200 (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- @80.131.52.200: that's because TYT didn't publish any falsehoods. However, there is a policy called WP:UNDUE which says that we should tend to give weight to how much reliable sources discuss an aspect of the subject. wumbolo ^^^ 09:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
"Climate Feedback" and "Snopes" are well known to contain Leftist bias. Most of your Wiki article is simple Leftist bias. Robinmartin1973 (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Snopes definitely leans toward the left. With that said, the issue with the article isn't so much that left-leaning views on the Daily Wire are included; it is more that no one has yet created sections for the other notable perspectives. Look at the article for Ben Shapiro, for example. It includes some left-wing viewpoints and criticisms while being relatively thorough in covering Shapiro's views. The current Daily Wire article seems to have issues with WP:UNDUE, but the solution would be to expand the article rather than to remove criticisms. DirkDouse (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- We can't be thorough on an article about a non-notable (fails WP:GNG) website, which was kept after an AfD with extremely poor arguments. wumbolo ^^^ 09:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that the arguments in that RfD were weak. With that said, the RfD was in May through June of 2016. Considering that the Daily Wire launched on September 21, 2015, it's not surprising that there was limited media coverage at the time. As of now, there are plenty of sources on the topic and the site has received substantially more coverage. E.g., this article and it's various links/sources:
- * https://api.newsguardtech.com/3c973648-e576-41f7-b505-923963f656d3?cid=54ac2f8b-386f-403c-a4f0-47cf658b6ca5
- DirkDouse (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- We can't be thorough on an article about a non-notable (fails WP:GNG) website, which was kept after an AfD with extremely poor arguments. wumbolo ^^^ 09:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Edit June 21st-23rd 2018
I recently added more details to the section of the article which discusses articles published by the Daily Wire that were criticized by certain fact checkers. Someone reverted these changes, citing "excessive level of detail" and "back-door editorializing".
The details that I added were certainly not excessive, as they are critical to understanding the criticism of The Daily Wire's coverage. Take the Harvard commencement ceremony story as an example. While it is certainly valid to criticize The Daily Wire for describing the separate commencement ceremony at Harvard meant for specifically for black students as "segregation", the original content of the article would lead the reader to believe that The Daily Wire had completely fabricated the story, which is incredibly far from the truth.
Additionally, my edits certainly do not involve "back-door editorializing", the article as it was previously written presents a quite biased view of The Daily Wire, as a previous editor mentioned in the talk section. By adding factual information that makes it so the reader is not misinformed by the article I am not "editorializing", if anything I am eliminating editorialization that existed in the previous iteration of the article. DiscoStu42 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- There were two things added here:
- A random hot take from a Ben Shapiro podcast appearance. - This is certainly undue and excessive for this article about something other than Ben Shapiro. If you have a reliable source commenting on The Daily Wire's editorial stance on climate change, let's see it. Ben Shapiro's personal opinions only belong here with a very good reason, which would typically be supported by a reliable, third-party source. Like everyone, Ben Shapiro has many opinions on lots of topics, including those he is not qualified to speak on. His opinions are only notable to the extent they are supported by reliable sources.
- Added details from Snopes - Wikipedia doesn't whitewash information by presenting a false story as "disputed", which is a euphemism. If a story is false, such as these ones published by the Daily Wire, we say, in straightforward language, that it's false. If the Daily Wire accuses "leftists" of doing something bad, do not editorialize by renaming them "vigilantes", especially since these people do not exist. Saying Snopes
"felt"
is was inaccurate is editorializing, because it is implying that this was an opinion. It was not, it was a reliable source reporting that Daily Wire was wrong. If The Daily Wire cannot figure out what words it wants to use, they shouldn't be in the "news" business.
- If you would like to expand this, do so in proportion to reliable sources, and without the editorializing shift in tone. Grayfell (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It absolutely needs to be acknowledged in the page that Harvard actually did allow a separate commencement ceremony intended for black students, even if Snopes considers it inaccurate to call that "segregation". The original page made it seem like The Daily Wire completely made it up. The New York Times published an article acknowledging that there was a separate commencement ceremony offered to black students which other races were discouraged from attending, though they did not describe it as "segregation". The Miami Herald published an article suggesting that is was not unreasonable to complain about the "segregationist tendency" of the event. Did Snopes publish an article saying that the Miami Herald's article is "mostly false" for describing the practice of a separate graduation ceremony meant for one particular race as segregationist? No, they didn't, probably because the Miami Herald is not known as being very conservative. Just because Snopes says that it is a fact checking website does not mean that it is free from bias, and even they stopped short of calling the article "false". This page in its original form made it sound like The Daily Wire completely fabricated the Harvard commencement story.
The original confederate grave article (linked here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/19851/year-zero-vigilante-protesters-start-dig-remains-john-nolte) uses the word vigilantes twice, including in the title, and never uses the word "leftist". Also, they issued a retraction on this article, which was published back when they were first getting started, within a few months of being founded. This information ought to be acknowledged in the page. Have you actually read the Snopes articles? I'm genuinely not saying this to be rude, but if you had you would know that these "vigilantes" did exist, and they did dig up grass near the grave of a confederate general, but they did not actually dig up any bodies. I agree with you that "disputed" is too soft of a word, but even Snopes describes this article as "mostly false", not "false".
Also, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of including Ben Shapiro's views on climate change. My reason for including them are not to assert that they are true or that Ben Shapiro is "qualified to speak on" the issue, but simply to add the very relevant fact to the article that the editor-in-chief of The Daily Wire actually does acknowledge the reality of climate change.
I don't mean for there to be any hard feelings here, and I do understand a few of the issues you raised with my first edit, but the article in its original form simply doesn't tell the full truth, as it withholds valuable information from the reader. Although you are absolutely right that this information does not make every piece of the stories in question true, it is important information to include if the page is to be complete and honest. DiscoStu42 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Directed primarily towards Snooganssnoogans: Where specifically am I using weasel words or synthesis? I'm not sure which parts of my edits you are referring to. DiscoStu42 (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- You talked about how Snopes "feels" something - WP:WEASEL. You added WP:SYNTH on how a Miami Herald op-ed repeated the same falsehood. There is more to the falsehood on the Confed General grave than just the bit you mentioned. The climate change stuff is primary sourced and appears to place Shapiro's fringe beliefs on climate change in a moderate light and somehow relates it to DW's record of pushing climate change denial - violates WP:SYNTH, WP:WEASEL and WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Shapiro's fringe beliefs on climate change
Now I begin to wonder who is stating unsourced BLP information. wumbolo ^^^ 14:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)- Shapiro has promoted a bunch of falsehoods related to climate change[1]. To portray him as a voice of reason on this topic as the other editor sought to do on the basis of a youtube clip (which I have not seen and have no interest in watching) which appears to be summarized in WP:WEASEL fashion is not good enough. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Why should one accept Snopes over The Miami Herald? There are the objective facts about what Harvard did, and then there is how you describe it. It was absolutely overreach of Snopes to describe this as presenting false facts. If you would like I can change "feels" to "stated", which may be more precise, but it is still very important to include the fact that it was not only The Daily Wire or right wing news sources who characterized what was done by Harvard as segregation. It is not synthesis to simply state what the Miami Herald said.
Also, as for climate change, if you actually look at the full clip which the first 3ish minutes of you clip are taken (which is really the only part that deals mainly with climate change) he actually says that he would be happy to say that climate change in probably happening.[1] Also do you know when that clip is from? It looks extremely old. The Joe Rogan interview is less that a year old. All of this being said, I am happy to remove the part about Ben Shapiro's views on climate change if it means my other improvements will stop being reverted. DiscoStu42 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, I do see what you mean. Ben Shapiro's personal views on climate change should not be included in an article about The Daily Wire. I am happy to remove them. DiscoStu42 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- The Miami Herald article is an op-ed reprinted from the NY Post. Even though it is an opinion it goes to great lengths to explain why this optional ceremony was created. The op-ed doesn't mention the Daily Wire or Snopes or anything at all about the Wire's tabloid coverage of this issue. The op-ed is only barely even about the ceremony, it's mainly about a larger issue of a lack of community on colleges. Using it to support a point about The Daily Wire would be WP:SYNTH. Sources need to be about the Daily Wire. If Snopes says the Daily Wire published something that was false in context the source can be used to support that it was false. If another source mentions this event in an entirely different context, that has nothing to do with the Daily Wire. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, point taken, but we ought to at least fix the part that suggests that The Daily Wire said that "leftists" dug up graves when they used the words "leftist" or "leftists" zero times in that article[2], and used the words "vigilantes" and "protesters" two and three times respectively. We ought to change the "leftists" part to "protesters". Can everyone agree on that at least? DiscoStu42 (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- I actually already changed that, so hopefully we can all agree. The article does call the (completely misrepresented) protesters "Taliban-left" so it's hard to see how "leftists" is particularly far-off, but The Daily Wire's over-the-top style isn't the main point being discussed, so it's seems better to go with simpler language. Grayfell (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
References
What do you think about adding more information about what Snopes actually said? I still think it is relevant to include some key information which is omitted from the page but included in Snopes such as the fact that Harvard actually did have a separate commencement ceremony specifically for black people, even if it is false and a mischaracterization to describe this as "segregation". I also think it may be worth while specifying that the stories listed were characterized as "false" or "mostly false" by Snopes, because most of them were actually found to be "mostly false" rather than "false" which is a small, but relevant distinction. Do you have any objections to me making these changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiscoStu42 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I do object. I believe it's undue, which I've already explained. The article already makes clear Snope's stance that these
"stories that are taken out of context or not verified"
. The specific cited source doesn't call these mostly false. It call each of them "false". This source is useful as a summary of all the other sources. In fact, the main falsehood that source debunks isn't even mentioned in the article. As a summary it's sufficient, and as an encyclopedia article, this should be a summary. Grayfell (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Here is a link to Snopes's confederate grave article: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/are-vigilante-protesters-digging-up-confederate-graves/ and here is a link to Snopes's Harvard commencement article: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harvard-segregated-graduation/ Both of them clearly say "mostly false" rather than "false". Again, I do understand that it is not a huge distinction, but it is an important one to make if we want the page to be accurate. DiscoStu42 (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- These "truth ratings" are very useless and mean nothing. PolitiFact's Obama Lie of the Year was originally labelled "half-true". Fact-checking websites often give the same claim different truth ratings. We shouldn't be citing "false" or "mostly false". Instead, we should summarize what was true and what wasn't. For example, look at this PolitiFact article on Ben Shapiro, which gives some criticism of Shapiro's method but doesn't "draw any conclusion" (in their own words), but labels Shapiro's claim as "false" (might want to watch Shapiro's response). wumbolo ^^^ 09:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Here is a link to Snopes's confederate grave article: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/are-vigilante-protesters-digging-up-confederate-graves/ and here is a link to Snopes's Harvard commencement article: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harvard-segregated-graduation/ Both of them clearly say "mostly false" rather than "false". Again, I do understand that it is not a huge distinction, but it is an important one to make if we want the page to be accurate. DiscoStu42 (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- I can go along with that, as long as we actually do summarize what was true and what wasn't. Take the Harvard claim for example, Snopes makes it clear in its what's true section, "black graduates at Harvard University are holding a separately organized Black Commencement ceremony". This is a very important fact, however this is omitted from the page. Perhaps we could just include quotations from Snopes saying what Snopes found to be true and what they found to be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3712:1A00:61F0:CACF:5BCA:6F4C (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nowhere does the Politifact article state that it doesn't draw any conclusions. It explains exactly why it rates his position as false, summarizing with
Shapiro’s definition of radical is so thin as to be practically meaningless and so too are the numbers he brings to bear.
- Nowhere does the Politifact article state that it doesn't draw any conclusions. It explains exactly why it rates his position as false, summarizing with
- These details about why the Wire's facts are false has drifted into minutia. Their relevance is not well-supported by the context provided by sources, and that's the important part. The source which is currently used doesn't mention the black commencement ceremony, and even if it did, that is not a "segregated" commencement ceremony, making the Daily Wire's claim still wrong/incorrect/erroneous/misleading/deceptive/etc., regardless of it happens to use the term "false". The goal is to summarize what sources say is important, not what editors believe is important. When you say this is a "very important fact", you need to support that with sources explaining why it's important. There is a lot of other material that could be drawn from these sources, such as the "Mohammed is now the most popular name for newborn boys in the Netherlands" falsehood. Why would the detail you consider important be more important than the main point of the source used in the article? Do you see the problem? We need to summarize the issue, not cobble together sources to support our own analysis. This is why we do not publish WP:OR, because we are a tertiary source which summarizes reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Actually we do kind of "cobble together sources" per policy WP:NPOV. We don't need sources to say what is "important", we need sources to talk about it. In this situation, if there were other RS saying the Daily Wire had not produced a falsehood, we would appropriately describe both viewpoints. In this case, we don't have those as you have pointed out, so we should only summarize the Snopes article. And for your information, the "Mohammed is now the most popular name for newborn boys in the Netherlands" falsehood is actually a truthhood - Snopes is the one that produced a fabrication this time. It's extremely funny how Snopes doesn't know the difference between two different names and the same name with two different transliterations. Furthermore, because the Snopes said a falsehood in the article, the article is now a questionable source. Wikipedia can't contain content sourced only to questionable sources, so you should argue the content's inclusion at WP:RSN. I am removing the content sourced to that Snopes's article. wumbolo ^^^ 14:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- These details about why the Wire's facts are false has drifted into minutia. Their relevance is not well-supported by the context provided by sources, and that's the important part. The source which is currently used doesn't mention the black commencement ceremony, and even if it did, that is not a "segregated" commencement ceremony, making the Daily Wire's claim still wrong/incorrect/erroneous/misleading/deceptive/etc., regardless of it happens to use the term "false". The goal is to summarize what sources say is important, not what editors believe is important. When you say this is a "very important fact", you need to support that with sources explaining why it's important. There is a lot of other material that could be drawn from these sources, such as the "Mohammed is now the most popular name for newborn boys in the Netherlands" falsehood. Why would the detail you consider important be more important than the main point of the source used in the article? Do you see the problem? We need to summarize the issue, not cobble together sources to support our own analysis. This is why we do not publish WP:OR, because we are a tertiary source which summarizes reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I started a discussion at the RS noticeboard. 15:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- What source is there for the claim that Muhammed is not the most popular name for boys? That would need to be proven to call Snopes into question.
- Anyone who actually read the Snopes article would know that they take into account the different spellings of the name and added them together, showing only 636 Muhammeds/Mohammads/Mehmets/etc, but three times as many boys named Lucas/Lukas/whatever. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Ian.thomson: Context matters, and I was referring to the cited Snopes's article's reliability, not on Snopes generally. wumbolo ^^^ 16:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- And your argument regarding context is that
the "Mohammed is now the most popular name for newborn boys in the Netherlands" falsehood is actually a truthhood
-- which I'm not seeing proof for whatsoever. You further arguedIt's extremely funny how Snopes doesn't know the difference between two different names and the same name with two different transliterations
, which suggests you didn't actually read the Snopes article. Ian.thomson (talk)which I'm not seeing proof for whatsoever
the proof is the article by The Daily Wire.which suggests you didn't actually read the Snopes article
I read it and please read this section of that article:- It’s true that if multiple variant spellings of the name “Mohammed” are entered into the SVB database, then the results document that 636 of the babies born in the Netherlands in 2017 were given that name. But if the same rule were applied to, for example, the names “Lucas” and “Daniel,” it would be clear that Mohammed was hardly the most popular boy’s name in 2017. Almost 2,000 Dutch children were named for some form of “Lucas,” while more than 1,000 were given a variation of the name “Daniel” in 2017.
- As you can see, Snopes thinks that Lucas, Luka, Lukas, Luke, etc. are all the same name with different spellings, while Muhammad, Mohamad, Mohamed, etc. are also all the same name with different spellings. What's actually true, is that the Muhammad names are actually all the same name, but with different transliterations. On the other hand, Lucas et al. are not all the same name, at least not in the same sense that Muhammad et al. are all the same name. wumbolo ^^^ 16:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- And your argument regarding context is that
- Source A, which is already a questionable source, makes a claim. Source B, which has a reputation for pointing out problematic sources, says that source A is wrong. Do you not see the problem with using Source A to counter Source B? Our article Lukas quite simply states "Lukas is a form of the Latin name Lucas." Luca is a very global shortened form of Lucas. If you want to split hairs by arguing that regional variation somehow renders those completely different names, you're going to need to prove that everyone who named their kid Muhammad were from the same region, too. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Ian.thomson: Lukas and Lucas are not simply regional variations. As the article you cite says, Lukas and Luca are different forms of the Latin name Lucas. In contrast, the Muhammad variations aren't different forms of Muhammad, but the exact same passive participle name with different transliterations (see the Muhammad (name) article). wumbolo ^^^ 21:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Source A, which is already a questionable source, makes a claim. Source B, which has a reputation for pointing out problematic sources, says that source A is wrong. Do you not see the problem with using Source A to counter Source B? Our article Lukas quite simply states "Lukas is a form of the Latin name Lucas." Luca is a very global shortened form of Lucas. If you want to split hairs by arguing that regional variation somehow renders those completely different names, you're going to need to prove that everyone who named their kid Muhammad were from the same region, too. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Carson story
The Daily Wire did not publish a false story about Carson. The explanation is at the bottom of the Daily Wire article. The Daily Wire explains how Snopes incorrectly read the article, and FactCheck.org did the same thing. I have removed the paragraph about the story. wumbolo ^^^ 21:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see how one could possibly misread "Ben Carson Finds $500 Billion (Billion!) In Errors During Audit Of Obama HUD". That article explicitly states
In one of his first acts as HUD Secretary, Carson ordered an audit of the agency. What he found was staggering: $520 billion in bookkeeping errors.
- DW did publish a story claiming that Carson found the $500 billion error. Snopes and FactCheck.org said that the errors were found before he became HUD secretary. They did not say that he found money, as DW is claiming other sources said about the story.
- The Daily Wire is lying about what Snopes said. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Ian.thomson: Snopes said:
- The audit was initiated before Ben Carson assumed his position at HUD, and it reckons an aggregate figure of accounting errors and not an actual recovery of $500 billion in funds.
- The Daily Wire article nowhere states that Carson "recovered" the money. Seems Snopes is lying about what the Daily Wire said. wumbolo ^^^ 21:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please read the very part you quoted after taking off your rose-tinted narrative glasses. The audit was initiated before Ben Carson assumed his position at HUD. before. DW clearly credits Carson for the audit. It would be misreading to say that they did not credit Carson for an audit that started before he assumed office. The following bit is there because folks running off of the DW story treated it as recovered funds (which the DW piece's title rather implies). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- As you can see here, the Consolidated Financial Statements Audit was reissued on March 1, 2017, the day before he took office. This implies that another audit was issued, like the Daily Wire states:
- The same problems were detailed for each of the last three audits, and the auditors say the continued problems “were due to an inability to establish a compliant control environment, implement adequate financial accounting systems, retain key financial staff, and identify appropriate accounting principles and policies."
- That seems to fit with the fact that the Audit was reissued on March 1, 2017; Carson's audit seems to be the third audit. wumbolo ^^^ 22:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- As you can see here, the Consolidated Financial Statements Audit was reissued on March 1, 2017, the day before he took office. This implies that another audit was issued, like the Daily Wire states:
- Please read the very part you quoted after taking off your rose-tinted narrative glasses. The audit was initiated before Ben Carson assumed his position at HUD. before. DW clearly credits Carson for the audit. It would be misreading to say that they did not credit Carson for an audit that started before he assumed office. The following bit is there because folks running off of the DW story treated it as recovered funds (which the DW piece's title rather implies). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Ian.thomson: Snopes said:
- We go by RS. I see no indications that both FactCheck.org and Snopes got this wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- To make this as clear as possible, here's the sequence of events:
- HUD starts an audit that eventually finds over $500 billion in errors.
- Carson assumes office as secretary of HUD.
- The Daily Wire publishes an article explicitly crediting Ben Carson for the aforementioned audit, even saying that he was the one who found the errors.
- Snopes.com and Factcheck.org point out that the audit that found that the $500 million in errors started before Carson took office. Snopes.com, addressing spin-off stories, points out that it was just accounting errors that were found, not actual cash.
- DW acts like Snopes claimed that DW claimed that cash was found, which it didn't and completely misses the central point that the audit started before Carson was even in office.
- That you don't seem to get this raises serious concerns about your intentions with this article, Wumbolo. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, you forgot to add to #2:
- Carson assumes office as secretary of HUD and a third audit is issued.
- And to #3:
- The Daily Wire publishes an article explicitly crediting Ben Carson and the previous two audits for the aforementioned audit, even saying that he and the previous two auditors were the one who found the errors.
- wumbolo ^^^ 22:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- DW emphasizes In one of his first acts as HUD Secretary, Carson ordered an audit of the agency. What he found was staggering: $520 billion in bookkeeping errors while hiding when the previous audits took place. They do not mention the two previous audits. Why are you looking for every little technicality (no matter how much one has to twist things to arrive at it) to defend a discredited website, even citing that discredited site's own claims against well-established reliable sources? We have articles on other conservative news sites (real news instead of fake news) where your efforts would be more fruitful. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- I wasn't citing the Daily Wire; I was citing the official PDF. Also, the Daily Wire isn't hiding anything; it clearly stated that the previous audits found the errors:
- The same problems were detailed for each of the last three audits, and the auditors say the continued problems “were due to an inability to establish a compliant control environment, implement adequate financial accounting systems, retain key financial staff, and identify appropriate accounting principles and policies."
- But surely, now you're going to cast aspersions at me since I just cited the Daily Wire, even though I only cited it to say what it claimed. wumbolo ^^^ 22:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- It says nothing about when those audits were started. It gives Carson all the credit. I'm not merely casting aspersions, I'm pointing out very problematic behavior on your part. This is not the first time you've taken without question the word of a discredited source against widely-accepted reliable sources (rejecting them out-of-hand). In both cases, the unreliable source focused on some minor quibble in their rebuttal without addressing how their central claim was discredited. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- I wasn't citing the Daily Wire; I was citing the official PDF. Also, the Daily Wire isn't hiding anything; it clearly stated that the previous audits found the errors:
- DW emphasizes In one of his first acts as HUD Secretary, Carson ordered an audit of the agency. What he found was staggering: $520 billion in bookkeeping errors while hiding when the previous audits took place. They do not mention the two previous audits. Why are you looking for every little technicality (no matter how much one has to twist things to arrive at it) to defend a discredited website, even citing that discredited site's own claims against well-established reliable sources? We have articles on other conservative news sites (real news instead of fake news) where your efforts would be more fruitful. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, you forgot to add to #2:
Climate change
There has been some back and forth on the climate change section in the article. It was all sourced to climatefeedback.org which is a crowd sourced website of scientists, I do not believe they meet the requirements for a RS. Especially with how the section was written. The Daily Wire has published a number of articles doubting that climate change is occurring and that humans contribute to climate change. Experts have described the articles as inaccurate and misleading
. We could do something along the lines of according to Climate feedback.org, a crowd sourced scientific website, they are bla bla bla. Or whatever, as long as their opinions are not in wiki's voice and proper attributed. PackMecEng (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, no need at all. The website is run by recognized experts and every word is by recognized experts. The text already attributes the text to experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Please see WP:USERG which is why I mentioned it is a crowdsourced website. As I said, I have no issue attributing the material to them. But again not a RS for statements of fact on it's own. PackMecEng (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- The website is not a random forum or whatever you think it is. The folks who run the website send out invitations to relevant experts to review pieces (e.g. the same thing that peer-reviewed journals do). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I started a discussion at the RS noticeboard[2] about whether we are allowed to cite "a highly respected and influential resource"[3] run by recognized experts and whose reviewers are all recognized experts. This is where we are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- That is great, it has nothing to do with them being a RS or not being part of WP:USERG since it is still user generated content with no editorial overcite. Please produce a policy that goes along with your theory of how RS work. PackMecEng (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I was going to make the same point about peer-reviewed journals; if this website is "crowd sourced" then all peer-reviewing is "crowd sourced". The people by themselves would pass WP:SPS, being "established expert on the subject matter"; that there are multiple reviewers and editorial control means it is clearly WP:RS. Here's a reliable source for it being a reliable source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Please see WP:USERG which is why I mentioned it is a crowdsourced website. As I said, I have no issue attributing the material to them. But again not a RS for statements of fact on it's own. PackMecEng (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Most of the cited experts have an h-index of at least 60, and people in Category:climatologists don't tend to have much more. It's still undue though. wumbolo ^^^ 18:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I no issue citing them or the information. Just not the way it is currently presented. PackMecEng (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)