Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:50, 3 March 2017

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mexico This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Breitbart News

Hi, Mx. Granger – good evening! I just saw your update on Alfredo Beltrán Leyva regarding Breitbart News as a source. Is there a way we can use Breitbart as a source on Misplaced Pages, or is it an absolute no? I'm asking because from what I've read, Breitbart News can be used, as long as it doesn't involve politically sensitive/defaming information. I didn't know Breitbart News existed until a South Texas journalist from The Monitor was hired there. In my opinion, they have a pretty good Mexican Drug War section for a U.S. media outlet, and their editor is an expert in the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. The articles include "ground" information not often seen in Mexican newspapers either because organized crime has a tight grip on the local press. Is there a way we can include Breitbart News if we exercise some caution? Thanks. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Please consider moving this discussion to the article's talkpage. Just thought about this, I apologize for the inconvenience. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. From past discussions at RSN, there seems to be consensus that Breitbart is not a reliable source for straightforward statements of fact. That discussion doesn't seem to mention the Mexican Drug War as an exception, and I have to imagine Breitbart's coverage of that topic would have the same problems (like exaggerating and twisting the facts) as their coverage of other topics. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That is a really old discussion. Maybe consensus has changed? I suggest elevation on this as well as Stealth banning. Time for another Long TalkEndercase (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's from 2015, so it's not very old. But here are two more recent discussions, both with clear consensus that Breitbart is not normally a reliable source for straightforward statements of fact: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_211#Is Breitbart.com reliable?, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 216#Breitbart News. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Granger and Endercase: Thanks for this, guys. It's unfortunate that we cannot use Breitbart since I've found it to be pretty accurate on articles about the Mexican Drug War, specifically on the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas and what happens in their respective turfs. The media sources in the areas where these two groups operate in downplay the violence or refuse to report about it because a lot of journalists have been killed in Mexico. Border states like Tamaulipas rely on the Texan media to report on drug violence. The Breitbart writer for the Mexican Drug War is Ildefonso Ortiz, who was a border crime reporter at The Monitor and did a lot of in-depth articles about the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. This is a topic I've studied for many years, and there's journalism phenomenom in Mexico known as "citizen-journalism", where journalists and citizens (criminals included) go on social media to report what happens in the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. Mr. Ortiz has done a great job at hashing out the details and showing what happens in the big picture. Same thing goes for blog sources like Borderland Beat. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 22:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

First of all, in these sorts of cases if it is archived it is too old. To be clear I am for testing consensus currently. As such maybe we should move to Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources. However, I'm ok staying here if y'all would like. In both cases mentioned the articles in question are accurate, but that is my POV. Also to be clear I am calling for a consensus on the other articles I've mentioned in Talk:Stealth banning as well. ComputerJA brings up great points about the personal history of the author in question here and I think that should also be discussed locally. The automatic removal of the links in Stealth banning and Alfredo Beltrán Leyva without any discussion was pretty rude in and of itself but the removal of the information? It would have been more proper to simply switch it to a in my POV. I hope we can have a civil discussion and not just a snap judgment on the issues at hand. I think both cases were issues of Misplaced Pages:If it ain't broke, don't fix it and you had no issues with the information provided just the source(s). I support the inclusion of the source(s) and the information. I also understand that I may be Misplaced Pages:Consensus doesn't have to change. However, I feel like it should be tested given current events. Endercase (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase - I'm all for using Breitbart as a source for articles about the Mexican Drug War. I think I would only be using them for biographies about members of the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas, since most national newspapers don't go in-depth about these groups/their members as well as Mr. Ortiz and the local journalists from Mexico he works with. This is a very particular case where Breitbart hired an expert journalist in this niche topic. Had Mr. Ortiz been at The Monitor, no one would think about blanking the sources. I'm willing to find some sort of middle ground with Granger, however. IF the information provided at Breitbart can be found in other reliable sources, I'm perfectly happy to use those instead. But I highly doubt we can find in-depth information as provided by Mr. Ortiz about the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas from other reliable sources. I've done enough digging to come to this conclusion. The local press in Tamaulipas for these matters is virtually non-existent and we would be losing a valuable source of information on Misplaced Pages by banning Mr. Ortiz's work. PS - I'm not offended by Granger's bold moves at removing the source. I'm glad this topic was brought to my attention because I was unaware of Breitbart's reputation. Thanks, guys. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW - forgot to add that Mr. Ortiz works alongside other editors, including Sylvia Longmire, who is a border security expert and has a book about the Mexican Drug War. I've read it a few times and the information does not come across as inaccurate. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Mx. Granger's WP:RECKLESS behavior shouldn't cause real offense. I'm not sure about Breitbart's reputation, it is equal to that of CNN or the New York Times in my POV; as are all are sources that sometimes publish false information and don't always provide evidence for their claims. Luckily this did not lead to a removal of information in your case as it did in mine. Endercase (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

If you really believe that consensus has changed, you are welcome to start a discussion at WP:RSN, which is the appropriate venue for soliciting opinions about whether a source is reliable. Until someone can demonstrate that consensus has changed, we should follow the existing consensus, which is evident from the recent discussions that I linked above. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, it is done. Hopefully, I'll see y'all there. Endercase (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It is worth noting that WP:RSN discussions are single use, and that for every use another consensus must be achieved: "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Granger has a history of applying one consensus to multiple pages if their archives are factual. However, I view this as a norm, even if a violation, and not exceptional behavior here. Endercase (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It is very normal to refer back to past RSN discussions in this way. In this particular case, the applicability of the discussions I've cited (1, 2) is especially clear, because they are about Breitbart's reliability in a range of situations, not in one specific article. Unless a new discussion achieves consensus that Breitbart is reliable in this context, we should not cite it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not it is normal is completely immaterial. It clearly violates Misplaced Pages:If it ain't broke, don't fix it and WP:NPV as well as the very definition of consensus. No amount of historical consensus will change that. ComputerJA has made a very solid case for using these sources in this context and you have failed to address that nor have you mentioned the current context in any way shape or form. As such you should revert your changes. RSN can only have (current policy) context related discussions. Endercase (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Mexico articles
• Unknown-importance Mexico articles
• WikiProject Mexico articles
• Start-Class Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles