| Revision as of 13:11, 22 June 2024 editExplodingCabbage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users673 edits →June 2024: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:38, 22 June 2024 edit undoDavid Gerard (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators213,093 editsNo edit summaryTag: use of deprecated (unreliable) sourceNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| :::Well maybe you don't realize, '''we have rule and guidelines here'''. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 12:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC) | :::Well maybe you don't realize, '''we have rule and guidelines here'''. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 12:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::::And those "rules and guidelines" say we should source information from the Daily Mail but pretend we're not doing so, do they? ] (]) 13:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC) | ::::And those "rules and guidelines" say we should source information from the Daily Mail but pretend we're not doing so, do they? ] (]) 13:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :The short answer is: stop adding deprecated sources to Misplaced Pages. No, you haven't come up with another clever hack to put DM links as references into Misplaced Pages. No, you can't use ] on a talk page or arguing against ''multiple'' editors on multiple personal talk pages. | |||
| :The deprecation of the DM was passed in a broad general RFC, ratified in a second broad general RFC and broadened even further in a third general RFC (the one that found that the DM are such inveterate liars that dailymail.co.uk cannot be trusted as a source for the content of the Daily Mail). You know this already. | |||
| :If you ''really'' want to use DM links as references in the way you are, the place to make your pitch is the place where general RFCs on sourcing are held - that's ]. | |||
| :If you are serious in your proposal, take it to ]. If you aren't serious, keep doing what you're doing - ] (]) 18:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:38, 22 June 2024
June 2024
Hello, I'm FlightTime. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk.
Daily mail is NOT a reliable source - FlightTime (open channel) 22:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Come on, mate. I've spelt out in excruciating detail on that article's Talk page (which I directed readers to in the summary of the edit you reverted) both:
- that the article currently includes claims that are sourced from the Daily Mail and not from any other currently cited source, and therefore we cannot simply remove the citations without also removing the claims or else we will leave them uncited, and
- that the claims in question ARE republished in non-deprecated sources, but that I think it's inappropriate to cite those sources over the DM in this particular case because their articles are all just plagiarism (in the form of either outright copy-and-paste or else paragraph-by-paragraph close paraphrasing) of the original reporting from the DM, and
- that other sources (besides the plagiarists) corroborate much of the DM's reporting in these particular two articles and thus lend them credibility above the baseline for the DM, and
- that we therefore face a trilemma: either 1. remove the claims, 2. cite the Daily Mail, or 3. launder a citation to the Daily Mail by citing one of the non-deprecated sources that plagiarised the Daily Mail's article
- If you're not going to suggest which fork of that trilemma we should pick, what's the point in touching the issue at all? Ripping out the citation without any further changes just puts the article into an unambiguously unacceptable state where we are repeating claims from the Daily Mail without any supporting citation at all; that obviously needs reverting, and doesn't move us any closer to a final resolution. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well maybe you don't realize, we have rule and guidelines here. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- And those "rules and guidelines" say we should source information from the Daily Mail but pretend we're not doing so, do they? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well maybe you don't realize, we have rule and guidelines here. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- The short answer is: stop adding deprecated sources to Misplaced Pages. No, you haven't come up with another clever hack to put DM links as references into Misplaced Pages. No, you can't use WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a talk page or arguing against multiple editors on multiple personal talk pages.
- The deprecation of the DM was passed in a broad general RFC, ratified in a second broad general RFC and broadened even further in a third general RFC (the one that found that the DM are such inveterate liars that dailymail.co.uk cannot be trusted as a source for the content of the Daily Mail). You know this already.
- If you really want to use DM links as references in the way you are, the place to make your pitch is the place where general RFCs on sourcing are held - that's WP:RSN.
- If you are serious in your proposal, take it to WP:RSN. If you aren't serious, keep doing what you're doing - David Gerard (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)