This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
After reviewing the “Controversy” section, I have concerns about its adherence to Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable sources and due weight. The section primarily relies on an investigative article, with a second source that merely references the first. This raises questions about the independence and verification of the information presented.
In light of these concerns, I propose the following:
1. Attempt to Find Additional Sources: We should make a concerted effort to find additional reliable, independent sources that provide a more comprehensive view of the controversy. If such sources are available, they should be used to revise and balance the section. 2. Consider Removal: If no additional independent sources can be found to substantiate the claims, I suggest we consider removing the “Controversy” section altogether. This is in line with Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability, which states that “any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source.” 3. Seek Consensus: I believe this is a significant decision that should be made collectively. I invite other editors to share their thoughts and perspectives on whether the section should be revised or removed based on the availability and quality of sources.
By addressing this issue, we can ensure that the article maintains a high standard of accuracy and neutrality, in accordance with Wikipedia’s core policies. 5dondons ( talk) 17:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
If the sources are reliable and independent, the content probably should stay in some form. At a glance, the WFAA and Dallas News refs appear to be fine, while the Christian Post relies entirely on Ed Young's statements made without knowledge of what is in the reports on him, so that's the only source that doesn't appear independent. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This means thatNo. It means that an independent source reported on the issue, using the WFAA article as a major reference. That creates a stronger case the information is DUE. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
but also well-rounded and reflective of a broader perspective.Sorry, but that's not how POV works, and could lead to POV violations. -- Hipal ( talk) 01:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
To clarify my reasoning for getting rid of the section entirely (With the new sources, I think it makes more sense to just delete the section.
): both WFAA and Dallas News seem like reliable sources, and Christian Post probably is, too. Putting it together: one RS reported allegations from anonymous sources (fair enough), another reported that among the congregation there was widespread support that the allegations were wrong (fair enough). At one point I reverted "These allegations have not been substantiated by any verifiable sources or official findings."
[2] as being unsourced, because we don't know that without one. But if there aren't any further sources reporting continued discontent or official inquiries into something, it seems the reporting of they said vs they said isn't an informative addition. signed,
Willondon (
talk) 21:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
both WFAA and Dallas News seem like reliable sources"seem"? It appears we have consensus that they are reliable.
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Concerns_Over_Source_Reliability_and_Verification_in_the_'Lifestyle'_Section_of_Ed_Young's_Article started by 5dondons without any notifications. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and reverted the content changes, adding the new AP reference.
I agree that we should work to improve the presentation. Finding more references would be a good first step. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
After reviewing the “Controversy” section, I have concerns about its adherence to Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable sources and due weight. The section primarily relies on an investigative article, with a second source that merely references the first. This raises questions about the independence and verification of the information presented.
In light of these concerns, I propose the following:
1. Attempt to Find Additional Sources: We should make a concerted effort to find additional reliable, independent sources that provide a more comprehensive view of the controversy. If such sources are available, they should be used to revise and balance the section. 2. Consider Removal: If no additional independent sources can be found to substantiate the claims, I suggest we consider removing the “Controversy” section altogether. This is in line with Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability, which states that “any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source.” 3. Seek Consensus: I believe this is a significant decision that should be made collectively. I invite other editors to share their thoughts and perspectives on whether the section should be revised or removed based on the availability and quality of sources.
By addressing this issue, we can ensure that the article maintains a high standard of accuracy and neutrality, in accordance with Wikipedia’s core policies. 5dondons ( talk) 17:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
If the sources are reliable and independent, the content probably should stay in some form. At a glance, the WFAA and Dallas News refs appear to be fine, while the Christian Post relies entirely on Ed Young's statements made without knowledge of what is in the reports on him, so that's the only source that doesn't appear independent. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This means thatNo. It means that an independent source reported on the issue, using the WFAA article as a major reference. That creates a stronger case the information is DUE. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
but also well-rounded and reflective of a broader perspective.Sorry, but that's not how POV works, and could lead to POV violations. -- Hipal ( talk) 01:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
To clarify my reasoning for getting rid of the section entirely (With the new sources, I think it makes more sense to just delete the section.
): both WFAA and Dallas News seem like reliable sources, and Christian Post probably is, too. Putting it together: one RS reported allegations from anonymous sources (fair enough), another reported that among the congregation there was widespread support that the allegations were wrong (fair enough). At one point I reverted "These allegations have not been substantiated by any verifiable sources or official findings."
[2] as being unsourced, because we don't know that without one. But if there aren't any further sources reporting continued discontent or official inquiries into something, it seems the reporting of they said vs they said isn't an informative addition. signed,
Willondon (
talk) 21:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
both WFAA and Dallas News seem like reliable sources"seem"? It appears we have consensus that they are reliable.
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Concerns_Over_Source_Reliability_and_Verification_in_the_'Lifestyle'_Section_of_Ed_Young's_Article started by 5dondons without any notifications. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and reverted the content changes, adding the new AP reference.
I agree that we should work to improve the presentation. Finding more references would be a good first step. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)