A fact from Restaurant Gordon Ramsay appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 May 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
food and
drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review
WP:Trivia and
WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,
select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
The claim attributed to "The S.Pellegrino World's 50 Best Restaurants" is ultimately sourced only to the Daily Mail. The DM is a deprecated source - we can't trust what it says, and we can't trust it to render others' claims.
The Banner, you're edit-warring this claim in, sourced only second-hand to a dubious source we can't trust. This doesn't appear to meet
WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You're the editor re-adding the material - do you have anything to back the claim? -
David Gerard (
talk)
09:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The Banner, we don't demand that editors spend their own time trying to find sources for random factoids that others failed to source properly. That would be very silly. The onus is on the person seeking to include disputed content, to support it with reliable sourcing. Guy (
help! -
typo?)
09:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
So you just remove the sources leaving them unsourced or you just remove the facts? Just because a source that used to be okay in the past is by now deemed not okay. Is straight removal of the questionable sources really in the interest of the encyclopedia? Or would hiding them suffice (preferably with a citation needed template)? The Bannertalk10:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
This is a much-discussed issue. If the only source for the claim was, as it appeared to be, the DM - whether that was in a comment or not - it should never have been there. But yes, basically it is - we shouldn't pretend a source is good when it isn't. And tagging doesn't work to replace the deprecated sources - removal does, though -
David Gerard (
talk)
11:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
And beside that: the removal of the facts was in fact a demand to come up with replacement sources. You just shift the burden of sourcing to somebody else. The Bannertalk10:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The Banner, er, that's the foundation of how Wikipedia works.
WP:BRD is basically exactly that. Add content, and if it's challenged, then the person looking to include it has to support it. Whether to remove or tag {{cn}} is a subjective decision, and likely to be based on how contentious the text is. In this case it was simultaneously both negative and apparently trivial, so removal is what I would have done too. Reasonable people may differ. Guy (
help! -
typo?)
12:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, we shouldn't pretend a statement is sourced when it isn't, particularly when the source for it is a known bad source. This improves the encyclopedia -
David Gerard (
talk)
12:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
According to WP:DAILYMAIL: The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail. And it states nowhere that removal is mandatory. The Bannertalk16:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
According to WP:DAILYMAIL: There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. Perhaps you missed that bit. -
David Gerard (
talk)
17:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
A fact from Restaurant Gordon Ramsay appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 May 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
food and
drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review
WP:Trivia and
WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,
select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
The claim attributed to "The S.Pellegrino World's 50 Best Restaurants" is ultimately sourced only to the Daily Mail. The DM is a deprecated source - we can't trust what it says, and we can't trust it to render others' claims.
The Banner, you're edit-warring this claim in, sourced only second-hand to a dubious source we can't trust. This doesn't appear to meet
WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You're the editor re-adding the material - do you have anything to back the claim? -
David Gerard (
talk)
09:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The Banner, we don't demand that editors spend their own time trying to find sources for random factoids that others failed to source properly. That would be very silly. The onus is on the person seeking to include disputed content, to support it with reliable sourcing. Guy (
help! -
typo?)
09:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
So you just remove the sources leaving them unsourced or you just remove the facts? Just because a source that used to be okay in the past is by now deemed not okay. Is straight removal of the questionable sources really in the interest of the encyclopedia? Or would hiding them suffice (preferably with a citation needed template)? The Bannertalk10:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
This is a much-discussed issue. If the only source for the claim was, as it appeared to be, the DM - whether that was in a comment or not - it should never have been there. But yes, basically it is - we shouldn't pretend a source is good when it isn't. And tagging doesn't work to replace the deprecated sources - removal does, though -
David Gerard (
talk)
11:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
And beside that: the removal of the facts was in fact a demand to come up with replacement sources. You just shift the burden of sourcing to somebody else. The Bannertalk10:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The Banner, er, that's the foundation of how Wikipedia works.
WP:BRD is basically exactly that. Add content, and if it's challenged, then the person looking to include it has to support it. Whether to remove or tag {{cn}} is a subjective decision, and likely to be based on how contentious the text is. In this case it was simultaneously both negative and apparently trivial, so removal is what I would have done too. Reasonable people may differ. Guy (
help! -
typo?)
12:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, we shouldn't pretend a statement is sourced when it isn't, particularly when the source for it is a known bad source. This improves the encyclopedia -
David Gerard (
talk)
12:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
According to WP:DAILYMAIL: The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail. And it states nowhere that removal is mandatory. The Bannertalk16:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
According to WP:DAILYMAIL: There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. Perhaps you missed that bit. -
David Gerard (
talk)
17:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply