This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 295 | ← | Archive 298 | Archive 299 | Archive 300 | Archive 301 | Archive 302 | → | Archive 305 |
In The Lincoln Project, an unsourced statement was recently added that the founders are Never Trumpers. I want to provide sources for that which show that many media outlets across the political spectrum have used that term. I found what looked like two good sources, representing opposite ends of the political spectrum:
and was blocked by the spam blacklist filter on breitbart. I raised the issue at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#breitbart.com and was surprised to discover that what I considered a legitimate need to cite this reference was rejected. I appreciate the input from bradv and Newslinger, who I'm sure are acting with the best of intentions, but I respectfully disagree with their point of view. Newslinger suggest I continue the conversation here.
I've had very little to do with the blacklist in the past, so I'm not well versed on the culture. I have had edits caught by the blacklist in the past, and in all those cases, once I've researched the source I was trying to use, I agreed that it was inappropriate and glad that the blacklist had caught my error. In this case, however, I disagree.
I'm not saying Breitbart is reliable for facts. I'm just saying that they're a well-known (far) right-wing media source, and as such, it is useful to cite their opinion to support the statement that opinion sources across the political spectrum have used the term "Never Trumper" to describe the Lincoln Project founders. This seems like a
WP:BLUE issue to me. It's easy to find tons of places that call the founders Never Trumpers. There's no doubt that the term is widely used and accepted. So much so that no newspaper, political commentator, etc, is going to write, "The Lincoln Project founders have been called Never Trumpers by media outlets across the political spectrum". The ubiquitous use stands on its own. As I pointed out on
WP:SWL,
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#RfC:_Breitbart states, It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary
, which is all I want to do. I contend that denying my request to allow this source is overstepping the bounds of the administrative function of the blacklist and wading into editorial discretion.
I'm especially concered about the argument that this is WP:SYNTHESIS. There was a suggestion that I use some other sources, namely Washington Examiner or The Washington Times. That would certainly get around the blacklist, but it is at direct odds with the synthesis argument. Surely if using my two sources is synthesis, then swapping out Breitbart for one of those would be exactly the same synthesis.
-- RoySmith (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@
MrOllie:, I could do a lot of things. But, we had an RFC which said the source is not usable for facts, but it's still usable to attribute opinion. I want to attribute opinion. If people want to argue on
Talk:The Lincoln Project about my editorial choices in the article, that's fair. And @
Guy Macon:, the blacklist is exactly the problem here. The spam blacklist shouldn't be used to prevent citations which the RFC explicitly said are acceptable, and it shouldn't be used to enforce editorial direction.
WP:BLACKLIST says, blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers
. Surely what I want to do is not spam. --
RoySmith
(talk) 17:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Let me address the synthesis issue first. To include the following example text:
Publications across the political spectrum have described the Lincoln Project as part of the Never Trump movement.
the text must be supported by a reliable source that explicitly states that publications across the political spectrum (or some variant, e.g. "both left-wing and right-wing publications") have described The Lincoln Project as part of the Never Trump movement. Citing two example publications that have published the description (regardless of what the publications are) is not enough to support the text, because it is a synthesis of five separate claims:
Based on current practice, editors generally accept combining claims #1 and #2 together, or claims #3 and #4 together, as this is explicitly recommended by the WP:BIASED guideline and occurs commonly enough to be uncontroversial (although this might not pass a featured article source review if Publication A or B lacks the left-wing/right-wing descriptor and is the only citation provided). However, combining all five claims together goes further to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", as proscribed in WP:SYNTH.
Eliminating the synthesis is fairly simple. Just name the sources directly:
Rolling Stone and the Washington Examiner have described the Lincoln Project as part of the Never Trump movement.
Let's move on to
reliability and
due weight. To include a source into an article, it must be both reliable and due for the use case. First, I disagree that the provided Breitbart News article is reliable for the claim that the Lincoln Project as part of the Never Trump movement. The applicable quote from Breitbart News is "The Never Trump super PAC The Lincoln Project endorsed Montana Democrat Gov. Steve Bullock on Wednesday over incumbent Republican Sen. Steve Daines." The article is published under the breitbart.com/politics
subdirectory and is not labeled as an opinion piece. Breitbart's description of The Lincoln Project is a factual claim, not an opinion, and in any case fails
WP:ABOUTSELF because the description is of a third party on an article (
The Lincoln Project) unrelated to Breitbart.
Second, even if we assume that the Breitbart description is usable as attributed opinion, the description is also undue. The author, Sean Moran, is not notable (and is not the same person as the athlete named Sean Moran). WP:DUE requires articles to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Breitbart is not a reliable source, and its viewpoint is undue unless published in a reliable source.
In conclusion, I don't think the use of Breitbart is warranted in this situation, and recommend the Washington Examiner ( RSP entry) or The Washington Times ( RSP entry) instead, with some adaptation of the suggested sample wording above. — Newslinger talk 07:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
YouTube has been cited over 170,000 times on Wikipedia per youtube.com . The use of YouTube as a reference is obviously problematic in many cases, as evidenced by the 19 discussions had about the source on this noticeboard linked at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#YouTube with 5 this year alone, but there are legitimate uses as well. Given the gravity of a RfC on a source that is that is this widely used, I think workshopping a RfC is necessary, as was done for QuackWatch. Obviously the 1-4 source reliabilty options are useless here as youtube is a self-publishing service. As such I propose several versions of a RfC question:
<ref>...</ref>
tags (Note: Does not include external links) for unregistered and new users under 7 days old?Feel free to propose other questions in the discussion below.
Additional things worth discussing:
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 295 | ← | Archive 298 | Archive 299 | Archive 300 | Archive 301 | Archive 302 | → | Archive 305 |
In The Lincoln Project, an unsourced statement was recently added that the founders are Never Trumpers. I want to provide sources for that which show that many media outlets across the political spectrum have used that term. I found what looked like two good sources, representing opposite ends of the political spectrum:
and was blocked by the spam blacklist filter on breitbart. I raised the issue at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#breitbart.com and was surprised to discover that what I considered a legitimate need to cite this reference was rejected. I appreciate the input from bradv and Newslinger, who I'm sure are acting with the best of intentions, but I respectfully disagree with their point of view. Newslinger suggest I continue the conversation here.
I've had very little to do with the blacklist in the past, so I'm not well versed on the culture. I have had edits caught by the blacklist in the past, and in all those cases, once I've researched the source I was trying to use, I agreed that it was inappropriate and glad that the blacklist had caught my error. In this case, however, I disagree.
I'm not saying Breitbart is reliable for facts. I'm just saying that they're a well-known (far) right-wing media source, and as such, it is useful to cite their opinion to support the statement that opinion sources across the political spectrum have used the term "Never Trumper" to describe the Lincoln Project founders. This seems like a
WP:BLUE issue to me. It's easy to find tons of places that call the founders Never Trumpers. There's no doubt that the term is widely used and accepted. So much so that no newspaper, political commentator, etc, is going to write, "The Lincoln Project founders have been called Never Trumpers by media outlets across the political spectrum". The ubiquitous use stands on its own. As I pointed out on
WP:SWL,
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#RfC:_Breitbart states, It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary
, which is all I want to do. I contend that denying my request to allow this source is overstepping the bounds of the administrative function of the blacklist and wading into editorial discretion.
I'm especially concered about the argument that this is WP:SYNTHESIS. There was a suggestion that I use some other sources, namely Washington Examiner or The Washington Times. That would certainly get around the blacklist, but it is at direct odds with the synthesis argument. Surely if using my two sources is synthesis, then swapping out Breitbart for one of those would be exactly the same synthesis.
-- RoySmith (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@
MrOllie:, I could do a lot of things. But, we had an RFC which said the source is not usable for facts, but it's still usable to attribute opinion. I want to attribute opinion. If people want to argue on
Talk:The Lincoln Project about my editorial choices in the article, that's fair. And @
Guy Macon:, the blacklist is exactly the problem here. The spam blacklist shouldn't be used to prevent citations which the RFC explicitly said are acceptable, and it shouldn't be used to enforce editorial direction.
WP:BLACKLIST says, blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers
. Surely what I want to do is not spam. --
RoySmith
(talk) 17:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Let me address the synthesis issue first. To include the following example text:
Publications across the political spectrum have described the Lincoln Project as part of the Never Trump movement.
the text must be supported by a reliable source that explicitly states that publications across the political spectrum (or some variant, e.g. "both left-wing and right-wing publications") have described The Lincoln Project as part of the Never Trump movement. Citing two example publications that have published the description (regardless of what the publications are) is not enough to support the text, because it is a synthesis of five separate claims:
Based on current practice, editors generally accept combining claims #1 and #2 together, or claims #3 and #4 together, as this is explicitly recommended by the WP:BIASED guideline and occurs commonly enough to be uncontroversial (although this might not pass a featured article source review if Publication A or B lacks the left-wing/right-wing descriptor and is the only citation provided). However, combining all five claims together goes further to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", as proscribed in WP:SYNTH.
Eliminating the synthesis is fairly simple. Just name the sources directly:
Rolling Stone and the Washington Examiner have described the Lincoln Project as part of the Never Trump movement.
Let's move on to
reliability and
due weight. To include a source into an article, it must be both reliable and due for the use case. First, I disagree that the provided Breitbart News article is reliable for the claim that the Lincoln Project as part of the Never Trump movement. The applicable quote from Breitbart News is "The Never Trump super PAC The Lincoln Project endorsed Montana Democrat Gov. Steve Bullock on Wednesday over incumbent Republican Sen. Steve Daines." The article is published under the breitbart.com/politics
subdirectory and is not labeled as an opinion piece. Breitbart's description of The Lincoln Project is a factual claim, not an opinion, and in any case fails
WP:ABOUTSELF because the description is of a third party on an article (
The Lincoln Project) unrelated to Breitbart.
Second, even if we assume that the Breitbart description is usable as attributed opinion, the description is also undue. The author, Sean Moran, is not notable (and is not the same person as the athlete named Sean Moran). WP:DUE requires articles to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Breitbart is not a reliable source, and its viewpoint is undue unless published in a reliable source.
In conclusion, I don't think the use of Breitbart is warranted in this situation, and recommend the Washington Examiner ( RSP entry) or The Washington Times ( RSP entry) instead, with some adaptation of the suggested sample wording above. — Newslinger talk 07:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
YouTube has been cited over 170,000 times on Wikipedia per youtube.com . The use of YouTube as a reference is obviously problematic in many cases, as evidenced by the 19 discussions had about the source on this noticeboard linked at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#YouTube with 5 this year alone, but there are legitimate uses as well. Given the gravity of a RfC on a source that is that is this widely used, I think workshopping a RfC is necessary, as was done for QuackWatch. Obviously the 1-4 source reliabilty options are useless here as youtube is a self-publishing service. As such I propose several versions of a RfC question:
<ref>...</ref>
tags (Note: Does not include external links) for unregistered and new users under 7 days old?Feel free to propose other questions in the discussion below.
Additional things worth discussing: