Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 299

It needs to be discussed that Cathy O'Brien's books are eligible for citation. I have done an extensive write up of her page with extensive citations. Her books are published under Whistle-blower laws and the Constitution of the United States of America. Her first document - Trance Formation of America - is uncontested before the US Congressional Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence oversight and is in law libraries around the world. Users keep blocking the write-up I did of her, which includes no bias of my own or any opinion. Instead I have stated pure fact from her life as documented. The fact anyone would want to silence this uncontested testimony would only align with extreme bias against fact, testimony, and what criminals have only done for decades. Her testimony is a matter of public record and should be on Wikipedia as I have written it - facts only. What was there was completely biased and non-factual. This involves intelligence agencies and criminal activity of the highest order, so Wikipedia, as a community and project for the people of the world should not show bias in favour of the criminals at such agencies. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshleyCaprice (talk • contribs)

A cursory glance suggests that her books are full of absolute wild claims - maybe reliable sources have supported the idea that George W Bush is capable of generating holograms of lizard people depending on where he sits but I doubt it. Cameron Scott (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

She is a fringe conspiracy theorist who is not an RS for anything except her thinking it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)09

• Do you mean Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist)? No. Guy (help!) 15:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Her document "Trance Formation of America' is in law libraries around the world. It is uncontested before congress. You cannot just take "a cursory glance". It is backed up by public courts records and facts. Anyone dismissing her testimony, regardless how traumatic it may be is clearly biased. --AshleyCaprice (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

AshleyCaprice, uncontested, perhaps, but only in the sense that nobody bothers to respond to obvious tinfoil-hattery. Guy (help!) 22:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

If you actually at least read my write-up perhaps you would be more informed and less biased. I wrote document facts only. What I wrote should be in the public forum here. --AshleyCaprice (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

One example: in a Nashville, Tennessee Juvenile Court hearing in 1991, Judge Andy Shookhoff stated in open court, "Laws do not apply in this case for reasons of national security." This was in Kelly Cox's case (Cathy's daughter). She was 11 years old. 11 years old and the national security act is invoked, but the judge did it in open court so that it is a matter of public record. Cathy's testimony is real. Wikipedia must document the truth, not biased lies such as her being a "conspiracy theorist". She lived it - lived through it. You must document the truth, or else continue to be concede and surrender to criminal activity making yourselves to be criminals. Wikipedia is meant for documented truth. --AshleyCaprice (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the material you are trying to insert is cited only to O'Brien's books. And these contain so many

WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims I wouldn't know where to begin. - LuckyLouie (talk

) 19:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No, @

Core Content Policies before proceeding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

20:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

You should begin by projecting your lizard-hologram to the Bush family residence to inquire if there is any veracity to these claims. -

MrOllie (talk

) 20:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I know exactly where to begin. At 15:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC} AshleyCaprice received a DS alert[18] after multiple previous warnings.[19] If she continues the behavior, report it at

WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk

) 21:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Documented truth and verifiable facts are the same thing. Cathy's testimony is verifiable you only need to look into it and at the testimony and evidence including provided by others. She isn't sued because she has over 3 tons of evidence. If they took her to court there would be mass public disclosure and the criminals convicted. The criminals all have her testimony it was sent to them all. If you cover up her testimony that is up to you but it is criminal itself and only continuing abuse. And its like writing nonsense about a science. Cathy's article is currently nonsense. If you are truly unbiased you would investigate properly, listen, spend time researching and let the correct facts - verifiable - be published. --AshleyCaprice (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

AshleyCaprice, that is not true. Anyone who knows the history of science can tell you about the genesis of the word fact and how it differs from truth.

Your argument is functionally equivalent to saying that because they have not sued David Icke, the Royal Family are lizards. Guy (help!) 22:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Because I'm either a glutton for punishment or insomniac, I decided to "investigate properly" one of the few testable claims you (

Core Content Policies. O'Brien can say anything she wants and obviously does, or else you wouldn't have read about it and come here. We are under absolutely no obligation to give her another platform. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

05:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The right thing, the responsible thing is to spend time going through her testimony and what I have written and not allowing distortion and lies on her article. There are many articles on Wikipedia that are nonsense. At least in her case, where there is clear evidence you might find it in yourselves to be a good and reasonable person. If you dont want to admit it, but dont pretend you are a good person, and dont pretend you dont perpetuate criminal thinking in the leaders involved with this syndicate. Your attitude is not only irresponsible but harmful to humanity. It is sick making. Do the right thing and find it in yourselves to be good. If not admit your compliance with the criminals. Her case involves the highest levels of intelligence and cover-up due to the nature of the testimony and because of who the perpetraitors are and were. If you want to be complicit in the cover-up that is your choice, but have the guts to admit it. If you want to be a good and decent person, research it properly and stop perpetuating lies. --AshleyCaprice (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as it is acceptable for self source of minor details such as date of birth, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That's odd. My facebook page has my date oif birth wrong. Thank goodness it isn't being used as a source for my date of birth. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: is this an oppose for XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which only reverts the use of sources in references for unregistered and new users with less than 7 day old accounts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support warn edit filter and XlinkBot Facebook is almost entirely user generated content, and is extensively used in
  WP:ABOUTSELF circumstances, Facebook links should be used only with caution by experienced editors and preventing new users from using Facebook would help curb problematic usage. Hemiauchenia (talk
  ) 18:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Hemiauchenia - Admittedly I've used Facebook I believe twice here so extreme caution should be used with it and I agree with Hemiauchenia only experienced editors should be able to add it and even then if should only be added if necessary and in exceptional circumstance. –Davey2010^Talk 20:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose since I oppose the use of edit filters in principle. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support both—the cases where Facebook should be cited are very rare, inexpienced users are most likely to misuse. I think the helpful effects outweigh the harms from this filter. buidhe 22:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I wouldn't spam-filter it (yet), it has its uses, but an edit filter is definitely appropriate. Do we have an edit filter as yet that completely blocks additions by IPs and non-autoconfirmed users? - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose setting such an edit filter to disallow. Support setting it to warn. Oppose the bot because it sounds needlessly bitey. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose bot. When I saw this, I immediately thought of a potential use — a notable person who has a Facebook account but doesn't have anything close to an official website. In general, I believe it would be 100% appropriate to link that person's Facebook site: either the person doesn't care about his privacy and makes lots of stuff visible, or he does care and restricts what's online. With this in mind, bots shouldn't go around removing newly-added Facebook links, since a likely good-use situation exists. Maybe do a filter that warns and tags, but new users can still be productive in this kind of setting, so at most we ought to warn them that it's a bad idea most of the time, and make it so someone can easily go around checking such edits. Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support: It is a social media website in which people can claim anything without any verifiability and others would believe them. Even its owner has admitted the spread of fake news and hoaxes over it and has done little to curb it. A website with such content should not be allowed here. Also if it is listed on
  WP:ANI for disruptive editing.U¹ _quattro TALK
  01:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blacklisting - unless anyone can prove that Facebook is reliable enough. Not only is it unreliable due to the nature of content monitoring, but it is also being overrun by conspiracy theorists and fake-news-wielding communalists (people who discriminate by religion) in the USA and India respectively.
  RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk
  02:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both, Facebook is still a useful, albeit unreliable, source, and including a warning filter for everybody would create the presumption that it should never be used, which is just plain wrong. Automatic reversion is also a bad idea, as that is Bite-y and would harm content more than help it, since there are quite common legitimate reasons to cite Facebook. this is an absolutely awful idea. Specifically, it would decimate articles on politics, very often a person has an account on there which serves as a campaign website. Also, this is not even going into the fact that Facebook can function as a perfectly good primary source. Blacklisting Facebook or putting a filter on it is an absurd overreaction that would have horrible consequences for Wikipedia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  WP:SPS. Guy (help!

  ) 08:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  That’s a good reminder for me to double-check what the person making the proposal is actually saying. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support warn+tag as MediaWiki:Tag-deprecated source, oppose bot as only humans can verify whether a Facebook link is appropriate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support filter for new users, oppose bot as it would be
  talk · edits
  06:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support this. A "warn" filter doesn't stop it being used, but it will remind people that citing Facebook groups and other such crap is a Bad Idea. Looking at filter logs for 869, the XLinkBot addition is also justified. Guy (help!) 08:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support both. There are legitimate use cases for Facebook links — for example, I've seen professional organizations make announcements on their Facebook pages before/instead of their own websites — so we should allow such links in principle, but guard against them being introduced willy-nilly.
  talk
  ) 19:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support including blacklisting or any other restriction. There is nothing reliable about Facebook, as it applies to being a source. Any information can be fudged, verifying accounts is not easy (and in some cases, not possible). Nothing about it qualifies as a primary, secondary or tertiary source. From the perspective of sourcing, it is actually less reliable than a forum. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the reliability depends on who is posting on what on Facebook et al. For example WIN News posts news stories to their Facebook pages - example at "RUGBY UNION". Win News Sunshine Coast. Maroochydore: Win Television. 25 May 2020. Retrieved 26 May 2020. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• I should've pointed out the stories are posted to those pages after they have been broadcast on TV. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose autorevert/blacklist, warning is ok I hate Facebook on many grounds but there is insufficient evidence given of these links being a bad enough problem to warrant interfering with editor judgment in such drastic ways. Per WP:PRIMARY, a self-published post usually isn't a good source; but per the same WP:PRIMARY, it sometimes is. Wikipedia should run on good judgment on these matters, rather than mechanized bots and filters. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support If the only good source for a claim is Facebook, then it is not notable enough. For discussing personal posts, it is not good enough per
  WP:BLP.--ReyHahn (talk
  ) 16:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both, but especially the bot, since auto-reversion is an extreme measure that should be reserved for specific, extreme cases. In general, I don't see any evidence of a problem requiring a solution here. An official Facebook page is not any more reliable than an organization or individual's website, but neither is it any less reliable. For the classic situation of notable person/organization using their Facebook page (alone) to post a noteworthy fact or statement, the best practice is what it always has been: to link to both the actual primary source and a reliable secondary source discussing it. But best practices aside, just as bad content is better than no content, bad sources are better than no sources. Quality is iterative, and any measure that discourages editors from providing the actual source where they found information is iterating us in the wrong direction. -- Visviva (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Warning may be helpful, automated removal or preventing of edits is opposed It's
  settled policy that there are limited situations in which specific material in Facebook might be acceptable as a source or external link. If editors want to change that policy then that should be done explicitly and clearly and not through the imposition of an edit filter or other technical means. ElKevbo (talk
  ) 03:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support both, and change the policy to get rid of this and other commercial "social media" apps completely, for multiple reasons. 1. Social media services are unreliable. 2. Social media services are not Web sites, they're apps: they won't load properly without running their non-free malware-spyware JavaScript, so anything sourced to them is unverifiable for everyone who cares about that; linking to them is incompatible with the Wikipedia idea of free culture. 3. Social media apps are inherently advertisements for their own services, making links to them spam. —{{u|
  Talk｜Contributions
  05:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter. A spot check indicates that most of the existing citations to Facebook do not qualify under the
  WP:ABOUTSELF policy, and should not be used to support article content. — Newslinger talk
  11:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Support both. Facebook does not exercise editorial oversight in any meaningful sense, which is why it qualifies under

  WP:ABOUTSELF are added by editors who do not understand that Facebook is generally unreliable. Both of the proposed measures will help rectify this. — Newslinger talk

  14:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose both per Visvisa. Facebook is fine in certain cases, such as
  WP:ABOUTSELF information, and statements by organizations. In my experience, municipal- and county-level officials and departments often release statements on Facebook first, and sometimes only on Facebook. I also want to add that we've already drifted way too far from being the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We don't have nearly as many active editors as we should. We don't want to be scaring newbies off - oftentimes excellent contributors start out with well-meaning but misguided edits. The last thing we need is even more hoops for newcomers to jump through. Lastly I want to object to Goldenshimmer's 2nd and 3rd reasons for supporting these proposals. Verifiability doesn't mean it has to be free on a noncommercial website with no tracking scripts. That would block off almost all of the Internet. In research for articles I've written I've used material from numerous local newspapers whose websites look like 2004 came to life on my screen, with obtrusive ads blocking almost all the content so that I have to use "inspect element" in order to actually read the text. Many widely used sources are behind paywalls - The Times of London, the Economist, etc (I don't count NYT/WaPo/etc because their paywalls are easily bypassed by pressing ESC at just the right time during pageload). Sources don't even have to be on the Internet - books are widely used, and often they are more reliable than Internet sources. Our primary goal isn't to promote free-software culture. Our goal is to build the world's largest collection of easily accessible knowledge using any tools available to us, regardless of our personal feelings on their profit model or use of javascript. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵
  05:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Talk｜Contributions

  05:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support edit filter: occasionally better than nothing for basic information about public figures per
  WP:SPS. An edit filter should not discourage these genuine uses, but instead discourage the much more numerous poor uses. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter
  ) 12:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support both. Especially when dealing with biographical articles about living persons, at very least a warning about the general unreliability of such self-published sources, and very likely a revert, is appropriate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support both. Not a reliable source, high probability information found there is factually inaccurate due to its reluctance to employ rigorous fact checking. Acousmana (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter, oppose bot. There are plenty of instances where Facebook is a reliable source for
  WP:ABOUTSELF type statements and some basic facts by organisations that are the subject of an article who have an official facebook page. I'm not aware there is any method of algorithmically determining what type of Facebook page is being cited from the URI. Thryduulf (talk
  ) 13:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support edit filter on the grounds that, as others have observed, it may be an appropriate
  WP:SELFSOURCE for suitable material that isn't available anywhere else permissible, but in other cases it should be replaced with other sources or the material disincluded from the encyclopedia. Ralbegen (talk
  ) 10:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support both There are indeed some few legitimate uses (as there are also generally some legitimate uses for other sites which are on the bot list such as Youtube or others) but given the potential for spamming/misuse this seems like a good preventive measure. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose both - The New York Times has a FB site. FB now has fact checkers and editorial oversight - they remove fake news. There are numberous business sites on FB, including cable & broadcast programs as well as digital publishers. I'm really concerned we're going overboard here. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Timely FYI from NBC affiliate WANDTV [20] "A Facebook page claiming to be Kohl's is fake, according to Kohl's. The fake page was created on Sunday...According to Kohl's this is a fake page and not associated with the company. They have reached out to Facebook to remove the spoof page." Today is Tuesday & at the time of me writing this comment, the fake Kohl's page is still active on Facebook (here [21]) It's likely that one of these days Facebook might get around to removing the fake Kohls page, but, it's still just anyone's guess as to when Facebook will remove it. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Both - Facebook is not a "news outlet," not a place for "reliable" information, and Facebook doesn't pretend to be either one of those things. In fact, Facebook doesn't pretend to be anything other than a giant blog whose mission is for people "to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what's going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them."[22] I underscore "to them" because the "to them" are individuals around the globe who litter Facebook with fake news, conspiracy theories, and propaganda; some of which is geared to incite violence and intentionally cause harm to public health. For example: "over 40% of the coronavirus-related misinformation it found on Facebook — which had already been debunked by fact-checking organizations working with the tech giant — remained on the platform despite the company being told by these organizations that the social media posts were false." [23] Like I said, Facebook doesn't even pretend to be a reliable source for information, so I do not recommend any encyclopedia using Facebook as a "reliable source." BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support both Nothing published in Facebook qualifies as a primary, secondary or tertiary source. While we use care even when using blogs, using only those connected to and fact checked by major news sources, I can't imagine why we'd want to use sources that in theory are no more accurate than Wikipedia. Some editors have suggested that Facebook is reliable for a few small facts that are not available elsewhere. Considering that we strive so hard to keep our encyclopedia factual, why should we risk our integrity for a few small facts? If we can't find it elsewhere we don't need it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support filter warning users of best practices, Oppose bot warning, most notable people and organizations worldwide use Facebook legitimately; for most, I believe, third-world users, Facebook *is* the Internet. Our view of social networking needs to evolve to welcome and transform Facebook citers into better Wikipedians. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support Facebook is generally an unreliable source. However, there are situations where they are reliable. For example, if a politician makes a post on Facebook that says they are against abortion, that could be cited without any doubt as to whether the information was reliable. However, new editors are far too likely to misuse information from Facebook. For that reason, I support both proposals.
  talk
  ) 17:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Facebook can be useful as per
  Scorpions13256, it is about using the information on Facebook and double checking it against other references. This measure is just like putting a harness on an adult. New page reviewers can check this and raise the issue if Facebook is unreliable evidence on a page - older stuff we need to be vigilant of ourselves.Davidstewartharvey (talk
  ) 13:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support both. It is private informative medium without any control. In addition we cannot know whether it is really written by a person who has Facebook profile or it written by his wife-husband, brother etc. Use informations from such a medium makes no sense. It is actually OR. Mikola22 (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Remove the sentence - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove as the material they did publish might be reliable, they are just not reliable for having published it. But if it is reliable someone else would have written about it. Thus (and given the possibly of accidental or deliberate abuse) I have to change to remove, if they cannot be trusted over what they themselves have published they cannot be trusted over anything.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove per David Gerard's reasoning below. As a secondary consideration, we should be discoraging use of historical newspaper sources anyway. buidhe 10:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove, with the caveat that the print edition may pass, so a print archive might be acceptable? Guy (help!) 11:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So (in essence) remove and add qualifier?Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't even add suggested ways to use the DM, they'll be taken as blanket permissions - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't look likely to pass, but an official WP consensus opinion that dailymail.co.uk is not a reliable source for the content of the Daily Mail would certainly be interesting - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Remove the qualifier, per Slatersteven, and also the notion that these sort of qualifiers confuse the situation. --Jayron32 14:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add a qualifier (though perhaps not needed as obvious). If the dailymail is unreliable, that may extend to their own historical content. But if you pull a dailymail piece off a microfilm archive or online archives not run by the mail ([26], [27]) then there shouldn't be any problem in that regard.--Hippeus (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• In my opinion, the best answer is [A] just remove all mention of historical from the Daily mail entry of RSPDM, and [B] have the closing summary of the RfC you are reading now specifically mention that a microfilm archive or online archives not run by The Daily Mail is as good or as bad as the source where you read it. Having this subtlety in the RSPDM will indeed lead to misuse. Having it in the RfC closing summary will allow any editor to use the historical page (assuming that her local library's microfilm collection or www.historic-newspapers.co.uk are reliable sources for what was printed all of those years ago; if some other source starts faking historical newspaper pages we will deal with that specific source in the usual way). So I !vote Remove. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Bad RfC I will not say "support" or "oppose" because that might suggest respect for the WP:RSP essay-class page, which I do not have. It is in fact quite easy to see document images for back copies of the Daily Mail via Gale. (I did so for the May 2 1945 front page via my local library site for free, I assume that others have good library sites too.)
  WP:DAILYMAIL makes it clear that editors have a right to use such material in some circumstances, regardless what people say in this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk
  ) 17:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove the sentence, and add a statement that historical content on dailymail.co.uk may have been significantly modified from its original version.
  talk
  ) 00:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add a qualifier It is possible to trust archives that were archived by trusted sources such as a national library, at the time of publication. Trustworthy archives exist as evidenced by the original BoingBoing post that found the original. -- GreenC 13:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Something else - Clarify, do not make false statements. PRESERVE the indication of where there is good content of Daily Mail. I do not see support given re their current print about history, but if you need precision that the good is historical items not current items about history, it should per
  WP:BATHWATER clarify the good is older published work. These might not be readily available elsewhere, as there simply isn’t much historical sources, and if the guide indicates the previously acknowledged good data is bad, then it’s just a case of the guide is giving false information. Cheers Markbassett (talk
  ) 19:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• There is certainly good content from the Daily Mail... but there is no indication of which content that is. The OP didn't point out the old content is good, but that it cannot be trusted. They aren't going to put warnings on their stories saying, "This content is okay, the rest is a bit dodgy." It's just not going to happen. This is how these papers compete with each other. They wind up people who otherwise like to believe they don't want to be informed about reality, but warned about reality. They aren't worried about Wikipedia. They are worried about Facebook and Twitter. It feels like they are being thrown out. They aren't even here. They've little to no interest in what this site represents. They just want to make a splash in the pond, not write an encyclopaedia. ~ R.T.G 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Add the reality, or what is the point? Anything less is just covering it up more. ~ R.T.G 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add a qualifier that the Daily Mail may change their historical content, making it unreliable. Best practice would be to use another source, or link to a reliable archiving service. LK (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Remove per nom, or add a qualifier as the second-best option: since they're faking their own historical content, they're not a reliable source even for that. As for the idea of saying that historical content can be cited if one finds and cites the original in a library (and not the current Daily Mail's provably unreliable claims of what the original was)... under what circumstances is a (say) 1951 edition of the Daily Mail going to be both a and also the only reliable source we can find for something, anyway, and under what circumstance is information only reported in one so old edition of them going to be
  WP:NOTABLE)? I think, if anyone is trying to leave open some use of the Daily Mail as acceptable, I'd like there to be a concrete example of that being necessary and not just a contrived hypothetical. (Off-topic, discussing using very old documents as sources makes me think of Chizerots, which has three sources, from 1870, 1909, and 2008 respectively, discussing how "the most beautiful" among them is a "type [that] seems more Arabian than Berberic".) -sche (talk
  ) 15:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add a qualifier. The fact that the Dailymail online cannot be trusted for archives for its past copies does not make their past copies inherently less reliable. You can still find physical copies that can be used for archives. If someone can provide actual evidence of the Daily Mail publishing false stories historically that can be justify the removal of this section. However, that is not the case this situation just makes finding archives of the Daily Mail harder which does not affect reliablity. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 09:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Remove. The Daily Mail has never been a trustworthy publication. There is zero reason to ever source anything to it. Anything notable to include will be sourced elsewhere, and anything that only ever appeared on the Daily Mail is likely fake. No qualifiers; there's absolutely nothing usable about it. oknazevad (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Do you have any evidence that suggests this? How do you know say a 1905 archive copy of the Daily Mail is "likely fake"? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Remove. In addition to the above, the clause as currently written also invites debate about what counts as "old", which isn't great in terms of guidance. The Perennial Sources page already has "Context matters" in the lead, and "generally prohibited" within the Daily Mail section, both of which already invite wiggle room for instances in which an old edition may be the best source. CMD (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Why are we discussing this - To be honest, this looks like Guy Macon returning, yet again, to this topic on which he has been so vocal for so long ("burn it, burn it with fire!"). We get it, you hate the DM, but what is the actual article-content issue being discussed here? None is presented. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Clearly you failed to notice the fact that my explanation as to why we are discussing this has been in this thread fo over a month, so let me repeat it for you.

Let's talk about the basic error in thinking that led us here. Again and again I see people claiming that they "just know" that:

• The Daily Mail wouldn't lie about a direct quote,
• wouldn't fabricate an interview,
• wouldn't lie about whether the person who's name is on the top of an editorial is the author who actually wrote those words,
• wouldn't lie if that "author" has a sufficiently famous name,
• wouldn't lie if doing so would result in a lawsuit or fine,
• wouldn't lie about material being original and not plagiarized with a few errors thrown in to make better clickbait,
• etc., etc.

Those who "just know" that there are times when the Daily Mail isn't lying expect the rest of us to find, not just multiple examples of The Daily Mail lying. but examples of them lying in every conceivable situation.

Last month I had no idea that The Daily Mail might lie about the contents of their own historical pages but I knew from experience that they lie in all situations. Now I have an example of them lying in this new specific situation.

I am getting sick and tired of playing Whac-A-Mole. At what point do we simply conclude that those who "just know" that The Daily Mail doesn't lie in some situations "know" no such thing and that The Daily Mail will lie about ANYTHING? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, every argument made about how the Daily Mail is sometimes reliable has been shown to be flawed. It is ridiculous we have this every time the Daily Mail is source or removed "but its reliable for this one thing". It just cannot be trusted for anything ever, at any time.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, you're not playing Whack-a-mole. There is no actual content issue presented here, just a bunch of hypotheticals. You're proposing overturning RFCs that you were the biggest proponent of because you don't think they go far enough. FOARP (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Add qualifier; perhaps a note that the dead tree version can be relied on as a historical document of the time. Although that might be hard to "police". (In which case, just Remove, as I doubt we would be losing much in the long-term.)——Serial ^# 10:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on

WP:RSPDM

I think we should just remove the sentence. It's ill-defined and not well supported in the RFCs themselves - when, precisely, was the DM not terrible? By what measure? - and IMO, encrusting a qualifier with further qualifiers is not clear. And qualifiers have historically been used by editors who want to use bad content as an excuse to add otherwise-unusable content - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that there are things they are notable for (such as the photo of St Pauls), but then if its notable others would have noted it, we don't need to use the (well this) Daily Myth).Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If the result here is "Remove", it would probably also make sense to include an explanation that prevents this from being interpreted as contradicting the original conclusions. Maybe something like, "The original

certainly - it'll be linked as a third listed RFC, link it from

WP:DAILYMAIL which is the 2017 RFC ... there will be various sensible ways to handle it. The present text has been modified in uncontroversial ways before, e.g. I noted other "dailymail" domains which aren't the DM, and dailymail.com used to be a proper newspaper, the Charleston Daily Mail, which is in fact used as a source in Wikipedia, before the DM bought it from them - David Gerard (talk

) 14:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

certainly not - that would modify the closed and archived WP:DAILYMAIL RfC even though the subject here (read the topic, read the questions) is not about that, and even if it were it would not be legitimate here. If you want to overturn what the closers concluded in WP:DAILYMAIL your recourse is

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Peter Gulutzan (talk

) 14:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It might therefore be useful to augment

WP:DAILYMAIL with a new essay, putting the reasons for our attitude to the DM and giving appropriate examples so that editors less familiar with the history can catch up and understand why it is being removed. Kahastok talk

15:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that's nonsense. The DM has similar politics to the Times and the Telegraph, but - and this is the key point - those behave rather more like papers of record that aren't given to fabrication.

The primary objection that Wikipedia-type people have to the DM is that they are repeated, habitual liars who make stuff up, and are extensively documented as doing so. Do you really not understand that that's the problem? - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it's probably too much to expect you to actually read what I wrote before writing an abusive response. Kahastok talk 10:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Seems just silly, RSP is lazy and obviously a blanket statement will be sometimes flawed by giving false conclusions. Instead of examining specifics of an item in context per RS, or dealing with Mail had some bits accepted as RS, this just further pursues the false dichotomy of everything published by X is bad in every way or everything published by X is perfect in every way. Silly. The real question should be at what point are we to just ignore the
  WP:RSN instead ? Cheers Markbassett (talk
  ) 19:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

As this RfC has elapsed, I've submitted a request for

WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from WP:RSPDM summary. — Newslinger talk

06:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Topsy-turvy logic - If I get the logic here, it's that the RFCs "proved" that the DM is a bad source that should be banned, but the proposers disagree with what the RFCs say now because they didn't "prove" that it was ever good. No, if you want to re-open this issue then you reopen the whole issue of the DM ban, you challenge the whole of the analysis of the RFCs, not just the parts you agree with. You want to over-turn an old RFC that basically banned a source (lets not kid ourselves that this isn't what happened or how it's being used - see the eradication campaign details below) because it didn't go far enough, when there was quite a lot of opinion voiced at both RFCs (dozens of editors in both RFCs - many more than have thus far spoken in favour of further extending the ban) that actually it was going too far, you cannot pretend that this ban is uncontroversial except for the parts you think didn't go far enough and that opposition to it never existed. The oppose votes in the previous RFCs must be taken into account here. FOARP (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Problem at For Your Eyes Only (short story collection) - see reversion with dismissive edit summaries, ignoring obvious policy issues, and personal attacks on Talk:For Your Eyes Only (short story collection). More eyes needed.

I'll flag more of these in this section as they come up - I assure you, this is an absolutely typical example of the genre: ignore all policy and guidelines, dive straight into the personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop being a disruptive little edit warrior and stop with the outright lies. If you’d bothered to read the bloody message on the talk page, you’ll see that I said I would replace the source. Stop being such a dramah monger. - SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Please desist in your personal attacks - these are a violation of the policy

WP:BURDEN? - David Gerard (talk

) 23:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

No personal attacks, and stop being so disruptive. I have said I will find a replacement in the morning (I first said it about 5 or 6 posts ago, but you've ignored it and kept disruptively pressing your point). Take your little crusade elsewhere until I've had the chance to look properly. It's 12:40am and I'm off to bed, but (for the nth time), I will look again in the morning. In the meantime, reflect that there are ways and means of doing things, and you are not doing things terribly well. - SchroCat (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

www.dailymail.co.uk is not an acceptable source. You say you have a better source? Then use that source. Do not re-insert any citation to The Daily Mail. Also, please don't make obviously false claims like "No personal attacks" when 23 minutes earlier you posted a personal attack ("Stop being a disruptive little edit warrior... Stop being such a dramah monger.") --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

FFS... You really don't bother reading what people say, do you? "You say you have a better source?" I've not said that at all. On several occasions I have said that I will look for one,after a night's sleep. If you are looking for the best way to piss people off with your little crusade, you've found it: an inflexible approach of edit warring to instantly remove information that has been in place for several years, without allowing a few hours for that information to,be replaced? Get a fucking sense of perspective. As to the supposed PAs: I have given a fair description of your approach to this situation. Now back the fuck off for a few hours to allow for a search for a new source. - SchroCat (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Or you know, you get a sense of perspective and re-read

b

} 05:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. SchroCat, I don't even need to leave this thread to see you ignoring policy and being combative and disruptive. Guy Macon clearly read what you wrote, he fucking quoted your personal attacks! If "dramah monger" really does fall under

being a hypocrite in expecting others to give you a few hours to bring in a replacement source instead of just letting the page not have that information during that time. Ian.thomson (talk

) 05:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• He obviously didn't read it, given what I've said, but if you want to back up a disruptive process by using personal attacks to call me a hypocrite with a "sense of blind entitlement". then I guess the blindness is thick on the ground here and the PAs are fine to throw around. As I said on the talk page, the information has been in the article for several years, and to a source that is not banned (and yes, Headbomb, the world will also not end if those passages remain in the article for a few hours while an alternative is sought - particularly as some was removed and some left with a cn tag - no logic there at all. And I'll let you strike your sentence saying the information was "unreliably sourced": it wasn't). I had acknowledged that I was going to look for an alternative source, and yet that still gives someone the right to edit war, rather than a few hours grace to find an alternative? Common sense has been replaced with the crusading zeal way too much. You lot have an apexcellent way of pissing people off by not bothering with common sense and choosing the most inflexible and disruptive path that inconveniences readers. - SchroCat (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I've struck the lie in the title: I am not an advocate for the Mail and never have been. I voted in favour of the ban of the source and I'm glad to see it being removed, but it's the manner and method of that removal that is disruptive. Find a different way to deal with it, rather than edit warring and then calling me a "DM advocate". (That also falls under NPA, but I don't expect anyone will bother with leaving stupidity messages to warn Gerard about civility with name calling). - SchroCat (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the

2017 RFC and 2019 RFC, I don't see you on either. Did you change usernames? - David Gerard (talk

) 19:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This edit removed a reference to the
  Mail on Sunday. Has the Daily Mail ban been extended to the Mail on Sunday? While they have the same owner they are editorially distinct as far as I am aware. From what I recall of the discussion all the evidence of falsified stories/quotes related exclusively to The Daily Mail title and its online presence. Betty Logan (talk
  ) 06:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither

WP:DAILYMAIL2 covered the Mail on Sunday and there has been no RfC since then that would mean the source is unsuitable. Nice to know the disapprobation of the above (not to say the edit warring and grief) has been over the illicit removal of information cited to a source that is not deprecated. - SchroCat (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC) p.s. I've tweaked the title again to reflect the reality. - SchroCat (talk

) 07:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat,

• Did you make this edit?[30]
• Did that edit add the source www.dailymail.co.uk?
• Did you also add "work=Daily Mail" in that same edit?
• Is www.dailymail.co.uk the URL for The Daily Mail?
• Did I revert you with this edit?[31]
• Was my edit summary in any way unclear?
• Did you then edit war to re-insert the source www.dailymail.co.uk?[32] again?

These are simple questions. You should be able to provide yes or no answers to each of them, but please do feel free to explain, in detail, why your edits actually added (and were reverted for adding)

The Daily Mail] but you are now claiming[33][34]that they only added The Mail on Sunday? --Guy Macon (talk

) 08:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Was this or this removing a banned source? Yes or no? Did this whole annoying mess start with the boundaries of
  WP:DAILYMAIL2
  being pushed to delete information removed from a legitimate source? Why, when you removed the www.dailymail.co.uk source (rightly), do you feel it suitable to edit war to delete information cited to a legitimate source? These are simple questions. You should be able to provide answers to each of them.

And again, it comes down not just to the removal of information (some of which was removed illegitimately, some legitimately), but in the crass and inflexible way it was done. As the information has been there for over a decade, was it urgent that it was removed immediately, even after I had said I would look for an alternative after a night's sleep? Again, this is a simple question. You should be able to provide an answer for it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A less easy to answer question is how many illicit removals have been made of information sourced to the Mail on Sunday? I do hope that a concerted effort is made to replace the information that should not have been removed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Evasion noted. I will take your refusal to give a straight answer as an admission that in this edit[35] you did indeed insert a citation to The Daily Mail. Again, please stop claiming that you only added a citation to The Mail on Sunday.

Re "Why, when you removed the www.dailymail.co.uk source (rightly), do you feel it suitable to edit war to delete information cited to a legitimate source?" First ONE REVERT IS NOT EDIT WARRING. Please retract your false accusation and apologize. Second, I am not required to carefully examine your edits and remove only those portions that violate Wikipedia policy. It is your responsibility to make edits that follow policy. If someone reverts an edit of yours that contains a policy violation along with other material, It is your job to create a new edit that only contains non-violating material. Instead you purposely re-inserted the citation to www.dailymail.co.uk -- a citation that you yourself admit is not allowed. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"One revert is not edit warring": yes it is, despite the shouty caps and bolding, if there has been a back-and-forth a couple of times and you join in, then you were as guilty of edit warring and me and Gerard. So no, no retraction, and certainly no apology. As you seem to be trying to avoid any responsibility for removing information cited to a legitimate source, there is little I can (or wish) to say or do. But you keep telling yourself you are perfect and I am the bad guy, if that's the way you want to go. You were in the wrong for some of these actions. Your evasion on the question of how much legitimate information has been removed is noted. No surprises. I'm off; I'll leave you to have The Last Word - I'm sure you'll enjoy that. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

And again you misrepresent Wikipedia policy.

WP:ANI. Given the previous blocks in your block log for edit warring and personal attacks, an indefinite block is likely. --Guy Macon (talk

) 12:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I misrepresent nothing. I was actually blocked for undertaking one revert in an edit war between two others, so feel free to take that case up on my behalf. And if you honestly think that going to ANI is a beneficial step, crack on and do just that. Or is it an empty threat and a way to raise my block log? Don't ping me to this page again, I really have no desire to discuss anyone so willfully obtuse who refuses to acknowledge that they have erred even in the slightest (I have admitted it, by the way: it's just you who are trying to evade any sense of doing anything wrong.) - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Follow-up comment I think there are two issues that emerge from this discussion:

1. It appears that Mail on Sunday is not proscribed by either RFC, and as such citations to it should not be removed without further discussion.
2. There is then the manner in which the sources to The Daily Mail are being culled. While a consensus exists to remove it as source I cannot honestly say this edit exemplifies good practice. The problem with The Daily Mail is that it is untrustworthy, but much of what they report is still accurate. This was acknowledged in the RFC, and one of the arguments advanced by editors in favour of a ban was that an alternative source could be located for credible claims in most cases. Unfortunately this solution is being thwarted by an aggressive culling campaign. This edit removed legitimate encyclopedic information, which is probably to the detriment of the article. In the case of non-controversial claims that are not about living people would it not be better practice to simply remove the source and replace it with a {{citation needed}} tag? While SchroCat technically shouldn't have restored the source I get the sense from him that what he was really doing was restoring the information, and he eventually located alternative sources. Is this not the most desirable outcome?

Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Betty Logan, the Mail is deprecated. That means it's untrustworthy. If something is only in the mail, we can't use it; if it is in another source as well, use that instead. Don't use the Daily Mail as a source. Or any tabloid, for that matter. The print edition of the MoS may be considered reliable case by case. But is still a tabloid so a better source is always preferred.

I have two particular problems with the Mail as a source for Wikipedia. The first is how it's used, which is often for trivia, especially salacious trivia (that's their speciality, google "all grown up"). The second, and related, is the notorious "sidebar of shame". I have a serious problem with linking to any site carrying that kind of bullshit from any Wikipedia article. Guy (help!) 10:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So a "quality broadsheet", e.g. The Times, The Daily Telegraph, etc., which quotes the Daily Mail as it's sole source would be acceptable? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123, yes. They can be expected to have fact-checked it. But calling the Telegraph a "quality broadsheet" is a bit of a stretch these days. Guy (help!) 11:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

How would you describe it? Next on the list to be a banned? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, no-one is claiming that the Mail should be retained as a source. Two RfCs (in which I voted to ban its use both times) have confirmed that. What we are talking about is two different things here: 1. Much of this grief started because Gerard edit warred to remove a citation from the hard copy Mail on Sunday. That should not have been removed, and he has still to account for that. 2. The process when information from the Damily Mail or dailymail.co.uk is flawed. In this case the information has been in the article for over a decade, and yet it was suddenly necessary to delete it immediately without providing an adequate window to find a replacement? No. That's just dumb. It doesn't help our readers and it annoys the crap out of people. I said on the article talk page right at the start that I would find a replacement, but this was ignored, and the edit warring continued. How does that help anyone? As it was, the information was finally left in the article overnight (UK time) until I was able to find a replacement in the morning. I cannot see any benefit in the inflexible, unthinking immeditate removal-without-the-option approach. The information is still in the article, and all now connected to a reliable source (two sources at one point). The best outcome has been achieved despite the fervour for the inflexible and immediate approach. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I had always assumed that anyone removing a DM source was supposed to search for an alternative source, or add a {{cn}}, or both. Not just remove both DM and the info itself wholesale in one edit. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not recall that ever being said, and will make more work as at some point the unsourced material might have to be removed (per

wP:v.Slatersteven (talk

) 11:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As opposed to "make more work" by having to search for the info and a fresh source all over again? Isn't one expected to search for a better source for information sourced to any unreliable source? Isn't that normal procedure? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Tagging with {{Deprecated source}} would also have had the desired effect of highlighting the problem. If such a tag had been left on there for a day or so, that would also have avoided all the kerfuffle; as it is there has been a lot more work invoved because someone edit warred to remove a source that is entirely legitimate`. - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

True, but it is a users choice if they wish to remove badly sourced information or tag it. There is no policy that even implies you should add back badly sourced information. We gain nothing with tags all over the pace saying "bad source" "dodgy information" "BorisJophnsonsaidit", we do however (I would argue) lose. Wikipedia has a reputation for unreliability. If our articles are littered with crap even we think is unreliable that image is hardly going to improve.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't suggesting we "add back badly sourced information". Quite the reverse. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123, no, the onus is on the person including content to find reliable sources. It's an instance of BRD. There have been attempts to claim this by people who fundamentally oppose the entire idea of deprecation, but it's not policy. Guy (help!) 11:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of this information was added when the DM was still considered to be

WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk

) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So? If it is now a dodgy source its a dodgy source.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So Guy said "the onus is on the person including content to find reliable sources". I'm just saying that when it was originally added the person may well have been justified in using the DM as a reliable source. A person just removing the source now isn't adding anything. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No they are removing something we now know cannot be trusted for information. What Guy said applies just as much to wanting to add information back (or indeed retaining information). This is why the DM was deprecated, because of its massive over use. We now have to clean up that mess.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

But there is absolutely no need to do it in such an inflexible and disruptive way. When Gerard removed a legitimate source and edit warred on it, there was no mess to clean up. When two editors decided to delete information supported by the Press Association and a Scottish newspaper, we're crossing a line between responsible housekeeping and disruptive editing. The orginal title of this section was "‎DM advocate". I'd rather be called a cunt that a DM advocate, but such is the mindset of a small group of zealots that anyone who asks for an 8-hour moritorium on removal is the subject of abuse and lies. Your call on whether you think this is an ideal pathway for the inhabitants of the RS board to behave, but I suggest the approach needs a rethink. - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We seem to be talking at cross purposes. It looks to me to be a rather odd case of

WP:BRD. I'm just suggesting that removing material and a DM source wholesale, without any attempt to find an alternative source, might do more harm than good. Martinevans123 (talk

) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

True, but

wp:brd is clear that once material, has been removed it is down to those who wish to include it to make a case at talk, not just add it back with a change of source (you are right, by the way, the new sources should have been enough as far as I can see). Thus (whilst) the DM part of this debate is about RS, the rest is not.Slatersteven (talk

) 12:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah. So all those instances where I've followed David Gerard round and re-added stuff with a good source (and which he's consistently thanked me for), I should have instead taken to the Talk page? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC) And it's not like I've really "followed him round" at all. I've seen his standard edit summary about DM pop up in my watchlist and when I've gone to look at the deletion I've thought "oh that looks like a very reasonable claim, there must be at least one other RS source that supports that...."

That's taking a misreading of BRD too far for any common sense approach. If the source is being challenged, then replacing the source is sufficient, even if that is just replacing exactly the same information, including qquotes. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We also have

wP:agf, I have no idea abvout this case but I have had trouble finding sources others have found. You are assuming no effort was made.Slatersteven (talk

) 12:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

A more useful edit summary might say "I've looked for a better source and I can't find one, so am removing"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Three things: firstly, I was talking in general about providing a different source when material is challenged. (Don't forget that

the verification policy says that @Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed". There is, written into policy, a way that information does not have to be unthkingly removed as a matter of course. It can be tagged for a short period to allow for a replacement to be made. Secondly, If it is removed, there really is no reason to have to discuss replacing it with an alternative source on the talk page. Replacing the information with a new source is entirely appropriate. Thirdly, it seems that a few people have said they can't find the information (although raising AGF is a bit of a straw man here). I found it in two sources and Sarah SV found two sources using variants of the quote made to different journalists; I also found another variant on the official Bond site. Just because the person desparately removing as many DM sources as quickly as possoble didn't find an alternative (and yes, that does pre-suppose they bothered looking), it doesn't mean the infomation isn't there to those who know how to look for things properly. - SchroCat (talk

) 13:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, Oh, so David's actions resulted in better sourcing. So we're good then. Shall I close this? Guy (help!) 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, may as well gloss over the removing of a legitimate source and the sub-standard way people are demanding the immediate removal without thought to the loss of legitimate information. The lack of flexibility is always a given when a crusade is in progress. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please only discuss the DM, anything else just confuses the issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As long as we are clear that the Mail on Sunday (paper version, not online) should not have been removed. At. All. Neither should the other sources. Part of the problem is that I have seen no comment from Gerard to acknowledge that they were wrong to remove it in the first place and doubly wrong to edit war to remove it a second time. I hope this disruptive approach is not something that is going to be repeated. In terms of the DM info, allowing a short moritorium on finding a new source seems to be a common sense way of approaching this, rather than such an inflexible approach that is currently in favour. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This RFC is about the daily mail, only the DM and just the DM. If you have other RS issues start a new thread. If you have issue about user conduct this is not then place.Slatersteven (talk)

Actually this sub-thread is (currently) titled "dailymail.co.uk reversion: eyes wanted". Since its opening post it has been nothing to do with the RfC (as such it should never have been a sub-thread of the RfC in the first place; the topic of discussion has not essentially changed since the first post, given we are still discussing matters relating to the opening post). We can change it from a sub-thread to a full thread if you prefer? - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As this is not (and does not appear to be) an RS issue, but rather an issue over user conduct this is not the right venue anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Very true. Once has to question way it was opened in the first place, and why a personal attack was used as the original title. Never mind - but I really don't have high hopes that this has made any difference, and will not be surprised when it inevitably happens again. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In this edit,[36] SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) replaced a citation to [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] with a citation to [ www.mi6-hq.com ]

[37] says "We are a not-for-profit fan website, maintained by men and women passionate about the subject."

[38] says "Want to join a community of Bond experts that has been growing since 1998? MI6 is made more diverse, engaging and current thanks to it's regular contributions by guest authors. We are constantly on the look out for authors, photographers, artists, videographer, podcaster or reviewers, all with a passion for James Bond in print or on the screen. If you have an original idea for a feature, or some tidbit to share, please get in touch with our team."

So, generally reliable or self-published fan site?

The quote "it relates to the fact that if you don't have that Quantum of Solace in a relationship" comes from [ www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-510171/Live-Let-Dye-Daniel-Craig-turns-clock-darkened-hair-007-photocall.html ] (25 January 2008). mi6-hq.com published it at [39] on 30 January 2008. This highlights one of the problems with replacing citations to The Daily Mail; if you search for other sources that say what DM said, you find a bunch of low-quality sources that pretty much parrot what was on the DM page a few days earlier. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretty obviously not an RS, no - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I am getting the usual insults and refusal to follow Wikipedia policies at

Cardiac Arrest and I don't think the stress would be good for me. Would someone else here be willing to file it? --Guy Macon (talk

) 23:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It gets worse and worse. He now claims that in the last few days you went to a library, found not just one but two sources that by an amazing coincidence just happen to contain the exact same quote from The Daily Mail that he edit warred to keep in, and yet for some inexplicable reason he cannot remember who Daniel Craig said it to or when he said it. Meanwhile, the person he says authored the source (Noah Sherna) doesn't seem to exist, but in yet another amazing coincidence, Sherna Noah writes for The Daily Mail.[40] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't lie. I have claimed nothing of the sort. I have also made no comment on who Craig said it to, so I am unsure where these falsehoods come from. I have advised exactly how you can verify the source, so try reading what I have said properly and use the link provided. - SchroCat (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Sherna Noah works for the Press Association. The Guardian also has a version of the same quote; I've left it on the talk page. It appears to be the same point made during an interview with a different reporter. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:FANSITE. Guy (help!

) 10:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:UGC, which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites. - SchroCat (talk

) 10:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, mi6-hq.com isn't a fansite, then? Someone should tell the person who maintains it. Wikipedia isn't a fansite either. These articles would mostly be improved by being about half as long. Guy (help!) 11:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:UGC, which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites. - SchroCat (talk

) 11:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

When you tell a person to verify a sources by going to a library, meanwhile refusing to say where you checked the source, a reasonable person would conclude that you checked it in a library. (later you decided to reveal that you checked in using an online source). When you repeatedly refuse to answer the simple question of where and when Daniel Craig said that, a reasonable person would conclude that you most likely can't answer the question. When you quote

just flat out ignore it

when you are told again and again that there exists no such requirement, a reasonable person would assume that you are either incapable or unwilling to even discuss whether you are following Wikipedia's rules.

This all started with you edit warring to retain [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] as a source and with David Gerard asking you to follow our rules.[41] and correctly identifying [42] that your behavior is typical of someone who fights to keep The Daily mail as a source. Your subsequent behavior here has demonstrated that he was right. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"When you tell a person to verify a sources by going to a library": I didn't. I told you to go to THE library - the one we have on WP. I even fucking linked it for you. If you're not able to click on the link despite it being handed to you a second time, I do begin to wonder just why you are being so obtuse. Other inaccuracies here include "you quote WP:UGC, claiming that it allows use of fansites": you'll have to read what I said a little more closely. I said "

WP:UGC

, which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites", and actually there is some deliberate leeway in the wording of the guideline (for example, if such a site was being written by one individual who was a published expert in the area, then it would be a point for discussion). "incapable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's rules" another tedious PA you like to throw out, and hopelessly wrong too, ditto the link to IDHT - all tiresomly inaccurate.

More nonsense follows; "This all started with you edit warring to retain [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] as a source". Again, that's a straight lie. This started when Gerard removed a reference from the paper version of the Mail on Sunday. A legitimate source. I'll keep repeating that a legitimate source was removed until it finally sinks in and you stop telling porkies. "your behavior is typical of someone who fights to keep The Daily mail as a source" Another straight out falsehood. I don't know how many times I have had to say that I support the ban on the Mail (that I voted for twice) and the idea it should be removed: it's the crass and inflexible way it is being done that it disruptive. Now, if you're done with trolling and telling lies, I'll leave you to it. There is nothing contructive to be had in listening to more falsehoods from you - you appear to be in competition with the Mail to see how many inaccuracies you can cram into each line. - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

[self-reverted] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, this is thoroughly out of order. SchroCat, it would be better not even to respond. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have already asked you once not to ping me to this page. Stop. You are behaving like the worst sort of disruptive troll. Stop. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• mi6-hq.com? Is that Mike Corley? Guy (help!) 10:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Mike Corely appears to be focused on conspiracy theories involving MI5 persecution. I don't think he has much interest in James Bond, but of course mi6-hq.com is a fansite where anonymous users can post content, so you never know. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please not discus 15 different sources in one thread?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)