This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Miami metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.MiamiWikipedia:WikiProject MiamiTemplate:WikiProject MiamiMiami articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Low-quality sourcing throughout the article.[edit]
The article relies heavily on low-quality WP:MREL sourcing from the partisan press; while biased sources can be used in certain situations, the issue here is that they're almost all low-quality (noted as MREL on WP:RSP) and all partisan in the same direction, which causes WP:DUE issues on top of the WP:RS issues from relying heavily on low-quality sourcing. The last time I raised this issue, it was suggested that it could be fixed by finding better sources; however, years have passed with no improvement at all, so I've tagged the problematic sources to give people a chance to find replacements. But we can't leave glaringly self-serving statements like the site's creator claiming he was motivated by glowing selfless discomfort with the power wielded by social media companies like Facebook over creators and what he perceived as an anti-conservative and anti-Christian bias cited solely to ABOUTSELF sources; nor can we cite MREL sources like the Daily Signal, the Washington Times, and the Washington Examiner over and over throughout the article like this. We already cite numerous other partisan sources that share their biases (Christianity Today, the Christian Examiner, the Christian Post, Reason, the National Review, the National Catholic Register), often multiple times; there's no reason for us to retain low-quality partisan sources on an article whose sourcing is already lopsided in a way that introduces WP:DUE issues. --Aquillion (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be productive to take specific uses and evaluate if they present a WP:DUE issue. The Washington Examiner note, for example, cautions that it shouldn't be used for exceptional claims, and I'm not sure anything in this article would fall into that category. Is there a specific usage of that source that you think causes an issue?
It might also be important for us to review if these sources are used as sole support for a section or if they are part of multiple sources being attached to a section.
The website sale part is slightly different. I think you have a good point that it is a self-published source and we need to exercise caution. There is a Washington Post article noting, essentially the same thing, as his reasons for founding the site in 2016 and a Christian Post article that cites the same quote about Dillon which would, at least, improve this from a self-published article. Would there be a better language formulation of his motivations that wouldn't read as "glowing" to you? I think we added some good attribution language in there and moderated it a bit, but open to some more wordsmithing.
One other quick question, for the litigation section, is your concern over the "increasing" language or that the cases are free speech related? The former does seem a bit OR now that I read it again, so I'm going to remove that. The latter seems relatively obvious given the nature of the actual citations and the language in the articles describing the Bee's role, but just wanted to check.
The trash sources shouldn't ever have been there; please don't put them back just-in-case, they're in the history if anyone really wants to rescue the claims. If you want to rescue the claims, please cite them to solid RSes - not to fringe news sites or conservative thinktanks pretending to be news sources, as was the case previously - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that David Gerard has handled most of this, but for the last point, obviously my objection is to the characterization of litigation related to free speech-related cases, since that's where I put the tag - it characterizes the reason for the Bee's involvement in ways that the sources (especially if we ignore the WP:BIASED ones who require attribution) in ways that the sources mostly do not. In fact, skimming the section, it has serious sourcing issues of a different sort. Most of the BIASED sources are used without attribution (both here and elsewhere, but it's a particular problem here), many of the more neutral sources don't mention the Bee at all, and the ones that do mention it often only mention it in passing. And many of those, while they mention the first amendment, also specifically indicate that the Bee is concerned that conservatives are being censored; it is not a reasonable summary of the section's content to state only that they are concerned with "litigation related to free speech cases", with no citation. But really the entire section needs cleanup - removing sources that don't mention the Bee, attributing biased sources, and so on. At that point how to summarize it might be more clear, assuming it even needs a summary (there's no particular reason why it would - the summary gives the idea that the Bee is "standing up for free speech" or somesuch in general, but obviously that's WP:SYNTH without a source supporting it; and if we're forced to cite it to a biased source then we'd have to attribute it.) My reading of the section, and the way I would summarize it if we had to do it without a broader summary-style source, is that the most we could say is that the Bee feels that conservative voices are being silenced and is therefore pushing for legislation to advance conservative speech, ie. speech that it agrees with. That's not really a free-speech stance. All of that said, the problem can be solved by avoiding an uncited summary for something potentially controversial like this, and either finding a source that summarizes the situation, having no summary at all, or having a more anodyne one that doesn't make claims as to the Bee's motivations. --Aquillion (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say take an axe to it. Anything that's not from a third-party solid RS should just be binned. As you say, it's been tagged for a long time and nobody's bothered; it's time to bother. Individual claims can be rescued as and when anyone provides a third-party solid RS for them - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would have been nice get consensus before reinserting changes to articles, it helps make discussions a bit less antagonistic in my experience.
Related to your points, we don't just remove sources because we don't like them, we have [[wp:rsp]] to guide us on how to approach these sources. Several of the ones you removed have no deprecation or caution reference at RSP and, for the points being made here, aren't particularly concerning. We aren't asking the source to support some account of a conversation held behind closed door or to make some political point.
MREL advises is to use other sources if we have them, it doesn't say we should just blank large sections of the article if these are the best sources.
I'm particularly surprised by a few of the sources you removed like Christianity Today which isn't deprecated on any topic at all that I'm aware, what is the justification for calling that a low quality source.
WP:V, which is policy, requires WP:RSes. You blithely re-added - which for WP:V purposes is the same as adding - a large swathe of dubious sources.
This is clearly an article in serious need of cleanup. If you have claims you particularly want to go in, by all means add them again with solid mainstream RSes, not weird partisan sites, and not the self-aggrandising ramblings from the founder. This is an encyclopedia - David Gerard (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
