Talk:Chariots of Fire (play)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chariots of Fire (play). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews, particularly reviews by notable critics, do not fall under WP:DAILYMAIL.[edit]

Note to David Gerard and IP hopper: Reviews, particularly reviews by notable critics (such as Quentin Letts), do not fall under WP:DAILYMAIL. The Daily Mail is neither banned nor blacklisted on Wikipedia. Please see WP:Deprecated sources and WP:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails to meet the policy WP:UNDUE, failure to show you've met the policy WP:BURDEN in this particular case. Picking sentences out of RFC discussions - not even the conclusions - that you think give a general out on these policies can't override these policies, and you're failing to meet it by such general assertions.
Why is this particuar review so overwhelmingly necessary to meeting the policy WP:NPOV that you need to use a source that is prima facie an Unreliable Source, failing to meet the guideline WP:RS as requred in the policy WP:V?
You need to make your case, not just keep edit-warring the deprecated source into articles.
I realise I'm proposing a high bar there. But in the face of an RFC, WP:DAILYMAIL that reached a strong general consensus that the DM is generally prohibited, that the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, and nor should it be used as a source in articles, it's the sort of level of evidence that would be needed.
If you want a more general principle that says "oh, but this reviewer is OK" - a general exception to the two RFCs, one that is not in fact in the RFC conclusion - then you would need to take that to WP:RS and get it established by an RFC there. When someone tried this recently, it noticeably failed to convince people, and has now been archived - but if you think you can make a general case, you know as well as I do that's where to do it, and not on a particular article talk page - David Gerard (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chariots_of_Fire_(play)&oldid=1200792375"