Jump to content

Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva

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

Breitbart News

[edit]
Moved from User talk:Mx. Granger
 – —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mx. Granger – good evening! I just saw your update on Alfredo Beltrán Leyva regarding Breitbart News as a source. Is there a way we can use Breitbart as a source on Wikipedia, or is it an absolute no? I'm asking because from what I've read, Breitbart News can be used, as long as it doesn't involve politically sensitive/defaming information. I didn't know Breitbart News existed until a South Texas journalist from The Monitor was hired there. In my opinion, they have a pretty good Mexican Drug War section for a U.S. media outlet, and their editor is an expert in the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. The articles include "ground" information not often seen in Mexican newspapers either because organized crime has a tight grip on the local press. Is there a way we can include Breitbart News if we exercise some caution? Thanks. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. From past discussions at RSN, there seems to be consensus that Breitbart is not a reliable source for straightforward statements of fact. That discussion doesn't seem to mention the Mexican Drug War as an exception, and I have to imagine Breitbart's coverage of that topic would have the same problems (like exaggerating and twisting the facts) as their coverage of other topics. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a really old discussion. Maybe consensus has changed? I suggest elevation on this as well as Stealth banning. Time for another Long TalkEndercase (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's from 2015, so it's not very old. But here are two more recent discussions, both with clear consensus that Breitbart is not normally a reliable source for straightforward statements of fact: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_211#Is Breitbart.com reliable?, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 216#Breitbart News. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Granger and Endercase: Thanks for this, guys. It's unfortunate that we cannot use Breitbart since I've found it to be pretty accurate on articles about the Mexican Drug War, specifically on the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas and what happens in their respective turfs. The media sources in the areas where these two groups operate in downplay the violence or refuse to report about it because a lot of journalists have been killed in Mexico. Border states like Tamaulipas rely on the Texan media to report on drug violence. The Breitbart writer for the Mexican Drug War is Ildefonso Ortiz, who was a border crime reporter at The Monitor and did a lot of in-depth articles about the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. This is a topic I've studied for many years, and there's journalism phenomenom in Mexico known as "citizen-journalism", where journalists and citizens (criminals included) go on social media to report what happens in the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. Mr. Ortiz has done a great job at hashing out the details and showing what happens in the big picture. Same thing goes for blog sources like Borderland Beat. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 22:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, in these sorts of cases if it is archived it is too old. To be clear I am for testing consensus currently. As such maybe we should move to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. However, I'm ok staying here if y'all would like. In both cases mentioned the articles in question are accurate, but that is my POV. Also to be clear I am calling for a consensus on the other articles I've mentioned in Talk:Stealth banning as well. ComputerJA brings up great points about the personal history of the author in question here and I think that should also be discussed locally. The automatic removal of the links in Stealth banning and Alfredo Beltrán Leyva without any discussion was pretty rude in and of itself but the removal of the information? It would have been more proper to simply switch it to a [citation needed] in my POV. I hope we can have a civil discussion and not just a snap judgment on the issues at hand. I think both cases were issues of Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it and you had no issues with the information provided just the source(s). I support the inclusion of the source(s) and the information. I also understand that I may be Wikipedia:Consensus doesn't have to change. However, I feel like it should be tested given current events. Endercase (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Endercase - I'm all for using Breitbart as a source for articles about the Mexican Drug War. I think I would only be using them for biographies about members of the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas, since most national newspapers don't go in-depth about these groups/their members as well as Mr. Ortiz and the local journalists from Mexico he works with. This is a very particular case where Breitbart hired an expert journalist in this niche topic. Had Mr. Ortiz been at The Monitor, no one would think about blanking the sources. I'm willing to find some sort of middle ground with Granger, however. IF the information provided at Breitbart can be found in other reliable sources, I'm perfectly happy to use those instead. But I highly doubt we can find in-depth information as provided by Mr. Ortiz about the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas from other reliable sources. I've done enough digging to come to this conclusion. The local press in Tamaulipas for these matters is virtually non-existent and we would be losing a valuable source of information on Wikipedia by banning Mr. Ortiz's work. PS - I'm not offended by Granger's bold moves at removing the source. I'm glad this topic was brought to my attention because I was unaware of Breitbart's reputation. Thanks, guys. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - forgot to add that Mr. Ortiz works alongside other editors, including Sylvia Longmire, who is a border security expert and has a book about the Mexican Drug War. I've read it a few times and the information does not come across as inaccurate. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Mx. Granger's WP:RECKLESS behavior shouldn't cause real offense. I'm not sure about Breitbart's reputation, it is equal to that of CNN or the New York Times in my POV; as are all are sources that sometimes publish false information and don't always provide evidence for their claims. Luckily this did not lead to a removal of information in your case as it did in mine. Endercase (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you really believe that consensus has changed, you are welcome to start a discussion at WP:RSN, which is the appropriate venue for soliciting opinions about whether a source is reliable. Until someone can demonstrate that consensus has changed, we should follow the existing consensus, which is evident from the recent discussions that I linked above. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is done. Hopefully, I'll see y'all there. Endercase (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that WP:RSN discussions are single use, and that for every use another consensus must be achieved: "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Granger has a history of applying one consensus to multiple pages if their archives are factual. However, I view this as a norm, even if a violation, and not exceptional behavior here. Endercase (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is very normal to refer back to past RSN discussions in this way. In this particular case, the applicability of the discussions I've cited (1, 2) is especially clear, because they are about Breitbart's reliability in a range of situations, not in one specific article. Unless a new discussion achieves consensus that Breitbart is reliable in this context, we should not cite it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is normal is completely immaterial. It clearly violates Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it and WP:NPV as well as the very definition of consensus. No amount of historical consensus will change that. ComputerJA has made a very solid case for using these sources in this context and you have failed to address that nor have you mentioned the current context in any way shape or form. As such you should revert your changes. RSN can only have (current policy) context related discussions. Endercase (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you don't yet have a good sense of how consensus-building works around here. The 2016 discussions I linked above demonstrate clear consensus that Breitbart is not a reliable source for straightforward statements of fact, and the discussion you started at RSN so far suggests that this consensus has not changed. It doesn't give any indication that other editors are willing to make an exception for this article either.

By the way, some of your recent edits give the impression of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Please make sure to avoid that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you don't understand how serious I am. See chilling effects, is what your group is doing. It is wrong and I will not stand for it. By the Wikipedia definition of consensus, I am in the right. Banning sources and deleting articles is wrong and oppressive. We do not ban sources on Wikipedia. On top of that, it isn't like you can actually delete anything anyway, it is all saved in the history. "demonstrate clear consensus that Breitbart is not a reliable source for straightforward statements of fact" suggests that you think that people who disagree with you don't count as members of Wikipedia. Anytime anyone publicly disagrees with a consensus that consensus no longer exists. I will not have you tell me that my opinion is not valid as I have not done anything of the sort to you. You said everyone agrees (consensus) and I said they obviously don't. Your current behavior and wording is Authoritarian and I don't like it. I do not consent to you speaking for me. I will not be spoken for in such a manner. Your templating of me without any real explanation ("give the impression of") is also dismissive and chilling. Maybe I failed your Turing test somehow and I don't count as a "person" or peer to you. Honestly, I don't really care if you think I'm real or not. I will not allow you to do this unopposed, your POV will experience resistance and might even change. Maybe you should try actually addressing my points, you are starting to fail my Turing Test. Endercase (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not mean unanimity. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It kinda does (only kind of) though, it means general/logical agreement. Which can be roughly translated to all participating peers agree with or at the very least are ok with whatever is going on. Consensus is a form of public group consent and requires similar standards. Remember Wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY and logical discussion must be had. In the other forum (where we should be) one of the editors said they didn't care if I thought it was a logical fallacy implying they just wanted to continue being in charge no matter the ramifications. None of you addressed one of the founding principles of that forum which says the forum is for use in moderating sources *IN CONTEXT*. If people are publicly and seemingly logically disagreeing with you then consensus has not and can not been/be reached (NPOV). I am not claiming that everyone agrees with me, I am claiming I have a valid POV that is not currently represented in your so called NPOV stance. I do however maintain that consensus on Wikipedia is that no sources can be banned. Less than 20 editors (none of whom are paid by Wikipedia) can't change that and then close the discussion and claim Supreme Authority forever. What you are doing is wrong and oppressive, plain and simple. I really hope you read more about the Chilling Effect both here and outside of our little echo chamber. There are multiple articles about the decline of Wikipedia many of them cite the Chilling Effect indirectly (Authoritarianism/Oppression) as the primary cause although some claim it is cell phone use. Here are a few, there are much I've read much better ones but I didn't want to waste too much time on this because I feel like you really don't care. [1][2][3] Banning sources and users can only lead to or contribute to the decline of Wikipedia. If people see things they disagree with they are more, not less, likely to get involved in the project, I mean just look a the political world after Trump. In the end, our choices must be fueled by what we think is best for Wikipedia and Humanity. While I respect your values and dedication to the truth I should not be made to obey your arbitrary and non-logical "rules". Y'all didn't follow proper protocol, deleted my sources without discussion after I'd already opened a sub for that on the talk page as well as not addressing ComputerJA explanation for choosing to use that source. I truly understand that general censure in all forms is fundamentally manipulative and therefore evil and that Elitism has no place or home in Wikipedia. I also think that claiming that X group is oppressive ergo we must oppress them is not logical no matter who is saying it or how (#litteralyhitler[4]). If you feel like I am being harmful to Wikipedia and will not respond to logic try to ban me, as is protocol. If I get banned I will simply find a better community elsewhere. At that point, y'all can burn Wikipedia however you wish. Luckily, humanity has backups now. Endercase (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/can-wikipedia-survive.html?_r=0
  3. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/25/wikipedia-editors-dying-breed-mobile-smartphone-technology-online-encyclopedia
  4. ^ http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/literally-hitler
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Alfredo Beltrán Leyva. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alfredo_Beltrán_Leyva&oldid=1206236251"