Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

RfC: Should Media Matters, Daily Kos and Breitbart be removed as sources for the Article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. Should content sourced by Media Matters be removed from the article? 2. Should content sourced by Breitbart.com be removed from the article? 3. Should content sourced by Daily Kos be removed from the article? Casprings (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yes/Yes/Yes as the creator of the RFC. I started this because I think the above RFC misses the point. This article should be sourced by the same standards as any other movie related article. All of these sources are WP:QUESTIONABLE and there is no reason to include them as other sources can and should be used. do not meet the standards of independence and reliability. As such, they all should both be removed.Casprings (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• The standards of independence and reliability section you link to deals with determining whether film related topics should have their own article (notability), and has nothing to do with regulating subjective content in a reception section.VictorD7 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Same point. Uses WP:QUESTIONABLE now.Casprings (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please restore your original "...standards of independence..." wording that I substantively replied to, so that my response doesn't look inexplicably out of context and people can follow the discussion. You can then draw a strike through the old language if you want, or simply leave it and state that you're changing your rationale below in a subsequent reply. VictorD7 (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. As for your new QS rationale, leaving aside the fact that Breitbart hasn't been established to be QS, QS deals with statements supporting facts in Wikipedia’s voice, not directly with quotes. Attributed opinions would fall under “material about themselves”, regardless of the quote’s internal content. Otherwise, virtually every source used in the section, most relying mostly or entirely on opinion (and with shady reputations among the opposite political camp), would be unacceptably “questionable”. Besides, the first RFC already established a consensus that Breitbart is RS for their professional critic’s statement here because it’s properly attributed, and as a pro critic Toto is explicitly considered RS by film guidelines anyway (as a published and widely cited political/media expert Shapiro is similarly also acceptable to quote regardless of where his particular article has been published). QS is a red herring. The pertinent sections are--WP:RSOPINION Sources not suitable for supporting facts in Wikipedia’s voice may be reliable if attribution is used.--WP:NEWSORG Non-authoritative statements of opinion (from non experts) aren't suitable for supporting statements of fact, but may be used if attributed.--WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Biased statements of opinion that can’t normally be used can be included with attribution. The policy concern is verifying that the source is accurately relaying the quote, not the merits or validity of the quote’s internal content.--WP:BIASED Politician Barry Goldwater, feminist activist Betty Friedan, and Marxist economist Harry Magdoff, all people not normally considered RS for facts in Wikipedia’s voice (except maybe some information about themselves), are listed as examples where attributed quotation makes inclusion ok.--Quotations Quotes should ideally be sourced to the original source, with a reliable secondary source being relied on only as a last resort if the original isn't available. Again, the concern is that the quote is accurately relayed, not the merits of the quote's contents.--WP:CONTEXTMATTERS “The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.” No one seriously disputes that Breitbart is RS for its own authors’ views, or that a section titled "Political commentary" should include the salient political commentary. And last but not least--WP:NPOV Our duty is to fully and neutrally cover the salient sides of a controversy, without excluding views from sources just because we dislike or disagree with them.

If Barry Goldwater, Betty Friedan, and Karl Marx, or for that matter Simon van Zuylen-Wood, Joe Leydon, Gabe Toro, and Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig can be quoted for their views on various topics, then so can Ben Shapiro, Christian Toto, and Kate O'Hare. No compelling, rational argument to the contrary exists. VictorD7 (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support. All articles should use high quality sources. Ample sources exist for general opinion on this topic from both sides of the political divide. Neither source provides something that can't be found elsewhere. However, if quality standards are relaxed enough to allow low quality conservative sources like Brietbart, then a similar relaxation should be allowed for sources from the opposite political position per NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note Added Daily Kos to RFC

• OPPOSE for the record, since absolutely no basis has been established for excluding Breitbart while leaving in opinions from blogs and opinionated, partisan sources like The Huffington Post, Salon.com, The Daily Beast, Indiewire and the others currently used, and since we should be covering the political reception relating to an explicitly political documentary, of which Breitbart, as the internet's most prominent conservative news/opinion site, is an indispensable part. I also oppose the question wording for reasons given in the below subsection. We can't remove the primary conservative source while leaving the many leftist sources. I'll add that there's a lack of clarity as well. Does this RFC just cover the Political commentary section, or would the professional critic (Breitbart's Toto), whose inclusion has already been explicitly approved by an RFC, be removed as well? Would the more mundane use of Breitbart as a source elsewhere be purged too, requiring part of the article to be rewritten? Update: You just added "from the article", so unless you say otherwise, I'll assume you're including the review already explicitly approved by RFC, despite Toto's extensive credentials as a professional film critic and the innocuous comment used. I oppose even more strongly then. VictorD7 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ill Defined All of these are reliable sources for "opinion expressed as opinion". The article includes material which is cited as opinion, which is reasonable. MMFA, HuffPo and DailyKos etc. are primarily editorial in nature, while Breitbart also includes reportage. No RfC can redefine "reliable source" as that is a Wikipedia policy which RfCs may not override. The editorial claim here that Breitbart is not WP:RS is marginal, as, like all sources, the nature of a claim enters into whether it is reliable for Wikipedia purposes. On the basis of Wikipedia policy, none of the sources violate WP:RS for opinions cited as opinion, which would be the only way we could disallow them. Collect (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Remove. I do not see how any of those sites even begin to meet our content standards. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• What content standards are you referring to, Thargor Orlando? These are properly attributed opinions in a section explicitly dedicated to covering such opinions. Have you read the section? Would you leave in comments from bloggers at Salon.com, The Daily Beast, The Guardian, The Huffington Post, and the others that would remain? If not, then I'd respectfully suggest that you at least attach conditions on removing Breitbart, the primary conservative source used in a section already unreasonably skewed with leftist opinions, something like only if the other sources are removed as well. If so, then I'd suggest you read WP:NPOV. I'll add that this RFC is also a sneaky attempt to remove the professional critic quote in the above section dedicated to pro critics, despite it being explicitly approved via an earlier RFC. As a professional, widely cited film critic, Christian Toto's review certainly meets all the film content standards I'm aware of, and the political commentary by others is appropriate in covering the reaction to an explicitly political film. Don't be suckered by a vague, tactically slanted RFC that doesn't even link to the sections in question (at least three would be impacted by Breitbart's removal, and any pretense of neutrality would go flying out a 100 story window). VictorD7 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes/Yes/No No/Yes/Yes Media Matters can be treated as a reliable source, but Daily Kos and Breitbart cannot. The purpose of Media Matters is to monitor problems with the US right wing media. That involves activities like fact checking, so that one can expect that if Media Matters went significantly beyond the realm of facts into the realm of advocacy, it would get into trouble. Breitbart and Daily Kos on the other hand are all about advocating particular political views, so I am surprised that there is even a question about whether they can be treated as reliable sources by WP. Daily Kos is ostensibly progressive and Breitbart is conservative, so eliminating both of those should be acceptable to everyone in the spirit of compromise. There are plenty of sources cited in the article without those two. I see that Salon, which represents a liberal point of view, is cited. Unlike Daily Kos, Salon is a serious political news and opinion outlet. I understand that all of this is about opinion, so that it may appear not to be clear what is a reliable source here, but I think that everybody should be able to agree that the Atlantic or National review is a higher quality source than breitbart, or that Salon is a higher quality source than Daily Kos. – Herzen (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Media Matters is a leftist propaganda outlet, as evidenced by its exclusive purpose being to "monitor" the "problems" with the "right wing media" (a "particular political view"), and it's routinely condemned and called out for misleading stories and outright lies. If anything, it's less legitimate as a source of prominent political punditry than the other sources are. Only hard core leftists take Media Matters seriously, and it's not a significant source of original news/opinion coverage like Breitbart is. Breitbart employs professional reporters, editors, and critics, while the Daily Kos is simply a group opinion blog. So is Salon. The section currently includes numerous opinions from leftist blogs and only a couple from conservative outlets, Breitbart being the most prominent. One of the professional film critics quoted even writes for Breitbart. So no, tossing out both the brief Kos quote and every Breitbart use is in no way, shape, or form an equitable or acceptable compromise. It would be a gross WP:NPOV violation. VictorD7 (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

All right, I have struck through my vote in response to your comment. I never visit any of those three Web sites, so I am willing to assume that your opinion is more informed here than my own, I am also willing to accept your claim that the "section currently includes numerous opinions from leftist blogs and only a couple from conservative outlets", and I have no problem with conservative opinion being equally represented with liberal opinion in this article. Even though the only piece I intend to read about this movie is the one from Salon.

P.S. I have changed my vote, to delete Media Matters and Daily Kos but not Breitbart. I am doing this out of Obama fatigue and as a gesture of good will, so that you know that some of us leftists are willing to reach out to people who think differently than we do. – Herzen (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you meant YES/NO/YES then. I don't necessarily support removing any of them, but I appreciate your gesture. VictorD7 (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• None of the three are good encyclopedic sources; all three are questionable and should not be used. Breitbart is the worst, in that it has a well-documented track record of repeatedly damaging people's lives by publishing ideologically driven lies, and I seriously question the competence and judgement of any editor who finds this source appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The other two sources, while not quite as abysmal, are likewise partisan websites and should not be used except in rare and carefully circumscribed situations. MastCell ^Talk 04:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Really? Daily Kos is a hate-fest. Arzel (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes to Breitbart utterly unreliable source for anything. Artw (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Context matters when judging reliability... even repugnant sources like Adolf Hitler's Mein Kamph can be a reliable source in limited contexts. Essentially the entire "reception" section can be summerized as: "Liberal reviewers generally panned the movie, while conservative reviewers generally praised it."... In that context, the sources do reliably verify the statement.

That said... Does the article really need to say much more than that. I don't think so. Certainly there is no need to quote the various individual sources (whether liberal or conservative)... at best, the quotes should be relegated to the foot notes. Essentially, the issue here isn't one of reliability... its one of WEIGHT. By quoting individual sources, the article is giving too much WEIGHT to those individual sources. That is true on both sides of the political spectrum. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Blueboar: I agree with your logic. However, I should note that there is a difference from if a source can be in an article and if a source should be in an article. In a well covered movie like this one, there is no reason to include WP:QUESTIONABLE sources. Use the best sources possible to write the best possible article. Only use these sources when there is a good reason to. Here there is not a good reason. Casprings (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Use the best sources possible to write the best possible article. I would put it slightly differently... use the best sources that cover the various view points to write the best article possible. If there are multiple sources that cover the same view point, by all means substitute one for another... but we can't ignore a significant viewpoint just because the source is not great. Now... if you take my advice and broaden the statement, the "viewpoints" being covered are (or should be) those of "liberal commentators" and "conservative commentators". So... the question is: what are the best source for those viewpoints? Breitbart is actually a fairly good source when you are talking about political opinions and viewpoints. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that is exactly the right approach. I got briefly involved in this discussion because I saw Daily Kos mentioned and wanted to vote for its deletion, since I view it as faux progressive. I never go to Breitbart, but my impression is that it is fairly reputable, as far as "conservative" Web sites go. (I used scare quotes because I believe that "true" conservatives are people like Pat Buchanan.) But the main point I wanted to make here is that I believe such endless discussions are harmful to the Wikipedia community. I really haven't looked at the discussion closely at all, other than to respond to the alleged SPA that people are complaining about here, but my impression is that what is going on here is that people who see themselves as "progressive" are using this opportunity to bash a "conservative" Web site. I think that such activity just leads to a more hostile atmosphere, without really doing anything to build an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think it's appropriate to make assertions about other editors after what is self-admittedly only a cursory look at a months-long discussion? The refusal to grapple with the policy-based objections in favor of baseless assertions has been a continual source of frustration here, unnecessarily prolonging the discussion and creating that "hostile atmosphere". Gamaliel (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Blueboar and Gamaliel: I again agree with with Blueboar. All viewpoints should certainly be represented, with regard to WP:WEIGHT. The point is, there are much better sources that do "cover the various view points. One should cover the "normal" respected critics. But given that this is a political movie, one should cover the various political viewpoints. But in doing so, why not use sources with the best reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. Instead of using The Daily Kos, why not use Huffington Post. Instead of using Breitbart, why not use the National Review. The same viewpoints should and would get covered. However, the quality of the sources used to build the article would be vastly better. As such, the article itself would be much better. With the amount of sources that are out there for this movie, there is absolutely no need to use the sources I have named in this RFC.Casprings (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The same Huffington Post that just spread their interview with the fraudulent "witness" of the alleged police execution in St. Louis whom they found on Twitter? Some fact checking. No, Breitbart is the conservative equivalent of the Huffington Post, and, news coverage aside, both are extremely salient sources for political opinion. This is about opinion coverage, not news coverage in Wikipedia's voice, so the focus by some on "fact checking" here is an illegitimate excuse to try and exclude views. VictorD7 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

In 2012, The Huffington Post won the Pulitzer Prize in the category of national reporting for senior military correspondent David Wood's 10-part series about wounded veterans, Beyond the Battlefield. and received a Peabody Award in 2010 for "Trafficked: A Youth Radio Investigation." Breitbart has received no such peer recognition for good journalism. Moreover, it doesn't correct itself and has reported multiple false stories, and does so frequently without correcting itself. There is no comparison with regard to WP:RS standards.

Um -- Breitbart expressly corrected itself on the Sherrod case, the Lynch case, and issued a dull discussion about the ACORN tapes and so on. Were you implying they had refused to make corrections in your post above? And one should note the discussions here are not about ascribing facts to Breitbart but to using opinions cited as opinions - for which corrections rarely ever get issued <g>. Even RT is reliable for opinions cited as opinions. Collect (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

One ideologically driven Pulitzer doesn't change the fact that it's a partisan blog that relies heavily on personal opinion, and does things like interviewing some dubious Twitter account claiming to have seen a cop execute an unarmed young man in cold blood, posting it publicly with absolutely no verification or fact checking, only to have the video surface showing the decedent pulled a gun on the cop first, and their trollish "witness" publicly mock them later for not checking their sources. HuffPo didn't find their own error through internal fact checking. By contrast, at least Breitbart honestly posted the NAACP video it received, which was authentic and not staged. And, contrary to some false claims here, Breitbart does employ a professional editor staff for oversight. Regardless, as Collect said, we're covering opinions here, not facts, so nothing you said is relevant. VictorD7 (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe you think you are trying to get the best sources you can in the article, but your casual dismissal of the Pulitzer Prize clearly indicates that your beliefs about what the best sources are differs from the majority of Wikipedians. Gamaliel (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

We may or may not disagree on the 21st Century relevance of Pulitzers (I doubt many would argue that being tossed one is a magic bullet somehow transforming a low brow partisan blog like HuffPo with loose to nonexistent fact checking into a quality general use news source), but that's an irrelevant tangent since we're covering opinions here rather than news reporting. VictorD7 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Exactly. The proponents are using the previous RFC, which said the source could be used, as a mandate that it should be used, and they want to include at least three different quotations from this low-quality source. Weight issues, which should be the deciding factor, have been completely dismissed by the proponents. Gamaliel (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Poorly phrased RfC Arzel (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Maybe/Probably Remove/Probably Remove Media Matters is widely quoted in reliable sources and may represent a significant perspective that should be included. Breitbart and Daily Kos are pretty much just muckrakers and so unless the specific opinionista is being presented from there is widely acknowledged by outsiders as a representative voice of a particular segment or the specific opinion piece itself has been noted by reliable source, the opinions presented within those publishers should probably not be used and DEFINITELY should NOT be used to be making any claims about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• DKOS=Remove/MediaMatters=Remove/Breitbart=Stay Only Breitbart is a news source. Kos is a left wing blog or blog of blogs. MediaMatters is left-wing news media critic. Breitbart is a broad news and reporting organization with professional staff and editors. Their review and interviews are actual news. --DHeyward (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is not a "news" source in the general meaning of the term on Wikipedia for an organization that presents facts that have gone through an editorial oversight process. It is polemical propaganda site.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• NO/NO/NO I see no reason to remove any of these sources. 1990'sguy (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• No, Yes, No Breitbart.com should certainly be removed since it's a questionable source by nearly all accounts defined by WP:QS. I'm not as familiar with the two other sources but a quick reading of their respective WP articles doesn't show any misconduct that would qualify either as "questionable" by WP standards. Almost all of the controversies listed on MEdia Matters and Daily Kos have to do with peoples' receptions of articles and aren't about the companies' own misconduct. This is different from Breitbart.com where the controversies in the section of the same name, actually deal with instances where Breitbart.com showed little to no fact checking, published based on rumor, intentionally manufactured stories, or did other actions that would qualify it as a questionable source by WP standards. Furthermore, MEdia Matters is considered a "fact checking" site and is non profit, so that already puts it in a separate tier than Breitbart.com. Using Politifact.com, Media Matters has a 100% "True" rating while Breitbart.com has a 100% "Pants of Fire" rating.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

What an absurd metric to use. Selective checking of facts to fit a pre-described purpose is pointless. Perhaps if Politicfact was a non-biased party it would have more weight, but objective real statistical analysis of politicfact shows them to be far from it. They were to begin with, but now are little more than a useful tool for Democrats to use to try and "objectively" prove their point. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I used two different metrics when comparing the articles and I previously used a third metric in determining that breitbart.com is a questionable source called Wikipedia Policies. What's absurd is editors trying to falsely equate Breitbart.com to other media sources and these two metrics show exactly why it's absurd. Regardless, it's empirical evaluative evidence that people can use instead of just listening to baseless assertions made by Breitbart.com supporters and that, sir, is not absurd.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• To underscore the hilarious absurdity of the above comments, here's an extended Daily Kos piece from 2011 flatly accusing Breitbart of hacking Weiner's account and faking the scandal. It also attacks CNN and the NY Times for covering Breitbart's report. Of course this was before Weiner admitted he had lied, apologized to Breitbart (after media prodding at the press conference) for lying, and ultimately resigned, vindicating Breitbart. I'll add that guidelines stress Wikipedia is not a reliable source for good reason. The respective controversy sections say more about this site's failure to live up to its own neutrality standards than it does about the article subjects, and shouldn't be the primary basis of any editor's research in this discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Responding to RFC as someone who has not previously been involved in this article. No the sources should not be removed. A film review is necessarily an opinion piece. In an article about a film it is important to present a range of critics views in order to present a balanced view. Add more well known sources - I googled and saw a review from the Washington Post. Perhaps you can find others. The article is not well written at all and perhaps it should be rewritten with the normal subheadings that one would see in an article about a film - I notice there is no mention of the plot or story line. Isthisuseful (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinion pieces can be reliable assuming they come from a reliable source and undergo the same editorial oversight that other articles do. If the source has a poor reputation for fact checking and lacks any meaning editorial oversight, then it's not a reliable source and whether the article is objective or subjective it is still limited by WP:verifiable and WP:reliable policies.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No, reliability is always depends on context. In this context we're merely covering attributed opinions, so the only verifiability concern is whether the sources accurately relay the quotes, which they do. Leaving aside the fact that almost none of the opinion sections' sources would normally be considered good for sourcing news or facts in Wikipedia's voice, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:RSOPINION clearly state that sources and material not normally considered reliable or suitable to use in Wikipedia's voice can be used with attribution. The question is one of due weight, not sourcing policy. VictorD7 (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No. WP:RSopinion is the only one that speaks to reliability and it says "some" sources not "any" or "all". WP:attributepov only applies to WP neutral point of view standards and still says that sources have to meet WP verifiable guidelines which Breitbart.com does not meet as it falls under the questionable source category and therefore has its own limitations. Though context should certainly be considered, there are still sources that categorically fall under different quality standards and they are identified throughout WP:verifiable and WP:reliable, and neither WP:attributepov nor WP:rsopinion override the more specific restrictions set by WP:QS or WP:Aboutself which set additional restrictions for sources that are generally classified as being questionable or self-published. If all you had to do was quote a source and attribute for it to be considered "reliable" then WP wouldn't have 2 entire articles with multiple sub-articles outlining reliability.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:RSOPINION, WP:NEWSORG, and WP:BIASED all deal with what type of material sources can be reliable for (context), and clearly establish that attribution makes material and sources usable that wouldn't be if adding facts in Wikipedia's voice. Quotations even stresses that supporting quotes with the original source (likely to be opinionated) is preferred for verifiability purposes, and treats original sources and "reliable secondary source"s as different categories, with the latter being acceptable as a last resort if the original isn't available. Of course not every source is reliable. Napkin scribblings or unverified facebook posts aren't. But the sourcing concern expressed in the links above are with the verifiability of the quotes, not their content, and WP:BIASED gives extreme examples of individuals being acceptably quoted with attribution for their opinions. Of course your QS argument has been rejected at every turn, and would apply to virtually every source in the section. Even if Breitbart is deemed questionable as a source for quoting others (it's not), no one has advanced an argument that it's a dubious source for its own opinions. Most of Wikipedia is presented as prose facts, which is why there's so much material on assessing reliability. There's far less on using attributed quotes, but what exists supports the position that Breitbart is RS for its own opinions, as the previous RFC found. VictorD7 (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is a NPOV subject/guideline, not one that's relevant to reliability. Furthermore, I've already explained with specific quotes and examples how the other ones apply to sources that are already reliable. Reliable sources have little if anything to do with whether a person actually wrote/said something, and has more to do with the QUALITY of the source from which a passage came. This is why WP:QS identifies multiple aspects of source that wouldn't meet WP's reliability/verifiability requirements, including whether something is heavily reliant on opinion, if it has a conflict of interest, if it has a reputation for fact checking, if it slanders believed peers, etc. If a source does these things, then it is a questionable source and questionable sources have their own specific policies. WP:NEWSORG, WP:BIASED, and WP:RSOPINION deal with sources that are already genuinely believed to be reliable and they exclude questionable sources. Just because you "reject" WP policy, that doesn't mean your edits get to ignore it. WP:QS also and already supports that sources can be reliable for their own opinion, but then limits the use of those sources to material about themselves and restricts them from making claims about others, both of which your Shapiro quote is in violation of and their has been no rebuttal for that fact.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I've already explained with quotes and examples that reliability "always depends on context", so there is no such thing as a source that's inherently "reliable" or unreliable across the board. I've also shown how these multiple links undeniably establish that a source that might not be reliable for supporting factual material in Wikipedia's voice can become reliable for sourcing if attribution is added. And by your own logic QS policy is about verifiability, since it's on the verifiability page, and no one contends Breitbart is questionable for its own authors' opinions. I clearly never said I reject policy, but I and most others do reject your interpretation of it. Even Blueboar, who's edited the Verifiability page for years and helped shape its contents, disagrees with you. QS makes no mention of attributed material ("contentious claims" likely refers to claims in Wikipedia's voice, since that's what most of Wikipedia is), and I've explained how "material about themselves" can reasonably be interpreted to include their quoted opinions, which is why we're allowed to quote critics and pundits from sources that "rely heavily on personal opinion" (including the bloggers you personally added in contradiction to your own QS position here). None of the sections I linked to mention "questionable sources", and the sole sourcing concern expressed is that the quotes are verifiably relayed. That's the only level of "accuracy and fact checking" that matters in this context, and even you concede that Breitbart is reliable for its own authors' opinions. It's telling that you can't find any policy explicitly discussing attributed quotes and limiting their use on sourcing grounds.

Furthermore, sourcing policy states that we're to treat the author as a source too in our evaluations, which is why the expert exception allows even facebook posts from an established expert to be used, as long as they're verifiably his. Breitbart's Toto is an established professional critic who's RS here by definition according to film guidelines. His review would be usable even if it just appeared on his personal blog. Ben Shapiro is a notable best selling author and political pundit who's been cited or interviewed by countless media outlets. Since he published an entire article on this topic he's ideal for representing the conservative reaction in our Political commentary section. WP:NPOV is certainly policy, and you can't trample over it to get the primary conservative source completely removed while you're keeping and adding leftist sources that rely heavily on personal opinion, especially when most of them also lack the reportage and editorial oversight elements that Breitbart has. VictorD7 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose all You yourself said that we have sources verifying everything the sources were there for. We can use them as cross reference. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• No to Breitbart I agree with users above that Breitbart fits all the criteria for a questionable source and should be removed. Dmrwikiprof (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• No All 3 have a stake in this, and are important political sources for commentary on the documentary.--TMD Talk Page. 22:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the question This is not how to determine RS. All 3 RS are partisan/opinionated - all 3 fact check (sorta) - none are perfect. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth for your answer. See the 3rd para of the Al Sharpton lead - excellent example of formatting and citing. --Atsme☯^Consult 14:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment An excellent question: "Should Media Matters, Daily Kos and Breitbart be removed as sources for the Article?" Breitbart is an excellent source and 99% 'truthful'. If anything is found to be 'not truthful', it can be reverted and taken out, but as a source for leads and it is excellent and can be verified and double-checked. As for Media Matters and Daily Kos, they are arms of the Democrat Party, but this is no reason to not consider what they say. Everyone recognizes them for what they are. They can also be double-checked and reverted. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: Keep Breitbart, (but no need to toss Daily KOS and Media Matters because everyone knows about them.)
• No, no, and no - i.e. don't delete any of these. As far as I can see, all three are cited briefly only for the opinions expressed there. That is legitimate. If they were being cited as sources of facts to be recounted in Wikipedia's own voice, the answer might well be different. Depending on the context, I doubt that any of them are reliable sources for that purpose. But we can (briefly) cite partisan and questionable sources like these as sources for the opinions that they contain in order to indicate something of the range of prominent critical and political opinions expressed about a cultural product such as a controversial documentary movie. Metamagician3000 (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  Also, it seems to me that the issue with Breitbart was settled by the earlier well-reasoned RfC closure, after thorough discussion. It only remains to deal with the other two sources, which seem to be usable for the opinions of their authors in the same way, with the same limitations. Metamagician3000 (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptably biased question wording

There is absolutely no basis for singling out two of the many sources used, lumping them together like that, and asking if they and only they should be removed. While I support the notion of an RFC here, I ask Casprings to adjust the question wording to something neutral that explains the common basis for removal like "Should opinionated sources be removed?" or "Should overtly political sources be removed?" At the very least more than Media Matters needs to be included. We can't remove Breitbart if we're leaving in the Daily Kos, Salon.com, Daily Beast, The Atlantic, The Huffington Post, and others. Update: I see you just added the Daily Kos, but that's only a marginal improvement. Breitbart is the most prominent conservative news/opinion site and features a notable author and pundit who wrote an entire article about the reception to this film (along with commentary from others), so tossing out only two of the many leftist opinion sources used is hardly a fair and neutral trade. VictorD7 (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

How much more neutral can you get then "Should X be removed?" I added Daily Kos, as I did not see that and I think it has the same problems as the other two. I do not agree that the others are in question nor do I agree the problem is "opinionated sources". Casprings (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The others, especially The Huffington Post, Daily Beast, and Salon, are very much in question, which is why I listed them and why they've been mentioned all over this page. That you're not including them because you don't think they should be removed illustrates how the current question wording is biased and rigged to yield a particular result that won't come close to resolving the disputes here. Also, clarity is needed on precisely what you want to remove from Breitbart. Just the Shapiro quote? Both the political pundits quoted from it? The professional critic (Christian Toto) who's quoted in the above section and whose inclusion has already been explicitly approved by another RFC? The other, more mundane uses of the source elsewhere in the article (added by Erik I believe), the deletion of which would require chunks of the article to be rewritten? VictorD7 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Those sources you have listed, unlike Breitbart, have long been accepted as RSes on Wikipedia, but you are welcome to start your own RFC or RS noticeboard post on the matter instead of complaining about the simple and straighforward RFC here. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Of those sources the only one that I've seen a consensus supporting as "RS" is Breitbart. Of course being RS always depends on context, so your claim is nonsensical to begin with. VictorD7 (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Again claiming the "Brietbart as a reliable source" was the outcome of the RFC is reading only a very partial aspect. The "reliability" of Breitbart was that the site was reliable for not having made up a review and claiming it was written by Toto. That is as far as the "reliability" goes. There are multiple other occasions such as ANY content about ANY living person, Brietbart has utterly failed as a relaible source due to their repeated history of being exactly the opposite of reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the RFC found Breitbart reliable for supporting the quote in this article, which goes further than you imply. Again, I have never seen Breitbart found "not RS" in any context, and certainly not this one, nor have I ever seen any of the leftist sites I listed above be explicitly deemed "RS" by consensus. They may have somewhere, but no one has linked to such a consensus yet, and they certainly haven't been deemed RS on this article. I'm not opposing their use here, but just illustrating how the assertions I'm responding to are the opposite of the truth. This RFC should include The Huffington Post, Salon.com, National Journal, Daily Beast, and the others I mentioned to be neutral, productive, and worthwhile. People can give different answers for different sources if they wish. VictorD7 (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the close, it does nothing of the kind. "Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. " (emph added) the question was " Is Breitbart.com a reliable source for its own film review?" Period. That you failed to frame the question in the RFC to determine community response your actual question is not anyone's fault but yours. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

<INSERT>You left out the part of the RFC intro that linked to the specific discussion, linked to the specific article section in question, and ended by saying "The dispute isn't about the proposed quote's content, but whether the source is allowable here." It was clearly laid out, and the respondents seemed to understand just fine. The misrepresentation in your post is no one's fault but yours. VictorD7 (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It was clear from the beginning that this was the plan: a narrowly tailored RFC designed to be innocuous and gain acceptance, which was then used as a mandate for edits far beyond the scope of the RFC. Gamaliel (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

What is clear is that you and a few others don't like the result and have been forum shopping the result for months to try and get it removed. It is a little disgusting to say the least. Arzel (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

These editors clearly weren't forum-shopping for months. This is not true. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the opposite of what happened. The SPA who is the chief proponent of including Brietbart has spent hundreds of edits arguing about it in practically every noticeboard on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

If you remember the initial discussion, that editor believed that this article was being targeted for purely partisan reasons without regard for WP policy. Efforts to use policy seemed to result in more strongly partisan approaches. The more you fight him on this the more convinced he is that you are doing it for purely partisan reasons. Frankly, you are doing little to prove him wrong given the results of the previous RfC. Arzel (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to try to mediate this dispute, be my guest. I have tried to engage this user for months, and each time I have been kicked in the teeth for my trouble. He came here with a battleground mentality, and that's obviously not going to change regardless of what any other editor does or doesn't do. I'm not going to stop opposing attempts to fill this article with shitty sources because he's got a chip on his shoulder. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Aren't you the one who added Kos, Media Matters, and Salon to the article? VictorD7 (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to lower the quality of sources to let Brietbart in, then those sources are fair game. I say we should keep them all out, but whatever is decided, the same standards should apply to all sides of the debate per NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

So you responded to one source you don't like by adding at least three "shitty" ones (your adjective) to the article. Got it. Looks like you're fine with the section's other numerous "shitty" sources, from Slant and Indiewire to the Huffington Post. Sacrificing a couple of leftist sources to get rid of one of the section's two and only two conservative sources, leaving numerous leftist sources in, is hardly in accordance with employing "fair" and equitable "standards" in covering "all sides of the debate" the "same" way "per NPOV". Just because you don't like Breitbart doesn't mean you can ignore its prominent voice in the realm of political discourse. Covering political discourse means fully and accurately doing so. However, I will say I appreciate your comical hubris in attacking me for supposed hostility, when I've never started (or cheerled) a personal call out section against another editor, and I've never trolled by posting giant pictures or linking to youtube videos. Unlike me, you didn't even start the required talk page sections following the neutrality tags you added. I charitably started one for you that you barely participated in. And on the Costco matter I made good faith efforts and proposals to address your concerns that you never even bothered to reply to. Every step of the way I've been sincerely engaging in productive collaboration, while you've been going through the minimal motions you felt you could get away with while skewing this article as much as possible through sheer edit warring. All I want is a neutral, high quality, encyclopedia article, and I don't oppose using any of the noteworthy opinion sources in the opinion sections since our task is to cover opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that you've regularly cast aspersions on the motives of other editors and accused them of being liars, let's please abandon this pretense that you've been a perfect little angel engaging in productive collaboration instead of systematically alienating anyone you disagree with, and even people who largely agree with you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You linked to TFD (with whom I almost never agree) claiming I had called him a liar, but maybe you missed my reply pointing out that I hadn't, and had only identified falsehoods in his posts (legitimate to correct). In fact our primary dispute (which stretched for many paragraphs and involved him arguing with multiple editors) was over his confident assertion that, since Rotten Tomatoes had at the time not cited a Toto review since May, they had dropped him as a recognized critic, despite me explaining that gaps of months weren't uncommon at that site. RT has since added over 40 Toto reviews stretching from September to Dec. 20, underscoring that I was correct (still waiting for TFD's retraction, but not holding my breath). As for your other link, SRICH and I have disagreed as often as agreed, and he has yet to weigh in on this RFC. He did, however, condemn and ultimately hat the call out section you supported below as "WP:TPNO". And another editor I disagreed with on content labeled the section "way out of line", disagreeing with the charge. Then there's the fact that the accusation was easily proved false. Your failure to address the evidence I linked to showing me trying to collaborate with you, or outlining some of your trolling, is telling. You've routinely cast aspersions and engaged in other inappropriate behavior (including abusing your admin powers in a personal dispute you were engaged in), which has been commented on by others. Oh I never claimed to be an angel, but your posturing here as some neutral editor merely concerned with article quality while I'm supposedly being mean to you is insanely untrue and demanded refutation. VictorD7 (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Unlike you, I'm not pretending I'm a neutral editor or that I've been a perfect angel. I have taken a position on this matter which I believe is backed up by policy. You are more than welcome to disagree with that position, and I believe that at time you have actually tried to be reasonable and collaborative with your disagreement, but overall your method of disagreement has often been combative, confrontational, obnoxious, and offensive. It's been a very long edit conflict here, and we all have had moments where we've been less than perfect, but you are the only one standing in a pile of your own bullshit and insisting that you smell absolutely delicious. Gamaliel (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You even initiated the personal attacks in this thread, lol, repeating the debunked "SPA" accusation, as anyone can scroll above and read. Unlike yours, my "combative" comments are usually limited to describing content and arguments, and I've backed up everything I've said (e.g. see my above post). I've been less offensive and way less obnoxious than you have, so your whiny claim that you "tried to engage" me "for months" only to be "kicked in the teeth" for your trouble "each time" was laughable and contradicted by the evidence I just posted. Unless you're defining me seeking broader community input that rejected your arguments in an RFC consensus as you getting kicked in the teeth. VictorD7 (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure this post has just convinced everyone that your behavior has been completely above board, and that the reason this conflict has gone on for so long and that so many editors are exacerbated by your conduct is because they are all just meaniepants bullies. Gamaliel (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

What "many editors"? Are these voices in your head? You're the one pretending that those who disagree with you are unreasonably bullying you, despite your alleged attempts to reach out and collaborate, which was what I replied in this line to dispute. I think honest observers can read the evidence and make up their own minds. VictorD7 (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure the editor you called a liar and the one who you said should sharpen his reading and critical thinking skills are figments of my imagination. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

So the guy who falsely claimed I had called him a liar (telling that you didn't link to anything I said) and the guy whom I gave some sincere advice to on my own talk page, and who condemned your behavior on this one? Just as "many", if not more, have expressed exasperation with your conduct. This personal attack line you started isn't conducive to productive collaboration on content. VictorD7 (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

How about limiting it simply to accuracy, which neither Breitbart nor MMfA nor Kos can lay claim to? Not all partisan sources are bad, but these aren't good ones by any stretch. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to what, CBS, the NY Times, or Rolling Stone? Your comment misses the point. These are attributed, subjective reactions to a political film, not facts where "accuracy" enters into it, and we can't cherry-pick the ones we cover in such a way that leaves an indefensible partisan skew. VictorD7 (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should matter that it's "attributed." They're terrible, low-quality, regularly-inaccurate sources. You might have a point about Rolling Stone as of late, but surely there are good sources we can use that aren't the one subject to this RFC. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

How do we define "good source" when the topic being covered is the subjective political reaction? I'd say, given that context, the best sources are the most prominent and influential outlets. Certainly Breitbart is an indispensable such source on the conservative side for gauging opinion on a broad spectrum of issues. I'm not sure how "accuracy" enters into it if we're merely covering opinions, apart from being confident the opinions are accurately relayed to us by the source. The specific authors must be considered too. Do you not think a widely cited, read, seen, heard, and accomplished, notable pundit like Ben Shapiro is worth quoting here when he pens an entire article on the topic? Also, are you aware that the vague RFC's author is apparently trying to remove the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her/Archive_4#RFC_-_Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_film_review.3F previously RFC approved] quote from Christian Toto, a well credentialed professional critic (now feature film critic for Breitbart, previously for the Washington Times for years and other outlets [1], [2], [3]), and currently the supplier of the Reception section's only positive quote? Should we really do that just because he now publishes his work at Breitbart? Film MOS Guidelines establish pro film critics as reliable sources for quotation regardless of outlet (a personal blog would acceptable).VictorD7 (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart has largely been attacked because of one specific instance. If the same standard was applied to Rolling Stones, and now New York Magazine then they would have to be black-listed as well. I really do find it amazing how such a small section in a small article on WP has continued to be such a flash point. It really goes to show you how much some people despise this movie and the movie-maker. Arzel (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

One specific instance? Here are at least four major egregious violations regarding living people [4] [5] for [6] [7] let alone the general fact stretching. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The RS standard is not perfection, it requires a general reputation for factchecking and accuracy which Breitbart lacks and the other sources have. The constant comparison of Breitbart to the occasional mistakes of otherwise reliable sources is a false equivalence based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You will need some citation that Breitbart is worse than other news sources. All the references I've seen also had similar issues with virtually every source for news. Even the Breitbart article's references for inaccuracy on selected topics highlight the same inaccuracy in other sources. If you have a specific fact that you believe Breitbart is reporting inaccurately, then RS Noticboard is a guideline for resolving. Otherwise, it meets our criteria for reliable sources: It's published, has editorial oversight and professional journalists. --DHeyward (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

TRPOD has already provided such citations. Regardless, the standard on Wikipedia is that those advocating for inclusion need to prove that their desired source meets Wikipedia policy criteria, not that it automatically gets in until others prove that it is a crappy source to your satisfaction. Gamaliel (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart (and O'Keefe) are "post-objective". "One of the prime components of post-objective journalism is the understanding that the accuracy of a story is likely to be secondary to a story's impact. If the story does what it was intended to do (destroy or harm an organization, generally), it does not matter if it is later shown to have been a fabrication". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The other name for it is "investigative journalism." Regardless, this would be a story by story and journalist by journalist assessment - not a broad accusation against every byline (and it would be a BLP violation to broadly paint each reporter in that category). The other name for it is "the scientific method" where a hypothesis is created and then investigated. Surely, the scientific method's use of a "post-objective" hypothesis is not thrown out on that basis. The problem with your statement is that there is no evidence that Breitbart fabricates anything or is incorrect any more than any other organization. --DHeyward (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT - "investigative journalism" is based on getting FACTS right - you dont get Pulitzers for stories because they the reported story took down an organization/person you didnt like based on false reporting. 06:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The RS standard isn't "just as bad as this arbitrary set of examples", the standard is a reputation for factchecking and accuracy. It's clear from the evidence linked above and the 100% Pants on Fire rating from Politifact that it has the opposite reputation. Gamaliel (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

So everyone that has had a Pants on fire rating is not reliable? Absurd, not to mention the pure stupidly non-scientific validity of such ratings to begin with. Arzel (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have a consistently poor rating for factual accuracy, then that is certainly a point to consider when we are talking about the reliability of sources. I really can't believe that I have to explain this to people. Gamaliel (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

But they don't. Politifact is one organization with a left-wing bent according to studies by the University of Minnesota. It has a criticism section even larger than Breitbarts. Media Research Center is also a fact checking organization that I doubt you would consider. It's pretty obvious that most of these so-called "fact checkers" are interpreting from bias and whence why they are all generally criticised. Breitbarts history as a news source is not any worse than any other media outlet. We can find just as many discrepancies with facts in NPR, CBS, Fox, MSNBC, NY Times, CNN or Washington Post. One of the film critic assessments above stated that correlation to box office and audience was indicative of how reliable a critic is. If that's the case, this film did pretty well at the box office. The critics that match that are reliable. --DHeyward (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC

Once again, the standard isn't "all sources are bad, so we should treat them all as equally reliable." The standard is a reputation for factchecking and accuracy. So far, the case for Brietbart hasn't been to demonstrate that it fulfills this requirement, it has been to attack everything that isn't Brietbart. Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

And once again you are incorrect in stating that Breitbart has not a met an invisible standard that you haven't established for any other source. They are reliable, published and professional journalists with editorial oversight regardless of how much foot stomping you do to impugn them. Breitbart has the same reputation for fact checking as any other source and this is supported by other reliable sources. We don't gauge reliability on miniscule variations whether it's a difference between CNN and MSNBC or Breitbart and Boston.com. We certainly don't base it on the WP article about them. --DHeyward (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

My "invisible standard" can be seen by everyone at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. What remains invisible is any proof that Breitbart meets that standard. Despite months of assertions, the only "evidence" offered has been Alexa rankings and attacks on other sources that are not Breitbart. Gamaliel (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

That makes it eve less visible since there are those that disagree with you. "Context matters" in case you didn't get passed the nutshell version. "Everyone" that reads Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources doesn't agree with your interpretation that it is inherently unreliable or that its history is significantly different than other sources of news. There is no reason to believe that in this article and context that Breitbart is unreliable. You've offered no proof except pointing your narrow interpretation of a guideline - one that supports context based sourcing. --DHeyward (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you don't remember the ample proof offered earlier in this discussion, please scroll above to see the links offered by TRDOD and the discussion of the 100% Pants on Fire rating from Politifact. Gamaliel (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

That rating is statistically worthless. See conformation bias. Arzel (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

There has been multiple pieces of evidence presented that breitbart is not considered a reliable source. there has been no evidence presented that it is considered a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7, stop edit warring immediately. You made this edit right after the page protection expired. This is the same edit warring behavior on your part and others' that led to the page being protected twice. I will request a third page protection if you or others continue this behavior. I strongly recommend that no edits related to this passage be made until the RfC closes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Just read your post, Erik. I restored the material because the last consensus was for inclusion, and we shouldn't just roll over and reward Gamaliel for edit warring to have it removed. An entire section was recently included over active opposition by multiple editors through sheer edit warring, and now the same couple of editors are trying to have their way in removing this segment through sheer revert persistence. I won't revert it any more until this RFC closes, but I will ask you to note that there is no consensus for removing the segment. If it's deleted again, it's an act of edit warring without consensus, and shouldn't prejudice discussions on the matter. VictorD7 (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The content gained consensus per WP:EDITCONSENSUS after you re-added it and no one reverted it or mentioned it on the Talk Page for a month.VictorD7 (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is achieved through discussion, not edit warring. This material is in dispute now, it was in dispute then. Gamaliel (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's also achieved implicitly through editing. You restored the material and it stood unchallenged and without complaint on the talk page for a month. The material wasn't disputed then, but your recent edit warring to remove it is certainly disputed. VictorD7 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7, that is no excuse to resume contentious editing after a second page protection was lifted, especially with a pending RfC discussion. There was zero need to re-initiate edit warring. The page existed without the passage for two weeks, and it can exist without it through the duration of the RfC. There is always a "wrong version". Discussion should be had until it is finalized, and whatever the outcome may be, I assume all editors will respect it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As predicted, Erik, Gamaliel continued to edit war with a hotly opposed alteration that lacks consensus. You should be calling him out if you want to retain credibility here. The page only existed without the passage for two weeks due to the page protection, which does not mean admin endorses the current version. Establishing the last consensus matters because the RFC asks if the segments/sources should be removed. A failure to gain consensus for such a change means the status quo remains. By policy we don't need a new consensus to retain the material, but one is needed to remove it. Gamaliel is trying to alter the status quo through sheer edit warring. VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You could stop this matter by simply showing us where this alleged consensus was established to keep this contentious material in the article. You could have stopped any matter of arguments on this page by simply providing evidence, evidence that Breitbart is a reliable source, evidence that Avi Offer was a notable film critic, etc. Instead you argue and edit war, and that clearly illustrates who is looking to collaborate and who is here to use this article as a battle ground. Gamaliel (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Already shown above, and Breitbart was found to be a reliable source in the RFC at the top of this page, though that hasn't stopped your arguing, edit warring, and projection laced personal attacks on the talk page. VictorD7 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Your attempts to manipulate this discussion are clearly illustrated by your leaving out of the key part of the RFC, "for its own film review", which has absolutely nothing to do with quotes from O'Hare and Shapiro, nor does it mean that you can use it as a mandate to include whatever you want from Brietbart anywhere in the article. You want people to believe that this RFC wasn't a transparent attempt by you to game the system and that you are attempting to edit this article in good faith, then you should not claim the RFC says what it does not say. Gamaliel (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Casprings' RFC trying to get rid of the specific Toto film review in question too (important question; don't dodge)? Regardless, everything I said is true (you asked for evidence of reliability and I provided it), so your latest attack is as desperate and false as your previous ones. And an RFC on this very article establishing consensus that Breitbart is reliable for something because it's RS for its own authors' opinions is relevant as a precedent when discussing the other quotes too, especially since no consensus exists finding Breitbart non-RS for anything, and no consensus here has been established finding any of the section's other sources RS for anything. VictorD7 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not evidence for reliability, that is gamesmanship. The question, for months, has been simple. Is Breitbart a reliable source for Wikipedia? Does it have a reputation for factchecking and accuracy as required by policy? Instead of providing evidence for that question, you've answered "Yes, it does because you can't prove it doesn't." That's not how it works, but your attempts at trying to make it that way have dragged on this edit war for months. All you have to do to win this argument is to provide that evidence. Gamaliel (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

From the Identifying reliable sources FAQ: "Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?

No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual." So your question is nonsensical. The real question is whether Breitbart is RS in this context, and the RFC at the top of this page was clearly and productively constructed to answer that question (I've already "won" that argument). Dismissing the RFC as "gamesmanship" without coming close to supporting your charge is absurd and disruptive. You also failed to answer whether the new RFC applies to Toto's film review or not. That's a reasonable and vital question. Talk about lack of transparency and gamesmanship. BTW, loads of evidence supporting Breitbart as even a quality news source has been posted by multiple editors over the past few months, but that's a red herring since we're only using it for its own authors' attributed opinions in this context. VictorD7 (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Given your keen interest in collaboration, would you mind pointing us to that "loads of evidence" please? Gamaliel (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Since it's a red herring, no, especially since you refuse to answer whether the current RFC applies to Toto's pro film review or not. But to satisfy your personal curiosity look for the paragraphs in various connected discussions here or on noticeboards providing evidence that Breitbart employs professional reporters and editors with extensive experience, is classified by others (like Alexa) as a "news" source, and has broken high profile stories (including but not limited to Weinergate). But what matters here is only Breitbart's or Shapiro's ability to represent attributed conservative opinion, or Christian Toto's credentials as a professional critic (if that's even at stake in this ridiculously nontransparent RFC). VictorD7 (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't refuse to answer, I have no idea what the answer is. I imagine that would be decided by the results of the RFC, like every other RFC ever. I don't see the point of your question or your insistence upon it. Would you elaborate in the interests of collaboration and transparency? As for the evidence, I do not believe the items you noted (popularity and employment background) directly address the issue of "a reputation for factchecking and accuracy as required by policy". Gamaliel (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Doubtful, since the RFC doesn't clearly ask the question and most respondents haven't indicated that they've read the article or are familiar with the uses in question. You admit you don't even know the scope of this RFC. Shouldn't you be asking for clarification from the RFC author, in the interests of transparent collaboration? As for reputation, links to hostile partisan blogs or off the cuff editorial comments by one commentator aren't decisive either. You left out the multiple examples provided of various media outlets citing Breitbart, meaning they do view it as reliable, especially for its own opinions. If it's good enough for the New York Times, Rotten Tomatoes, and other outlets, it should be good enough for us. VictorD7 (talk)

I'm not sure why I have to ask somebody else the question you want the answer to, sorry. Can't you just ask? Gamaliel (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you want the answer? I did ask the RFC op, and received no reply. VictorD7 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't make Casprings answer you, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You could answer me yourself. I asked why you don't want the answer. VictorD7 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This needs to go to WP:ANI. This is getting silly.Casprings (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow

The above is just awful, and flies in the face of WP:BALANCE, WP:AGF, & WP:NEU. Banning one of the few right of center reliable sources from usage in this article, coupled with what is going on in RSN, and than shooting the messenger, but turning to a discussion in an attempt to curtail the editing (if not outright ban) a editor whose political views may not be in sync with the left leaning members of the editing community.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Editor behavior concerns

Concerns about editor behavior – not focused on article improvement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should we consider tagging VictorD7 as a WP:SPA account at this point? About 700 of their last 800 edits since the summer across talk pages and noticeboards, have been tightly focussed on getting this one movie to have better reviews. At this point In the RfC discussion above, this user has added more words total than all other commenters combined. At what point is it too unworkably disruptive and WP:BLUDGEONy? It's not against policy to have a personal bias, but this seems to be going beyond any purpose of building an encyclopedia; it seems to be editing to promote a single movie. I didn't mention anything before about this pattern for the entire five months it's occurred, but if it's behavior that might affect the RfC in general, we should address it. Can the editor, in the interest of encouraging new voices here, consider limiting their direct rebuttals to every second editor?__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC) I think so. I have tagged his edits on the RFC as SPA.Casprings (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC) What percentage of scoobydunk's edits have focused on this article over the past several months? Your aggressive outrage is awfully selective. And no, I'm only one of several editors who have commented extensively here. My concern is neutrality, and your failure to point to a single example of me violating that principle is telling. I would have left this article long ago if it wasn't for a couple of editors engaging in a dedicated tendentious pattern. I only commented on this new RFC because it's so poorly and non-neutrally constructed that new editors have no idea what's going on, and require some explanation. I haven't posted on Wikipedia much lately, so most of my edits in recent months have involved this article, but since you apparently followed me to a different article, you know I'm not a SPA. I've been an established editor for two and half years, since long before I ever visited this article, and have edited and commented on numerous diverse topics, often related to economics or history. Quoting from your SPA essay: "Whom not to tag (SPA tagging guidelines) The following is a list of common misuses of the single-purpose account tag. You should under no circumstance consider anything that falls into the below categories as evidence for warranting an SPA tag. Editing time line: the timeline of a user’s edits should not be considered when using single-purpose account tags. One must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits. Examples of non-SPAs include Users with a diversified edit history that become inactive for an extended period and later re-establish themselves with single subject edits. Note that a time gap in edit history may be evidence that the person was referred to Wikipedia by an outside source, but it isn't evidence that the person is an SPA. An established editor focusing on a single topic is not an SPA. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, he or she can focus on single subjects for extended periods of time without being labeled an SPA.''" Since using an article talk page to start a call out section to level accusations against and seek to silence another editor, especially if the accusations are false, is a diversion from substantive content discussion, extremely disruptive, and likely to boomerang on you, I'd suggest deleting this entire subsection. VictorD7 (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Scoobydunk has about 200 edits on the subject to your 700, over the same time period. I did notice you added four edits to the Atlantis talk page, but that doesn't seem that substantive somehow. It looks like your diversified edit history, isn't diversified at all, as you were arguably a SPA on a different topic before this. You switched from having a tight focus on a single bit of obscure tax material in the article United States to a tight focus on adding specific reviews to the article America: Imagine the World Without Her. That's not that diversified a range, that's a repeated pattern. Your edit count analysis can be considered evidence for my comments here. Consider easing up on rebutting every editor you disagree with in an RfC setting; it's good practice.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC) So now I'm supposedly a Double Purpose Editor, lol? False. I've edited numerous articles since 2012, on a variety of historical, tax, political, economic, and even sports topics, as any honest observer can see by scanning my entire editing history (which your own linked essay instructs). SPA generally applies to new editors and you grossly misused it. To my knowledge it wouldn't be a policy violation in any event. I didn't realize edit count mattered to being SPA (I was talking percentage, as you did in your op), but for the record I'll note that scooby's posts are usually longer than mine. Also, I wasn't planning on "rebutting every editor I disagreed with". The RFC is brand new, lacked any link to discussion, identification of the segments in question, explanation that most of the segments in question are attributed quotes in a section dedicated to such quotes (most readers will have facts in Wikipedia's voice in mind, since that's what most of Wikipedia is), or any context at all. Most of what needed to be posted I had already posted before you posted your little WP:TPNO call out section here, though I'm not ruling out contributing to the discussion again. So far I've only responded to two respondents and the RFC op. One respondent changed his vote in response to my reply. The op struck through and replaced his entire rationale after I corrected an error he made. Hardly frivolous; productive and useful in fact. You should be thanking me. The other respondent hasn't yet replied to my comments, but I have experience working with this editor on another (healthcare related) article and found him to be reasonable, so I'm hoping for the best. VictorD7 (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC) This SPA should have been topic banned months ago. It's long past time to bring this to ANI. Gamaliel (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC) If anything should be brought to such a review, it should be your abuse of admin power in a content dispute in which you were a participant (discovered by Collect in an above discussion), and the incidents of you trolling by replying to on topic posts with giant cartoons. Since the page linked in the op unambiguously defines my established, diverse posting history as "not" SPA (SPA is mostly designed for recently created accounts), you must be using a different definition. VictorD7 (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC) You are welcome to start an RFC on my horrific abuse, but the fact that you haven't done so shows that you are well aware the boomerang will hit you in the face. Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Actually it just shows, as I said when advising (but not reporting) you when you violated 3RR, that I'm not the type of guy to run to admin and tell. But if you take such frivolous, baseless action against me I may have little choice. VictorD7 (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC) I agree. He has been at it for months.Casprings (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC) @Elaqueate: would you support such an action as well? Gamaliel (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Only if this editor continues rebutting new editors with points he's already outlined at length, in this RfC, in comments he's already made in this RfC. I don't think any one needs my approval to get other editor's comments at AN/I. I don't at this point think he has to be removed from the discussion, but he's not commenting in a way that encourages new voices to speak up at an RfC, and he should consider changing his style before it becomes more apparent to more editors. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Not your approval, your participation. The more editors who support such an action, the less likely that it can be sidetracked by editors who are willing to ignore this editor' behavior for ideological advantage. Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC) I've worked with him on a few political articles over the last few years. Calling him an SPA seems way out of line, and I don't see anything untoward here, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC) As for my supposed extensive commentary in the new RFC, I'll add that one respondent has already changed his vote based on my reply to him, so it's hardly frivolous. VictorD7 (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Off-topic – The discussion here is WP:TPNO in spades. It deals with an editor behavior issue alone, not with article improvement. If there are problems, then bring them up on the WP:ANI. If it were not for the disappointing comments I see from experienced editors and administrators – who should know better – I would hat this discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC) You're probably right that I should have brought it to AN/I. I had a possibly naive hope that a smaller discussion amongst RfC participants would have benefited the RfC and the editor involved. Let's call me wrong. __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC) It's disappointing to see experienced editors willing to excuse and indulge this behavior that has been going on for months. Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC) It is disappointing to see admins misuse their tools. It appears that you and a few others disagree with the previous RfC and have now resorted to trying to shut up victor as another means to achieve the same end. Arzel (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.