Talk:Calendargate

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

A fact from Calendargate appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 March 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that online social and "Barstool conservatives" spent their Christmas holidays arguing about whether a beer promotional calendar was "demonic"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Calendargate.

Wikipedia

Too many primary sources, risk of SYNTH[edit]

This article is heavy on non-RS commentary and risks becoming a WP:SYNTH essay. We shouldn't be featuring tweets as cites, for example. That someone wrote something on the Internet doesn't mean including it is WP:DUE.

What would this article look like if it were cut down to claims directly cited to third-party solid RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain more specifically how this becomes SYNTH, with examples from the text? I have tried very hard to avoid that; are we to presume that simply a plenitude of directly quoted text from participants in both sides becomes SYNTH at some point no matter how it's worded? If that is so, then we ought post haste to revise SYNTH so it says that explicitly.

I might be willing to cut it down to mostly third-party sources (and I've got some more that I haven't cited yet), because I have found a few that reiterate some of the broader themes sounded in the debate. But I do think some of the tweets should be cited directly so we can demonstrate their existence independent of the sources when those sources get accused (as they inevitably do, when they involve coverage of the many subjects of this article and their political movements) of fabricating the screenshots entirely. Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so? We (generally) trust the RSes. If they say a tweet happened, bad-faith actors can say whatever they like.

these sources are terrible. Black Tea News appears to be a one-person gossip blog. Newsweek post-2013. Jabberwocking is a personal blog. Fox is listed as generally unreliable for political coverage. Christian Headlines is a group blog.

I might have a hack at what I can make of it today (and not just complain) - David Gerard (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does our general aversion to Fox News as a source extend to Fox Business? The language at WP:RS/PS explicitly says Fox News, and we have specifically exempted Fox affiliates from that deprecation. It to me follows that Fox Business cannot be considered to have been covered by that statement.

Looking through the RS/N archives, I find no discussion specifically taking on the reliability of Fox Business save this one ... and as you can see it was closed quickly because the basis for the challenge wasn't one we consider valid. Unless there is some clearly stated principle somewhere that separate media outlets under the same brand inherit a determination of deprecation, I cannot consider the deprecation of Fox News to de facto extend to Fox Business.

Also, re Jabberwocking, Kevin Drum has long been a published journalist in Mother Jones and has blogged for the Washington Monthly as well. That comes under "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" per WP:SPS, and thus per RSOPINION. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe? It's a bit gossipy still IMO. YMMV I guess if it doesn't engage BLP - David Gerard (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which "it" were you referring to? Drum or Fox Business? Daniel Case (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jabberwocking. If a professional journalist self-publishes, it's prima facie still just a blog not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since all I used from it was an opinion, really, I think it's OK. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Test revision restricted to RSes[edit]

I did a test version (and self-reverted), which you can see in the page history.

The RS list is very short. The only plausible RSes I could find in Google News for this topic were Vox, Daily Dot and Mediaite - and the latter two are very gossipy IMO, Vox is by far the most substantial RS here.

I didn't add it, but this NRO column might be usable as a relevant conservative RSOPINION. The Salon piece would be prima facie RSOPINION - but it doesn't really add new facts, so I left it out.

I cut down the story of the Bud Light boycott as we already have a linked article on it, and we shouldn't use refs in an article that aren't about the topic.

Newsweek post-2013 is a trashy source and listed as GUNREL. Black Tea News is just a pile of unencyclopedic gossip, so I cut all that.

Mediaite is very gossipy as a source but probably usable?

In any case, tell me what you think of the posited cut-down version. Could add NRO and Salon in a commentary or reception section as RSOPINION - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to do exactly that ... I knew I should have developed this in draftspace. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It works ... I have removed the tags since your edits more than addressed all the relevant issues.

I have a couple of hours left to nominate it for DYK. Would you be OK with being named as a coauthor? Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you hadn't replied and the deadline was at hand, I went ahead and did it ... I can take your name out if you'd like. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cool, thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 23:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that online social and "Barstool conservatives" spent their Christmas holidays arguing about whether a beer promotional calendar was "demonic"? Source: "While most people were enjoying the holidays, extremely online conservatives were fighting about a pinup calendar ... this mild sexiness was just a bit too much for some prominent social conservatives, who started decrying the calendar in late December as (among other things) "demonic."
- Reviewed: Jewish cemetery, Hoorn
- Comment: ~~QPQ to come~~ Took care of that Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Daniel Case (talk) and David Gerard (talk). Nominated by Daniel Case (talk) at 21:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Calendargate; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

- article is long enough (6506 characters / 972 words readable prose size), new enough (created on 12 February, nominated on 19 February, adequately sourced, and CopyVio does not find problems: the only significant sections were quotations. The hook is cited to Vox, which WP:RSP says is "considered generally reliable". The hook is reasonably interesting. QPQ initial review has been done, minor discussion still going on. As far as I can tell, this one is ready to go. Gronk Oz (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]