Talk:R/The Donald

Reddit canvassing

Just an FYI, this article has been mentioned at Reddit with the express intent to have users edit the article in a POV fashion. Full disclosure: I discovered this article from that canvassing. Since there is political infighting at Reddit, expect a mix of opposing POV editors. I see no need to semi protect the article unless things get out of hand.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

-This is an outright lie. I saw the aforementioned Reddit post, and the express intent of it was to have users edit this article and make it more politically neutral, because at the moment it contains several entirely baseless and sourceless claims that /r/The_Donald is racist and contributes to harassment. Any attempts to remove bias are quickly reverted (I've tried to remove said bias in the past, but gave up), so I suspect that the creator of the Reddit post was simply fed up with this and wanted to flood the page with bias-removing edits in the hope that one of them would stick. While I disagree with this method, I cannot entirely blame the poster; the fact that all attempts at getting rid of the bias in this article have been met with nigh-instant reversions is extremely frustrating for those who want Wikipedia to provide pure facts rather than push baseless claims and agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.231.232 (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

As a neutral observer would, upon proper investigation, believe T_D to be repugnant in every heretofore mentioned way, I motion for 76.168.231.232's comment to be entirely disregarded as politically biased. Ellenor2000 (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You have not done a proper investigation 73.61.44.66 (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead content

I just restored a version that has an expanded lead. While we have a controversy section (I personally don't like those) the lead needs to reflect why this sub-reddit is notable. The Hoffman incident and the subs brigading are just s part of the story, as is the content the sub advocates. If they were brigading with kitten pictures we wouldn't probably have an article. That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The expanded lead you proposed showcased a POV, including weasel words ("ex. Some Redditors"). Also, the article connecting the Alt-Right to White Nationalism is misleading as it paints an image that the entire subreddit supports white nationalism, considering that the article that you cited regarding White Nationalism doesn't even mention the subreddit. Finally, I have simplified the lead section since readers could understand it more with the controversies section. I have included Huffman's comment in the lead as The_Donald's tendency to brigade other subreddits have existed far before the Huffman incident. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

However, after some thought, I briefly added that the subreddit was criticized for spreading conspiracy theories and for its racism in the lead section. No citations were given per WP:LEADCITE, as the subreddit's criticism in the "Controversies" section are well-cited, and that these controversies would not be challenged. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I apologize, I just realized I screwed up in reading my content. I undid some of your other changes. Sorry. That man from Nantucket (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

That's alright. I'm sorry for not clearing up about my changes earlier. Also, thank you very much for explaining the controversial details of the subreddit. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed the section heading, "Controversies" per your request, but I did not remove the associated content. Instead, I restructured the article content. If I made more changes than you and other editors are comfortable with, feel free to revert and alter, as I was quite BOLD. I also removed some unsourced content and re-worded some sections to be NPOV, which I felt was sufficient to justify removal of the tone tag.--FeralOink (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we work this source in?

The_Donald has around 300,000 members. Some are conservative stalwarts, others are meme-making teenagers; all are anonymous, hidden behind user names, making their origins and motivations difficult to pinpoint. But it’s fair to say that many saw themselves as political outsiders who reveled in rallying for the underdog.

. This is from the NYT and really describes the community in a nutshell. I'm not great with templates in articles. Can someone put this in? Perhaps we could use a section on the members. That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning that source, That man from Nantucket. It is in the article, although that particular passage is not quoted. I will try to incorporate it per your suggestion.--FeralOink (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

PizzaGate

This Daily Beast article says that PizzaGate originated from TD. Our article says TD promoted PizzaGate, but this source is more definitive. I think this warrants it's own subsection in Controversies (I'd love to change that name btw), and also warrants a mention in the lead. Perhaps some of the aftermath of PG deserves a mention. I'm looking for sources that mentions how TD created, promoted, and then quietly disowned PG. There is definitely a "Cant shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding" thing going on. I'm sure the sources will soon follow.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That article appears to be in slight disagreement with this recent article's account of events which says that PizzaGate originated on 4chan but that TD had a lot to do with its mainstream coverage. (also seems to regard the conspiracy as an ongoing affair, so might have to wait a bit before coverage on TD supposedly disavowing the theory surfaces) ~Helicopter Llama~ 04:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Spreading racism?

The claims that /r/The Donald "spreads racism" are misleading. Sources support that there is racist content in the subreddit. No one claims that this subreddit "spreads" racism! I don't know how one could spread racism. It is sufficient to say that there is racist content, not that the subreddit is so pernicious that it causes racism to spread like a contagion!

That Man From Nantucket, please be careful in reverting edits. I make grammar corrections and multiple changes at a time. If you don't like something, please considering changing it rather than reverting all my work on grammar and spelling as well.--FeralOink (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

FeralOink, I would suggest making your grammatical changes separately if you are going to make factually incorrect and opinionated changes. ~ Shrekle 4:10, 01 April 2017 (EST)

Source that would be good to integrate

http://gizmodo.com/reddit-is-tearing-itself-apart-1789406294

I think that many of the things mentioned here would be something good to add to the article. It's a bit much for me to digest and write up at the moment but I think there's a lot of material in here that can be added to the Online media reception section. Shimunogora (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

r/all content

I've noticed multiple places in this article that attempts to attributes r/The_Donald posts reaching r/all due to the subs "popularity", however there is no sourcing that I'm aware of that actually makes this claim. There are sources which states or questions that the forums moderators manipulate content onto r/all through the use of sticky posts.That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nantucket:, you are correct in noting that there are many statements made in this article that add conclusions or misquote the source. Given the articles' controversial nature, these cases should be reviewed to assure accuracy against the source document. To avoid triggering edit wars, the content of the article should be verified to reflect the source, using the exact wording of the source document as closely as possible. KSci ^(talk) 20:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Already done, but feel free to do another review.That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the sources may not be well informed of the Reddit culture and due to their ignorance they may instead refer to it as the mainpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@That man from Nantucket: and @Emir of Wikipedia: I think there is a simple way to render the "algorithm manipulation" vs. censorship question moot and also obviates the concern about the source not being well informed on Reddit culture. The solution is to note that the contested sentence provides a level of detail that is excessive for a lead. Please see WP:lead.

Given that this detail provides superfluous detail, I have removed it. If you prefer a different approach, please propose what you'd prefer so we can get consensus before adding this disputed content back. KSci ^(talk) 02:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@KSci: That's not how BRD is supposed to work. The text about the algorithm has been in the lead since early January, and in its (mostly) current form since mid-January. By Wikipedia's standards that is the consensus version. As for being superfluous, I disagree as the majority of RS do mention the brigading and sticky post manipulations to force content to r/all. TD gained the attention of RS because of its harassing behavior at the expense of the rest of edit. I'm certainly willing to discuss this and will live by the consensus, but I do feel pretty strongly that we should follow custom and respect BRD. Please restore the content regarding the algorithm in the lead.That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I should also point out that the section "Prominence on Reddit" is not mentioned in the lead, which the aforementioned text summarizes That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@That man from Nantucket: Thank you for your input. Please note the following quote on from WP:BOLD which I followed BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal changes based on your best effort. Your change might involve re-writing, rearranging, adding or removing information. The proposed change was for a disputed (=non-consensus) half sentence reflecting POV edits by opposing sides of one very specific point where the lead should only provide an overview.

The article used for citation is neutral when it describes a measure to prevent stickies from being used to push content to /al, but it does not draw the POV conclusion that this was "manipulation of algorithms." In the opposing POV for the disputed text, the article also does not draw the conclusion that there was "censoring." We do not serve our readers by embellishing what the article says by drawing either of these conclusions.

I'm completely on board if you think there is a summarizing point that is missed and needs to be addressed. My impression is that saying the subreddit is controversial is all the summary needed. That said, I'm completely open to anything you'd like to suggest that will help to improve the article for our readers. KSci ^(talk) 05:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to overlink the lead, but I assure you there are multiple sources that state unequivocally that the TD mods manipulated the sites algorithms. The controversy is more over their red-pilling than anything else.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This source does not explain how /r/The_Donald is racist

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/what-is-rthedonald-donald-trump-subreddit

I've looked through this source that accompanied how this subreddit is accused of racism, however, nowhere in the article are they able to explain how it is racist. They claim they use "coded-talk" that white nationalists use but the source they provide doesn't have any sources to back-up what they are claiming. Archer Rafferty (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't require sources to "back up" their claims. That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

??? I recommend rereading what you just typed there. Unsourced claims are fraudulent and when being used to try and prove a point are worthless. Unless you have a new source with evidence to back-up their claims please stop reverting my edit. Archer Rafferty (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Mother Jones is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. We don't require sources to justify their rationale for statements they make because they are reliable in their own right. That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Lord help us if Mother Jones is considered reliable. We may as well trust 1970s Pravda then. 71.46.230.154 (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That makes literally no sense, how is a source automatically reliable, unrelated. Fact is your source has no evidence to back up it's claims. Also it's not even Mother Jones you're using as a source, you do know your own source right? Archer Rafferty (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You have now crossed the 3RR threshold. I posted a caution on your talk page. Suffice it to say, please read the warning and revert your edit yourself. Otherwise I'll ask an admin to examine this and you will probably end up getting a short block. Please read WP:RS and you will see why we take reliable sources at face value. If you disagree with my assessment that MJ is reliable, I can show you where to get more opinions. But you really need to revert yourself first. That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright call an admin. Because ONE, your source is NOT reliable with ZERO evidence to back up the claims they are asserting. TWO, your source is NOT MOTHER JONES so that's either a blatant lie from you or you're just ignorant of your own source. Archer Rafferty (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If I were in your shoes, I'd A) revert yourself to avoid getting a 3RR block and B) post on WP:RSN asking for other opinions about Vice.com and your assertion they need to back up their reporting. You are violating two key tenets of Wikipedia which are WP:EW & WP:BRD. That man from Nantucket (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

More sources were added in to that line. I have also added some detail in "Online media reception" where Washington Post connected the subreddit's moderators to racist subreddits. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

These articles are absolutely not evidence of racist content. These are opinion pieces. This subreddit has a history of heavy-hand banning of anything perceived as racist materials User:nBob20 —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that state racist content has appeared on the sub. These are not editorials. Which sources do you think are opinion pieces?That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@The man from Nantucket: - All of them. The forum rule #3 is no racism or antisemitism is strictly enforced. The editorializing largely originates with the political opinion that opposing open boarders immigration is racism. Additionally, the forum is attacked by people who post racist content. The forum just recruited assistant admins to weed out people who do this. Primary source citations for the forums anti-racism policy are numerous and well documented in the forum admin's stickies. The citations and article text should not focus solely on one side of a dispute and both the accusation and the denial should be included with citations to avoid inserting a POV. KSci ^(talk) 14:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding an Infobox

Would it be appropriate to add an Infobox to this page, especially with the subreddit's logo (based off the Reddit logo) and/or a screenshot of the front page? Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

They are always changing it, so I don't think it would add much. What else would we put in the info box?That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@That man from Nantucket: I added the infobox, complete with basic information and their mascot, based off Reddit's "Snoo" mascot. I credited both Reddit (under Common Public Attribution License Version 1.0 (CPAL)) and the creator, /u/NyanDerp. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Similar Subreddits

The subreddits mentioned in the second sentence of this section are all in support of /r/T_D and the associated ideology, except the last, The_Schulz, which is very much parodical. It's certainly an anti-Trump subreddit. I would distinguish The_Schulz from the rest of the European populist subreddits for sure. 71.183.10.91 (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't translate the source to confirm what you say. How would you edit the article to reflect its parody?That man from Nantucket (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I found an article on Spiegel Online. Using Google Translate, the article loosely states "'The_Schulz' is a half-satire on 'The_Donald' is said by those who founded the forum in November 2016." Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 06:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017

sticky this to front page or else Czaralexsmith (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: no Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete

Delete as is is too inaccurately against Trump to even fix, but maybe keep the edit coding in a sandbox somewhere.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You're going to have to be a lot more specific than that. Please read the previous deletion discussions carefully before starting a new one. Grayfell (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Spreading racism? x2

Yeah so as the other guy said below, the sub is actively ageing racism. I posted two direct posts from there as proof - bigger than any opinionated secondary sources. I'm sure a compromise can be made, if not I'll try to talk to someone about this. It really does seem one sided to me. Supernaturalsamantha (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC) User was blocked as suspected WP:SOCKsock

This was a typo it was meant to mean 'actively' not ageing Supernaturalsamantha (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC) User was blocked as suspected WP:SOCKsock

As in the sub is AGAINST racism Supernaturalsamantha (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC) User was blocked as suspected WP:SOCKsock

Example posts aren't the right way to go about this. Wikipedia strongly favors WP:SECONDARY sources (encyclopedias are tertiary sources). Forums (like reddit) are WP:UGC, and are not reliable in most cases. How /r/The_Donald's participants describe themselves and the forum are not neutral for this content either, and Wikipedia has specific guidelines for how to be neutral. I would sincerely like to see any reliable sources which discuss the sub's opposition to racism, if they exist. Even so, this isn't a simple issue, and the lead already explains that pretty well. Grayfell (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

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.

---

I am willing to expand on this further if needed - I don't think certain editors here are open to non-partisan changes and I question their neutrality. Reading through the talk page, a lot of people have mentioned this too, but nothing has been done.

The Subreddit is being painted as a white supremacist think tank, and when I added primary sources in which the community condemns racism and bigotry, they were removed because top posts from the community are not a reliable sources of how the community acts (???)

Certain editors seem to loom over the page 24/7 with a specific agenda in mind. I would like to uphold the unbiased truth. Supernaturalsamantha (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC) User was blocked as suspected WP:SOCKsock

@Supernaturalsamantha: It is unclear what you are asking for here. Please see WP:RFC, in particular the section "Statement should be neutral and brief". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Supernaturalsamantha It might help if you've got a specific edit in mind. While the article may convey an impression that's wrong, you'll have to show what text (with cites) you wish to add to it, or to replace a section with it. I'm not sure the lead summarizes the article myself, but ... neither am I sure how one can summarize a reddit. Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note: Supernaturalsamantha was blocked as a suspected sock puppet per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SixMillionStrong. There is definitely room for improvement and the complaints raised are not entirely baseless, but this RFC seems like a very rocky start towards fixing the problems. Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2017 (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.

Discussion at Talk:reddit#r/The_Donald going private

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:reddit#r/The_Donald going private. epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2017

Please add the following: "On May 19, 2017, three moderators of the subreddit were removed because they did not comply with rules placed upon them. Other moderators made the subreddit temporarily private, and put out a message claiming that the rules placed on their subreddit went far beond the rules on other communities on the site. They returned to public state on May 20.[source] Smoov22 sonic (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Smoov22 sonic: This is related to the following text on the page already. A week later, a moderator named /u/OhSnapYouGotServed posted a message claiming that the subreddit has been treated unfairly and that Reddit couldn’t exist without /r/The_Donald. /u/OhSnapYouGotServed also suggested that everyone of their subscribers should move to Voat. Eventually, after three other moderators got banned from the site, the subreddit was temporarily set to "private" on May 19, 2017 in a sign of protest. According to the lock message, the admins did not warn the three moderators before banning. The admins also claimed that they "refused to comply by a special set of rules that were solely imposed on this subreddit to marginalize the only community which doesn’t conform to the echo chamber of Reddit and corporate media." The subreddit was made public again the next day. I've highlighted the relevant text. epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Is Vox Culture a respected mainstream RS for nonopinion?

Is the Vox Culture section a respected mainstream RS for (A) movie reviews and such or (B) nonopinion? Recent articles:

• Orphan Black got too complicated for its own good. Its final season is on track to fix that.
• Can we be religious without God? Alain de Botton on ‘atheism 2.0’.
• Star Trek: Discovery is the first Trek TV series in over 15 years. Here’s what to know. by Aja Romano July 9
• 9 Questions with Eddie Glaude Jr.
• The 2015 comedy Don Verdean has a warning for those who would smuggle Biblical artifacts
• ...
• Spider-Man: Homecoming’s 2 end-credits scenes, explained
• The 18 best TV shows airing right now
• Happy birthday, Memerica: the week in internet culture by Aja Romano July 7
• ‘I’m with the banned’: Spotify’s newest project slams Trump’s travel ban
• A brief history of public nudity and shame politics in the Kardashian universe

And so forth. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 21:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• A (maybe). Compare Aja Romano, "Happy Birthday, Memerica: The Week in Internet Culture", Vox, July 7, 2017 ("The week’s reigning internet furor centered on ... Trump tweeting a ... GIF that originated from a ... troll on Reddit..."),
  with "Troll: Definition for English-Language Learners", Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary ("Learner’s definition of TROLL. 2. A person who tries to cause problems on an Internet message board..."). --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 21:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with improving the /r/The_Donald article. What is this list of random pop-culture articles supposed to prove? If you have a point, make it. Grayfell (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: In the "Happy Birthday, Memerica" article, the author (Romano) uses the term "troll" to describe an /r/The_Donald group member (Solo) who was not trying to cause problems on that message board. (Compare "Troll", Learner’s Dictionary: "A person who tries to cause problems on an Internet message board".) Yet our lead sentence uses that same author as an authority for describing /r/The_Donald as "alt-right". --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, what's your point? Your opinion is that Romano used a word in a way that's not quite accurate. This word is being checked against one particular dictionary. This is synth, and you are not a reliable source. Additionally, the poster himself specifically said that he was posting racist and inflammatory material to provoke a reaction,[1] which fit's the dictionary's, and Wikipedia's definition of a troll. This is an extremely round-about way to make a non-actionable proposal. Grayfell (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Is BBC News a respected mainstream RS? Huffington Post?

Trust Levels of News Sources

 1. BBC
 2. NPR
 3. PBS
 4. The Wall Street Journal
 5. ABC News
 6. CBS News
 7. NBC News
 8. CNN
 9. USA TODAY
10. Google News
11. The New York Times
12. The Washington Post
13. MSNBC
14. The Guardian
15. Bloomberg
16. The New Yorker
17. Yahoo News
18. Fox News
19. The Huffington Post
    ...
25. The Rush Limbaugh Show

Outlets are ... ranked by the proportion of those who trust more than distrust each.

"Trust Levels of News Sources by Ideological Group", Pew Research Center, October 2014.

Is BBC News a respected mainstream RS? Is Huffington Post? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 18:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just BBC News, which comes in 1st of 25. HuffPo trails at 19th. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the point of this? This talk page isn't a forum for discussing Pew Media's ranking of media reliability. Grayfell (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

(←) @Grayfell: You removed an undisputed claim ("In July 2016 he carried out an "Ask Me Anything" session with the community") supported by a BBC News article. You explained, "Why was this the second sentence based on a brief mention in a single source?" The pertinent (and longest) section in the article begins:

Trump fans

There’s perhaps no better example of this than r/The_Donald. The subreddit has become the leading online hub for President Trump’s supporters – the man himself held a Q+A session there last year. It’s a noisy collection of insider-jargon, conspiracy theories and cries of “fake news” – but it’s also the best place to assess what makes Trump’s fans tick...

References

Compare with the more contentious claim ("The ADL also identified...") supported by a HuffPo article. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And this list is how you want to discuss this item? Okay.

The BBC mention is one sentence among many in a much longer article about something else. You used it to shoe-horn in a context-free tidbit as the entire second sentence of the article. This is not proportional. Nobody is denying that he did an AMA at the forum. That doesn't mean it belongs in the second sentence of the article because Pew says the outlet is seen as trustworthy in a survey.

The ADL is a noteworthy group dedicated to studying hate-speech and antisemitism. Their take on such issues is significant, and the popularity of the outlet which passes that info along is a trivial distraction that misrepresents WP:RS. It's also a distraction because Huffington Post is used as a supplement to another source, the LA Times, and it's used deep in the article as part of a longer story which established some degree of context for why this is even being discussed. Grayfell (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Compilation of RS standards pertinent to this particular article

V § SOURCE

The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. Editors may use material from reliable nonacademic sources, particularly if it appears in a respected mainstream publication. These sources include: ... [3] magazines; [4] journals; [5] mainstream newspapers. ["the mainstream. The thoughts, beliefs, and choices that are accepted by the largest number of people."]

OR § Reliable sources

In general, the most reliable sources are: ... [4] magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; [5] mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

NPOV § WikiVoice

If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions, treat these as opinions rather than facts.

NPOV § BESTSOURCES

Research based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available helps prevent NPOV disagreements.

NPOV § Bias in sources

Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone. [But] it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.

RS § CONTEXTMATTERS (guideline)

Where possible, cite publications that are focused on the topic at hand.

RS § NEWSORG (guideline)

Commentary or analysis written by outside authors is rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Whether a specific news story is reliable for a statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.

RS § SELFSOURCE (guideline)

A self-published source may be used as a source of information about itself so long as ... the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter and Facebook.

RS § Tools (guideline)

Reliable sources checklist provides a ref vetting method

RSVETTING (essay)

The material:

• Is it contentious?
  • Contentious material is material that people might take a position on for ideological reasons. If it's contentious, we have to be aware of the possibility of deliberate bias.

The author:

• Does the author have an opinion on the matter? On the continuum running from "utterly disinterested investigator or reporter" to "complete polemicist", where does he fit? ["polemicist. One skilled in or given to polemics especially as the advocate of a partisan cause."]
  • If he's well to the right end of this continuum, that's a big red flag.

The publication:

• Is it a magazine or newspaper known to have an effective fact-checking operation?
  • WP:RS indicates that these are the only sources we assume to be reliable. This doesn't prove they are reliable in a given case.
• What's its circulation?
  • A bigger operation means more resources for fact-checking, a bigger reputation to uphold, and a greater likelihood of employing top-tier people.
• What about the publisher? What's their reputation?
• Do they have an agenda?

--Dervorguilla (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Some comparable lead sentences

=== Subreddits ===* /r/science, a forum for discussing science

• /r/changemyview, a space for conversation among people with opposing viewpoints
• /r/The_Donald, a community supporting the politics of Donald Trump

== /r/science ==

/r/science is an Internet forum on Reddit where the community of participants discuss science topics. A popular feature of the forum is "Ask me Anything" (AMA) public discussions.

== /r/changemyview ==

/r/changemyview is an Internet forum on Reddit where the community of participants discuss controversial topics for the purpose of understanding opposing viewpoints. The forum was established by Kal Turnbull in 2013.

== /r/The_Donald ==

/r/The_Donald is an alt-right Internet forum on Reddit where the participants create discussions and memes supporting Donald Trump...

Compare the three lead sentences with each other and with the WP:BEGIN standard on first sentences (in MOS:BEGIN):

The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is.

• If it is definable, the sentence should give a concise definition that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. "In cryptography, a trusted third party is an entity that facilitates interactions..."
  
• Try to not overload the sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, use it to introduce the topic.

Which of the three articles fail MOS? --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just /r/The_Donald. The adjective "alt-right" modifies the true definition: the noun phrase "an Internet forum on Reddit where the participants create discussions and memes supporting Donald Trump...". It does not determine the phrase's use to indicate something more definite. It describes the subject, not defines it. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC) 18:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're keen on standardizing Wikipedia articles, start with your own talk page posts. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources first and foremost. Multiple sources link the forum to the alt-right, and a strong case can be made that it's defined by its politics. Explain why that's wrong. Those other articles may or may not have their own problems, but they also have a totally different set of sources. We have both the luxury and obligation to treat each article differently in proportion to how reliable sources treat it. Grayfell (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a WP:MOS issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

alt-right reinstated without consensus

I've challenged by reversion edit 788938923, which adds an adjective ("alt-right") describing the subject rather than indicating it (by making it more definite). See WP:BEGIN.

It doesn't look like we've got consensus to reinstate yet. So, ARBAPDS would advise that we stop reinstating. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that "alt-right" should be removed until there is consensus; however, I strongly support maintaining the description as accurate and appropriate. I'm not sure what alt-right means other than "internet supporters of Donald Trump", which is exactly what this article is about. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) What's with the legalese? Why are you starting two sections for this one issue? That seems excessively confusing. Does this warrant invoking ARB right off the bat? Consensus hasn't been established one way or the other. Grayfell (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

@Power~enwiki: When agreement can't be reached through editing alone, editors try to persuade others using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. (WP:CONACHIEVE.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: You're right that "consensus hasn't been established one way or the other." And the challenged edit has been restored five times (by the same editor): at 20:18, 9 July 2017, 06:33, 9 July 2017, 06:22, 9 July 2017, 05:48, 9 July 2017, and 04:08, 9 July 2017. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're talking to me, talk to me like a human being. Talking past me about my own edits is not appropriate. I reverted vandalism that may also have restored the phrase alt-right. Do you have a problem with that? If so, explain what that problem is. If not, why is that even remotely relevant to this specific issue? Grayfell (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This supposed lack of consensus... is it just you Dervorguilla or is there more? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I categorically deny your groundless misrepresentation of my and the four other users' edits as "vandalism". --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 21:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: you're going on a witch-hunt against Grayfell; please drop the stick. Reverting IP edits is exempt from 1RR. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't even have to look to tell that this whole thing was prompted by off-site canvassing from /r/the_donald. Please give me a cookie for figuring out the painfully obvious. My accusations towards those other IP editors are perfectly grounded and justified. I didn't accuse Dervorguilla of vandalism, nor of "vandalism". Grayfell (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: You may be making a non sequitur argument here. Avangion, Vicious42, and I aren't IP editors. We weren't making "IP edits". --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Two of "those other IP editors" aren't IP editors. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I commented, "The challenged edit has been restored five times". You replied, "I reverted vandalism..." --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, what's your point? Do you understand the context of me saying that? Are you trying to, or are you trying to prove a tired point? Please stop pinging me, it's only adding to the appearance that this is a witch-hunt. Grayfell (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this article and I just want to input a neutral point of view on this discussion after reading the above section and this section as well. After reading and considering "Some comparable lead sentences" along with WP:BEGIN the bit about alt-right I don't think the sentence is in violation of the manual of style. If the phrase alt-right was already in the lead then I would say it would be redundant however after the entire lead before TOC doesn't mention alt-right at all. The bit about the article's topic being alt-right isn't even mentioned until section five under Online media reception and the source for the first sentence in the lead does have the forum is alt-right. Since the first mention in the article itself is so far down having alt-right in the lead helps summarize the article's topic. If no one wants alt-right in the first sentence then it should be summarized somewhere else in the lead before the TOC. So for me I support having the first sentence saying is an alt-right Internet forum on Reddit. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The forum is alt-right inasmuch as Trump supporters are alt-right, so the term is either imprecise or redundant. I agree w/Alucard_16's analysis re: prominence and Dervorguilla's procedural objections: B-R-D. In the meantime I've removed it. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

There was established consensus for the term to be in the article. Removing a long standing piece of text is against consensus, not restoring it. The claim that "it violates MOS" is both spurious and strange. Please get consensus to remove it. Also, please present arguments instead of making empty threats.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW, Lambden, you didn't even bother checking what my edit actually was before coming to my talk page and blustering [2]. But hey, thanks for the reminder. Restored the "alt-right" per existing consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Alt-right was added in this edit on July 4th. The addition was challenged and per DS cannot be restored without consensus. If there was a previous consensus link it otherwise I'll take this to WP:AE. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how this could possibly be redundant. It is the first sentence of the article. Almost by definition, it can't be redundant. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC on definition in lead sentence

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.

---

Should the lead sentence define and identify this forum community as alt-right?

• Relevant WP standard: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject." (WP:BEGIN.)
• High-quality evidence: Search results for The_Donald alt-right, BBC. "Sorry, there are no results for The_Donald alt-right." Search results for The_Donald AND alt-right, ABC News. "...a popular subreddit".
• Related discussions: The last three above (July 2017); "Lead content" (December 2016)
• Related article: Reddit. "/r/The_Donald, a community supporting the politics of Donald Trump"

Notices posted at WikiProject Internet culture and WikiProject Donald Trump. 23:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC) 01:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. [Support] I strongly support maintaining the description as accurate and appropriate. I'm not sure what alt-right means other than "internet supporters of Donald Trump", which is exactly what this article is about. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
2. [Support] including this somewhere, not necessarily in the lead, and probably as a matter of opinion, not a fact. I am simply looking at sources, and some of them do support the statement. For example, this tells: "posting it to Reddit’s largest alt-right community, r/The_Donald", etc. There are other sources claiming the same. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little confused - the headline of that Vox article calls the forum "right-wing." They call it alt-right a little lower down the page but lead with right wing. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In that article, Romano calls it "right-wing" 2 times and "alt-right" 15; in her next article, 4 times and 9; in her weekly review, 1 time and 0. Her weekly review would probably be the most authoritative. It looks like she's more "partisan" than "disinterested" when writing about Trump. The publisher (Vox Media) may or may not have an ideological agenda. Let's try to find a more objective source for this information. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Let's stick to concrete information here. Also, the highest-quality mainstream sources don't describe it as alt-right. Dervorguilla (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
2. [Oppose] The article currently only has one sentence about the 'alt-right' and that says it is "connected to the alt-right". This isn't the same as being defined as 'alt-right', which is what is suggested here. Alt-right is such a nebulous thing anyway that it is pretty much used as a catch-all term for anybody or anything vaguely right leaning to the point of being almost meaningless. Use right wing instead, or nothing. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
3. [Oppose] The forum's association with the alt-right should be expanded upon in the body of the article and should be mentioned in the lead, but not the lead sentence. There are certainly enough reliable sources to expand upon the forum's association with the alt-right, or at least the view that it is associated with the alt-right, but flatly describing it as alt-right in the lead sentence is not appropriate. Cjhard (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
4. [Oppose] The only sources where subreddit was described as an "alt-right" community was from this Vox article and this Mashable article (in that particular article, it seems that "alt-right" and "Trump supporters" are used interchangeably, especially when they described the subreddit as having "Alt-right Donald Trump supporters on Reddit" while primarily identifying it as "arguably the largest Trump subreddit community".) Other sources do not describe "/r/The_Donald" as an alt-right community. However, per the method brought up by Cjhard, reliable sources have connected alt-right members to the subreddit, such as this brief mention of Milo Yiannopoulos's involvement in the subreddit in this NBC article. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose I'm not seeing the availability of good sourcing to support this claim. In fact the headline of this Vox article calls the forum "right-wing." Additionally, in this source the subreddit "Mr. Trump" is self styled as alt right, but not The_Donald. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose - by WP:LEAD and WP:BEGIN, one starts with definition of topic, not with conclusions about the topic. Third para of lead looks like where nature is mentioned. That should have an article subsection it's describing though ... right now it's not explanded on later so seems just a claim. Markbassett (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose – There is no question that the forum includes alt-right members, but there is also no identification of the forum with alt-right members, and moderators do not condone advocacy. It's even difficult to define what is alt-right and who is or is not part of that movement. On the other hand, this forum's subject is clearly defined as Donald Trump. — JFG ^talk 05:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• This community is most widely known for posting a Trump-CNN meme, less widely known for supporting any particular ideology. Also, none of the most trusted news sources describe it as alt-right (although a lot of the less trusted ones do). --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• I disagree with your claim that it is most widely known for a Trump-CNN meme. It had wide coverage before that happened. [3] [4] [5] Power~enwiki (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I question whether most people have heard of Moneyboard Motherboard, FiveThirtyEight, or Business Insider. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC) 16:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No, yes, and yes for me. Agree with Power~enwiki. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• When this article was initially created, there were only 13 sources. However, there were many notable sources used including CNNMoney, NBC News, Forbes, and The New York Times. These sources covered the subreddit when Trump had his AMA on the subreddit, or even before that. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• The risk of WP:RECENTISM is extremely high, here. Any claims of what the sub is most widely known for should be supportable over a longer time-period than just the last two weeks. I'm tempted to point out Motherboard (not "Moneyboard") is part of Vice, which I bet most have heard of. That's missing the point, though. The popularity/editor familiarity of a source is not a particularly good way to assess due weight or reliability. ...reputation for fact-checking and accuracy doesn't mean "editors have heard of it". It means a reputation in the appropriate circles, typically journalistic/academic. Is it covered and reprinted by its colleagues? has Poynter covered it? CJR or other graduate programs? Have its journalists won a Pulitzer or one of the various Edward R. Murrow Awards (if so, which one?) Trying to use a popular opinion survey, like Pew Research above, is only superficially helpful. That survey's function was never to determine accuracy! Reliable outlets often have good professional reputations and non-existent or negative reputations among general readers. The Pew survey supports that point as much as anything else.

If we're trying to figure out how closely this subreddit is linked to the ideology, trying to triage sources by how well-know they are is no better than trying to divide them into left-wing vs. right-wing. Both are different ways editors can put their fingers' on the scales. This has to be more nuanced, or else this issue isn't going to get resolved to anyone's satisfaction. That's why this is a consensus model, not a vote. This is also why brigading is so destructive to the process. It magnifies distortions towards the popular opinion to create false-consensus. Grayfell (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC

@Grayfell: Just a week ago Poynter "covered" CNN, regarding its dispute with this subreddit community. ("Ask the ethicist: Did CNN blackmail a pro-Trump Reddit troll?") The ethicist's judgment: "I don’t think CNN intended this as blackmail, but […]"

Also, WP doesn't ask its editors to "assess" a particular journalist's or newspaper's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" "in ... appropriate ... journalistic [or] academic" circles. Reputation is famously ephemeral; and RS is a guideline, not a policy. But two of our three core policies do advise us to use mainstream sources:

OR § Reliable sources: "In general, the most reliable sources are: ... [4] magazines...; [5] mainstream newspapers." V § SOURCE: "Editors may use material from reliable nonacademic sources, particularly if it appears in a respected mainstream publication. These sources include ... [5] mainstream newspapers."

The mainstream means "the thoughts, beliefs, and choices that are accepted by the largest number of people". --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC) 23:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I specifically asked you not to ping me.

Are you serious? WP:V, a policy, also specifically calls for a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It's a couple of paragraphs up from the part you quote to me to support your point. Did you actually read the page you quoted? Things like this make me wonder if you're sincerely trying to discuss this or not.

Cutting-off the rest of that Poynter quote is selective and misleading, which is ironic when quoting a journalistic ethicist:

I don’t think CNN intended this as blackmail, but in the painfully polarized political climate of 2017, it’s easy to see how the unfortunate wording in the story could be easily misinterpreted, and it’s not surprising that defenders of the president or critics of CNN would seize on it as an implicit threat.[6]

There's a lot there, and it's pretty mild on CNN. "Unfortunate" and "misunderstanding" are hardly damning, while your use of scare quotes and reddit-friendly url-shorteners shows your dripping contempt perfectly. Where in all of that is the phrase alt-right? Nowhere.

Learner's dictionary is intended for English-learners. There's nothing wrong with that of course, but it's not, itself, a 'mainstream' dictionary. This kind of proves my point. Stacking references onto references to try and prove that popularity is King is drifting very, very far from building an encyclopedia. It's not what the letter or spirit of policy suggests. Wikipedia doesn't use popularity alone, because we try to be neutral and accurate. Popularity doesn't always correlate with those things. We don't validate popular ideas regardless of how correct they are. And we don't elevate trivial details to prime importance because the outlet is well-known among Wikipedia editors. If we have a reliable source saying something significant, we should consider using it. Basing content strictly on popularity is not what a good encyclopedia should ever knowingly do. We don't spread lies or ignore accurate information just because the best source is too obscure. If reliable sources support that this is an alt-right website, then we should trust those sources and figure out how to use this information. You're free to think that it doesn't belong in the lead. If you want to make the case that a single parenthetical mention from the middle of an article in a more popular source does, you need to make that case based on something other than a self-selected choice in which dictionary supports your interpretation of a word that is used a few times in the documents explaining some policies. Good lord. Trying to make this into a bureaucratic issue over a page that says in general and rule of thumb isn't going work at all. It suggests you're scanning the page to find what supports your existing point, rather than attempting to understand the gestalt. Grayfell (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The Learner's Dictionary definition is supported by Webster’s Unabridged. "mainstream. 1. Having, reflecting, or being compatible with the prevailing attitudes and values of a society or group... prevailing applies to what is predominant or widespread beyond others of its kind or class."

It's true that "WP:V ... specifically calls for a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". (My error.) In a sense, though, WP doesn't ask its editors to assess a source's reputation -- to make a critical analysis of it. As far as we're concerned, the general public determines its reputation. "reputation. 1. The estimation in which a person or thing is held, especially by the community or the public generally." Dictionary.com Unabridged. "reputation. 2. The estimation in which one is generally held; the character commonly imputed to one as distinct from real or inherent character... Reputation usually suggests the commonly circulated and accepted judgment of one's character." Webster's Unabridged.

We especially shouldn't base ideologically contentious material on sources that "have good professional reputations and ... negative reputations among general readers". This can lead to unneeded NPOV disputes. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop editing your comments after they have been responded to. Striking a mistake is one thing, but this edit adds content in an ambiguous way that causes confusion and alters the tone and meaning of my response after it has been made. You said one thing and I responded to that as it was written.

Again, highlighting specific parts of specific definitions proves nothing other than your own personal preference. Being compatible with the prevailing attitudes and values of society is not another way of saying "a large percentage of people have heard of it". Cycling through dictionary entries like this can be satisfying, but it's ultimately pointless for proving a useful point. Switching to another word, and then highlighting an entry in another dictionary, shows a selective, non-neutral choice for how you believe this word should be interpreted while it ignores other, equally valid ones. Which community holds these sources in high regard? This is an international encyclopedia, so should it be the global community? The Americans surveyed by Pew in early 2014? (Seems like a long time ago, doesn't it)? Should it be the community of Wikipedia editors? No. It should be the academic and journalistic communities that are familiar with these outlets. These are a more neutral and reliable for making this judgement.

Wikipedia strives for accuracy, not just regurgitating what's popular. BESTSOURCES calls for the "best and most reputable authoritative sources". That means that we, as Wikipedia editors, need to assess the authority of sources. If you believe popular is a proxy for authoritative, try adding Weekly World News to bat as an authoritative source on chiropterology and see how far you get. Grayfell (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

(←)
How can editors determine which are the "best and most reputable authoritative sources"?

"reputable. Enjoying good repute ... <the most reputable newspaper of a hundred years ago>... repute. The character or status commonly ascribed to one; the popular opinion of one." (Webster's Unabridged.)

"Reliable sources checklist provides a ref vetting method." (WP:RS, Tools.)

WP:RSVETTING essay (condensed):

• Does the author or publication have standing [=authority] to address the material? Is the subject within their area of competence or expertise?
• Where does the author fit on the continuum ranging from "utterly disinterested reporter" to "complete polemicist" [=advocate of a partisan cause]?
• Is the publication known to have an effective fact-checking operation?
• What's its circulation? A bigger operation means more resources for fact-checking, a bigger reputation to uphold, and a greater likelihood of employing top-tier people.
• Does the publisher have an agenda?

About fact-checking

Most large magazines employ fact-checkers. Most newspapers don't.

Newspaper editors expect reporters to check their own facts, and they fire them if they don't. Newspapers have an incentive to worry about facts since people generally buy newspapers based partly on the paper's general reputation for veracity.

To determine a news outlet's general reputation for accuracy, see the Trust Levels of News Sources table above. (In this context, to trust means "to rely on the truthfulness or accuracy of". Webster's Unabridged.)

WP:SOURCE & WP:STICKTOSOURCE policies: Reliable authorities (by type) (implied)

Mainstream newspapers [daily] < Journals (not peer-reviewed) < Magazines [weekly or monthly] < Books < Journals (peer-reviewed)

--Dervorguilla (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC) 20:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

---

There seems to be a consensus against having alt-right in the lede sentence. How about including it in the sentence "The subreddit has been criticized by news outlets of hosting conspiracy theories, and hosting content that is racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, or white supremacist"? Power~enwiki (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: 1. The particular dispute we're discussing is so ideologically contentious that it led to serial reverts; let's give people time to respond. 2. I find nothing at TPG that should discourage you from opening a new section about your suggested addition (it's specifically not a proposal about the lead sentence). --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2017 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2017

{{subst:trim|

Squatchydude (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2017

for "promoting another debunked falsehood". Leandrocm86 (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

There are already citations given to The Economist and the Daily Dot. ValarianB (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing per ARBAPDS

Removing disputed material per WP:PUBLICFIGURE and ARBAPDS. You need at least two major mainstream sources for the information that the theory is a debunked falsehood. The Daily Dot article may not count as one. (See WP:BESTSOURCES.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have difficulty understanding how a subreddit is a 'public figure'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Where does your requirement that anything requires two sources come from, and why is The Daily Dot not a reliable source? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: You were alerted to ARBAPDS by Lord Roem on 06:43, 17 April 2017. Are you willing to self-revert? --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"Where does your requirement that anything requires two sources come from?" PUBLICFIGURE policy. If you can't find multiple reliable sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

A subreddit is not a public figure, and you have yet to explain why The Daily Dot is not a reliable source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."

And most people have never heard of The Daily Dot. Let's not waste time discussing it. There's got to be a better-known source somewhere. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, invoking WP:PUBLICFIGURE here is pretty ridiculous. You're also skirting on the edge of WP:GAME (of ARBAPDS) by removing well sourced material on the basis of what appears to be WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and then invoking DS to claim "no consensus!" on talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I'm wondering whether you read Gilmour's story yet... Do you think it counts an RS for PeterTheFourth's material? --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Since there is a citation to the Economist, that's irrelevant. As is WP:PUBLICFIGURE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: OK, so do you think its "Origin of the Specious" story counts as an RS for that particular material? "debunk. To show that something (such as a belief or theory) is not true. • The results of the study debunk his theory." --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Your personal interpretation of what is required to 'debunk' something are irrelevant to what reliable sources state is debunked. If you don't personally like those sources, here are 4 more: [7], [8], [9], [10]. It may be more accurate to say 'debunked conspiracy theories' instead of 'the debunked', seeing as there are multiple that have been shown to be both popular on the subreddit, and completely false. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

(←)

@PeterTheFourth: Here are three policy concerns.

WP:V, What counts as a reliable source: "Source" means: [1.] The piece of work itself (the article) ... Use sources that directly support the material presented... Be especially careful when sourcing WP:BLP content.

WP:BDP: The policy can extend for six months to two years beyond the date of death. Such extensions apply particularly to contentious material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives.

WP:BURDEN: The source must clearly support the material as presented. Do not leave poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of an existing group.

You've searched for and provided six sources, believing in good faith that each clearly supports the material. You haven't provided a quote that clearly supports it; and none of the sources uses the term "debunk". --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Would you prefer 'baseless' (The baseless claim that slain DNC staffer Seth Rich gave emails to WikiLeaks), 'unfounded' (Gingrich and others are talking about an unfounded conspiracy theory as if it's a matter of fact. It is far from it.), 'fake' (A fake news story said that former FBI Director James Comey knew the late Seth Rich was the source of WikiLeaks' DNC emails.), or 'false' (All claims made by Mr. Wheeler are false and take fake news to a whole new level.)?

Paraphrasing is part of editing. Debunked, in the past tense, means 'something whose falseness or hollowness has been exposed'. If we are fine with calling it fake, why not debunked? Do synonyms raise your ire? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: What the word debunk means:

"debunk. To expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion,sentiment, ...) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated <to debunk advertising slogans>."

"debunk. To show that something (such as a belief or theory) is not true; to show the falseness of (a story, idea, statement, ...) <The results of the study debunk his theory>."

What your citation [4] says, with context:

"We contacted the office of Mayor Muriel Bowser to ask if there was a lurid connection between the mayor, the DNC, and Rich’s death, and got a flat denial from spokesman Kevin Harris: ‘All claims made by Mr. Wheeler are false and take fake news to a whole new level’. We also asked the police department about Wheeler’s claims that the department was stepping back from the investigation. A spokesperson for the department denied it and said that the investigation remains active: ‘The assertions put forward by Mr. Wheeler are unfounded. The Metropolitan Police Department’s Homicide Branch is actively investigating Mr. Rich’s murder... If there are any individuals who feel they have information, we urge them to call us.’"

I haven't bothered to read the other 3 citations yet. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

"I haven't bothered to read the other 3 citations yet." - and you're uh, continually blocking the edit why? This is beyond ridiculous. I'm reinstating it per the prior consensus it had, and the fact that nobody else seems to agree with you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: I check 3 of the sources you've provided. None of them use the term "debunked". I begin to think there may be a reason. Later, I take the time to check the other 3. None of them use it either. --Dervorguilla (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are free to use synonyms and to paraphrase sources. We have 7 sources which variously describe these conspiracy theories as (and you'll note that I explained this above) baseless, unfounded, fake and false. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: You gave me four terms that aren't listed as synonyms of "debunked". Now you're giving them to me again. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

What level of competence would you say you have with the English language? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Debunk, synonyms: "disparage, ridicule, lampoon". Also "belie, confound, confute, disprove, disconfirm, discredit, falsify, rebut, refute, shoot down." (Merriam-Webster Unabridged.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC) 21:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Better sources needed

I removed these tags, as they were bordering on the disingenuous. 538 is a well respected outlet. And the reference by Gais, originally published in the Washington Spectator is not listed as an op-ed.That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Content that is white supremacist.

The lead says The subreddit has been accused by news outlets of hosting conspiracy theories, and content that is racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, or white supremacist. This gnaws at me when I read "white supremacist". It just doesn't sound right. I changed it to "white supremacistic", but I'm not sure if that is a word. Well Wiktionary lists it, but that's a piece of 💩. That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, both are strange. I get what you mean, but 'supremacistic' seems more distracting to me than 'white supremacist'. Even typing it feels like a mistake. I think words that are "(rare, nonstandard, misconstruction)", as Wiktionary puts it, should be avoided when possible, but it's a judgement call. Part of it is also that 'racist' would typically cover 'white supremacist' making it read as redundant. In this case, the white supremacist content is specifically singled-out by sources, so this would reasonably need to be emphasized here in some way. Grayfell (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Fix it. Please :) That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Related discussion

A related discussion is taking place at Talk:Donald_Trump#Primary_topic_of_.22The_Donald.22. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)