Jump to content

Talk:The Babylon Bee

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TuffStuffMcG (talk | contribs) at 10:03, 29 July 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bias

This edit introduces biased commentary from a hostile source. There have been hundreds of articles written about the Bee. It seems inexcusable to lead this section with a quote from The Rolling Stone, which maligns the Bee by describing its content—without justification—as being "explicitly misogynistic or transphobic." That description is not just uncharitable and disputed, but malicious. Shouldn't this section offer a straightforward, objective description of the site's content—or, at the very least, balanced commentary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.135.99.93 (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly a reach to call the bee transphobic. They're quite proud of that label themselves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.73.98 (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is there no reply from the editors on this? The description of this site's content should be written from a neutral point of view. The source cited (Rolling Stone) makes allegations that could be considered defamatory. Those allegations are not supported, here or in the Rolling Stone article. And nothing is provided here to counter-balance their biased commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.244.158.224 (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone is a reliable source (see WP:RSP#Rolling Stone), and this statement is properly attributed in-text. If you have any reliable sources that contradict Rolling Stone's statement, feel free to provide them and they could potentially be added, but there is no reason to remove the statement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure people on the left consider it a reliable source because it slanders all the right people and expresses politically correct views. But that's beside the point. The fact remains that hundreds of articles have been written about The Babylon Bee over the years. Why lead with quotes from this one, in particular? Leading off the "Content" section with commentary from a site that is hostile to The Babylon Bee and its worldview just validates any claims that this page is being written and edited with bias rather than encyclopedic neutrality. If anything, the content section should be a straightforward, neutral description of the type of content the Bee writes. The addition of another section called "Criticism" would be an appropriate place for RS's critical commentary. A change like that would restore integrity to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.166.22 (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia considers it to be a reliable source. Not all Wikipedians are leftists. Most sources have some kind of point of view, and that does not disqualify them from use on this project. Per WP:BIASEDSOURCE, Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. It also notes that Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, and we are attributing this statement from Rolling Stone in-text as is appropriate for statements like this.
The quote is included because it usefully describes the kinds of content published by the Bee, as is appropriate in a section about content. As I already said, if you have other sources that describe the Bee's content that you think ought to be used here, provide them. Simply saying "hundreds of articles have been written about The Babylon Bee over the years" is not an actionable suggestion.
As for your suggestion that this statement be relegated to a "criticism" section, we specifically avoid doing that. Per WP:CRITS, Likewise, the article structure must protect neutrality. Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. The bolded statement is precisely what is happening here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You said the quote "usefully describes the kinds of content published by the Bee." No, it describes how critics who loathe the Bee view the content. For balance, where is the commentary from sources that view the Bee's content more positively? My actionable suggestion is that such sources be included. The Bee's content is described without justification as misogynistic, transphobic, anti-left and pro-Trump. Trump is literally and demonstrably the most targeted figure on the site, and it's not even close. A source like RS may be generally reliable while still missing the mark in particular cases. Christianity Today, as a counter-example, describes the Bee as, "a Christian-themed satire website in the vein of The Onion, lampooning the faithful across denominations, political affiliations, and age groups" that captures "the perfect tone of speaking truthful harassment in love." The New York Times describes the Bee as "an upstart Christian satirical website that lampoons progressive ideas, Democrats, Christians and President Trump." Sounds pretty well-rounded there. And flatly contradicts Rolling Stone's claim that the site is "pro-Trump." A simple search of the site contradicts that claim, too. In one of the most shared article's in the site's history, for example, Trump is skewered ruthlessly for his arrogance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.166.22 (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For balance, where is the commentary from sources that view the Bee's content more positively? One notion I should disavail you of is the idea that in order to present something negative about a subject, we must also present something positive (or vice versa). We "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (WP:NPOV). This means if the majority of coverage about a subject is negative, the article reflects that; the same is true in reverse. We do not create a false balance when such a balance is not representative of RS.
Thank you providing specific sources in this comment.
Regarding the Trump thing, Rolling Stone wrote (and this article quotes) that the site "initially started out as something of an equal opportunity offender, but over the past four years the Babylon Bee has evolved into a more explicitly anti-left, pro-Trump publication". Given that the NYT article predates the RS one, it does not seem to me to be in contradiction. Regardless of whether they contradict, it's alright for two RS to hold different views of something, and we can describe the conflicting views accordingly. I am noticing that both of these sources predate the Rolling Stone statement, and am curious if you have any other sources that you feel describe the site's content more accurately that were published around the same time or after the Rolling Stone piece? Otherwise we can't really present them as multiple views on the same topic, since RS (and others) have said the site's content evolved over time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I've edited the content section, and I've added both sources you've suggested. Thank you for providing them, and feel free to comment here if you find any other RS with viewpoints you think ought to be incorporated. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think those edits were substantial improvements. However, I still think a statement like this is just an assertion being presented as a verified fact: "the site grew less critical of Trump and became more anti-left and anti-liberal." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.166.22 (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is supported by three reliable sources (Rolling Stone and two articles in the New York Times), and I've not seen any sources that contradict it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. Wikipedia has become a parody in and of itself. The one-directional "lawyering," arbitrary enforcement of "rules," and jealous guardianship against any and all entries that are not in-line with the transparently obvious heavy-handed leftist agenda; the scrubbing of even the talk page discussions (this comment of mine will likely have a shelf-life of 5 or 10 minutes); the sloppy and grossly blatant one-sided POV and partisanship; the constant disingenuousness and lack of intellectual honesty; the hiding behind the trite "but you must assume good faith" sanctimony that, again, is always one-sided; and, lastly, the list of "reliable sources" that are deemed yellow journalism at best -- and propagandist schmaltz at worst -- by all but a select few smug self-superior circles. Keep "showing your ass" as the saying goes. MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any suggestions for changes to this article? This is not the place for general screeds against Wikipedia as a whole. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone was convicted of defamation in a Federal court a few years ago for their false reporting on the Duke Lacrosse Hoax. They are, factually, people who have been proven to tell lies on purpose which cause significant, tangible monetary damage to the reputation of others. We should obviously not be giving them a platform to make character judgements which are likely cause damage the reputation of others. If they're on a Wikipedia white list, and mainstream conservative sources like the Federalist are totally blacklisted, that makes the point about bias expressed above ostentatiously. 96.59.126.42 (talk)
If you think the reliability of Rolling Stone needs to be revisited, that's a discussion that needs to happen at WP:RSN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This wikipedia article is not neutral.

Hello,
When I read the article, I feel that this is not neutral.
There are a lot of negative point but none positive.
I think the article need a rewrite or a rework, at least a banner at the head of the page to warn reader about that.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:1D5:E860:D5F0:CE59:BE27:BD6A (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? Thanks, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 10:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An example of an editorial bias would be 'conservative Christian news satire website' - a website cannot have a political or religious view, it's a website. The website itself makes no representations to be conservative or of any theological belief system. It'd be as strange as commenting about The Onion being a ... idk, budhist communist news satire website. It'd be clear that the additional information was added in an attempt to smear. I never knew that any of the writers for Babylon Bee were Christian if any are, and whilst I know the media smear it hard and call it "conservative" or "far right" all the time I've never seen anything overtly dog whistly. But I get that the establishment media has it's guns drawn for Babylon Bee - I just hoped that Wikipedia would at least pretend to be neutral. 124.190.192.20 (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the sources, which overwhelmingly describe the site in this way. We regularly describe websites by their political or religious characteristics if they are noteworthy; see Category:American conservative websites, Category:Christian websites‎, etc. for other examples. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NYT descriptor

@Hemiauchenia: Regarding your edit: shouldn't we try to avoid including wording over which the Bee has threatened litigation, and which the NYT removed? I had intentionally kept it vague in the sentences I added to avoid repeating a retracted statement. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 11:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it needs to be vague, as long as it is made clear that the comment is retracted and that it is not in wikivoice. Without the context of the comment its too vague and confusing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, okay. I've made a clarifying edit, since I don't think it was sufficiently clear that the NYT removed the phrase. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 11:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NYT Edit

Hi GorillaWarfare, I saw your edits and I wanted to see if you were open to discussing a few of them. I've organized them by topic with my thoughts below.

1) Opening. I'm not sure this constitutes OR in the traditional sense, certainly not any more than anything else we do here. Noting the change in tone in relation to the subject is the same as noting an event happened. At one point they said X, now they say Y. It certainly isn't anything novel, Roose is saying the same thing in their article.

It is also important to help prevent this reading like a list of historical incidents rather than ongoing interactions between both subjects. That keeps this article in line with the structure of other articles like CNN, Fox_News, The Atlantic, National Review, etc where the article isn't just a bullet point list of events, but organized into a historical context with lead in paragraphs and summaries.

2) Removal of Demand letter resolution. Fully recognize that the sources are less than ideal, but the demand letter and response aren't really in dispute. Nor should we ignore how the incident ended, that seems unencyclopedic. It would be like not noting Hedy Lamarr died just because he died in obscurity.

3) Restructuring. I definitely think we need to return to the prior structuring as this format losses the point of the fact checking disputes. I agree with the previous editors lumping this into a single theme. They aren't being fact checked randomly, but because of the concepts referenced in the lead paragraphs. They serve as the contextual lead in for the following incidents.

As it stands now we have the New York Times discussed in two completely separate places even though the two incidents are actually linked.

4) Addition of text related to Trump tweet. While I agree with you that that seems most likely, the source doesn't say that and seems to go on at length to cast doubt that he didn't realize. See their quote of Mann and reference to him retweeting the Bee before. I'm ok with leaving it, but it isn't exactly in the source.

Squatch347 (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Squatch347: I'm always open to discussion. Replying in order:
1) I have no objection to including how the NYT has referred to the Bee over time, but writing that "The New York Times' reaction has been less consistent" needs a source, likely with attribution, to do that type of interpretation. It's certainly one interpretation of the NYT's actions, but someone could just as easily argue that it's because various authors at the NYT hold different views on the site, etc. "going so far as to" was also editorializing, in my view.
2) The current version of the article describes the dispute in its entirety while keeping coverage brief, which I think is important since we only have one particularly reliable source covering the incident. What is missing, in your view? You're saying that we are ignoring how the incident ended, but "The Times removed the descriptor, and added to their article a clarification about the labeling dispute between Snopes and The Babylon Bee" is how it ended. If the Bee follows through with a lawsuit and it gets coverage in RS that could be added, but at the moment it seems that reliable sources don't find the mere threat of a lawsuit to be worth reporting upon.
3) Can you clarify what context you think is being lost? You wrote that "As it stands now we have the New York Times discussed in two completely separate places even though the two incidents are actually linked." What source has linked them?
4) See the source I added along with that edit, which states "Mr Trump did not seem to be aware that the article was a parody". I've just tweaked the wording a bit to attempt to make it clearer that that is not the universal view: [1]. Does that satisfy this concern? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) That's a fair point, good catch. Something more akin to "The NYT early fact checking attempts referenced..."?
2) I don't think that that is an accurate assessment. The current implies there was a simple demand letter and a scrubbing of the article. However, there were two demand letters sent. One which prompted the NYTs to edit the article, and another to scrub the BB from the article and issue the clarification at the bottom. I'm definitely open to streamlining this a bit, but the fact that there were two changes to the NYT's article seems relevant.
3) As the article is currently structured, the defamation claim and the Roose article are in two entirely different sections. This is disjointed given that that they are related, not only be the fact that they are both the NYTs, but because the defamation claim is about the Roose article. As it is written now, it reads almost as if the defamation claim arose from nowhere as opposed to being related to event we write about a few paragraphs earlier. I'm going to try a bold edit to see if addresses your concern and reads a bit more clearly.
4) Sorry, somehow I missed the addition of the source in the wikicode, that's on me. I'm ok with either language given the Independent's phrasing.
Squatch347 (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2) Does this clarify things sufficiently?
3) The defamation claim is about the Roose article? I don't think that's true. The existing sources only mention the article by Mike Isaac. As far as I can tell the Bee has not objected to the Roose article, which is why I think it should be treated separately as unrelated to the recent dispute. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is perfect, thanks.
I realized this morning that in all the changes I dropped a section somewhere covering the Hirono/FB incident and the reference in the Senate. I added that this morning if you have some time to review. Squatch347 (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Squatch347: Couple of questions and concerns relating to the new section:
  1. Where does Reuters use the quote "obviously satirical"?
  2. to "far-right misinformation" in others we should not be quoted retracted statements like this.
  3. On several occasions, social media sites including Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have limited the site's reach, removed articles, or banned their account citing these media sources None of the three cited sources suggest that the social media platforms' actions were based on media coverage of the Bee.
  4. Regarding cite #29 (the one by Brittany Bernstein, in case the number changes before you see this): MSN syndicates content from many news sources but is rarely (if ever?) the original publisher. It's important to cite the original story so that the reliability of the source can be noted at a glance. In this case, MSN is republishing National Review (original), a no consensus source at RSP (RSP entry), where attribution is recommended and it is suggested that extra care must be taken to avoid undue weight.
  5. Do you have additional sources to support the sentence beginning with "This had led to fears..." The sources there are all pretty marginal (with perhaps the exception of the Salt Lake Tribune, but that is only mentioning the Bee in a quote by Mike Lee). I mentioned the issue with National Review above; similar concerns have been raised about Christian Post in RSN discussions. Norfolk Daily News appears to be hyper-local, and furthermore is an opinion piece. Without some properly reliable sources, this seems like undue weight to me.
Going back to my previous comment, can you answer my question #3? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right on the first question, I think in my note app that I wrote this, it inserted quoting marks. I meant that as a paraphrase of the Reuters source based on their phrase: "clearly identifies itself as a satire site." Open to rephrasing to better fit the tone, but it seems like the Reuters Fact Checker found it pretty obvious that they were satire.
I really appreciate your reviews, I've been spending a couple of weeks reviewing sources and sometimes my brain shortcuts. In this case, the articles are trying to cover a wide variety of activities. We know from these sources and a few others [2], [3], [4], [5] that Facebook and Twitter limit the reach of articles that have run afoul of their fact checkers and we know that these BB articles triggered those fact checkers. I get why, reading this fresh, the links wouldn't quite click with that though. Would it be better to cite the articles related to FB and Twitter's policies on reduced distribution?
Interesting. I was under the impression that since MSN describes it as "syndication" that it involved their purchasing the articles from the original publishers and it would therefore also be MSN's content (since that is how it is seen both legally and in liability questions). And, if I read WP:RSP correctly, we can assume the credibility of the syndicated source unless there is a RSP finding otherwise. I'll keep that point in mind though as I'm going through these.
I included five sources in three sections (since they implied fears from different parties). The National Review one is an interview with the Bee's CEO and so I thought important to include since he is directly involved. The National Catholic Register might not be a huge source, but in this case covered the discussion well from a variety of parties including Prof. Garnett from Notre Dame, the NY Posts Ahmari and Sen. Hawley. The Christian Post was a good source for the combination of the Philadelphia Statement and the Bee rather than a broader reference to the statement. The last two sources are primarily referencing the concern from conservative groups and Senate Republicans. There are, of course, a host of articles about the former's concerns, but I thought that might be beating a dead horse.
RE:3) They definitely have taken issue with the Roose article (see:[6]) whose headline used similar language to the article that prompted the demand letter. That is why I think keeping all of the NYTs (just as we kept Snopes) together makes more sense, it gives context to the dispute.
Squatch347 (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re 2), what's the reason for not quoting a retracted statement? I could understand that we should avoid using a quote of "The sky is blue" from the New York Times to support the claim that the sky is blue if the they later retracted the statement. But it seems fine to cite such a quote to support the claim that the NYT had stated that the sky was blue. (Though it might be worth mentioning that it was retracted in order to provide further context). Colin M (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Squatch347: Re: Reuters: Got it. I agree that Reuters' conclusion was that the site is obviously satire; the quote marks just implied they stated it in exactly those words, which is not supported. Easily enough resolved by just removing the quotations.
Re: social media sanctions: We need to remove the causative link between the media reports and the decisions to remove content or suspend accounts belonging to the Bee. In the Fox News case, we could just say that the post was removed because of Facebook's policies. However I think the sentence itself very much overstates the sources we're using: one describes an incident in which a post was removed, but the other two are describing a time that the Bee's Twitter account was briefly caught in a spam filter by Twitter before being reinstated. It may be that the Bee's content has been repeatedly removed or the site has been suspended intentionally, but it's not supported by the current sourcing.
Re: MSN: When a publication like MSN republishes content by another organization like the National Review, it is the original publisher's reliability that is used to determine the usability of the source. That is why it is best to just cite the original source rather than MSN.
Re: the "This had led to fears" sentence—I am not particularly concerned with reliability here, I am concerned with WEIGHT. We seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel here to try to find sufficient sourcing to justify including a statement about this; it seems there aren't any WP:GREL sources that have published on this; only marginally reliable and hyperlocal ones.
Re: NYT and Roose: Okay, but the fact remains that the dispute is over the Isaac article, not the Roose one. If the Bee demands a retraction or threatens or files a lawsuit in relation to that article, and it's covered by a RS, I could see combining the two paragraphs in the later section, but for now it is not appropriate. I maintain that it is original research to suggest there has been some sort of pattern shift in the NYT's coverage over time. It also misstates the timing between reports ("early ... attempts" appears to refer to an October 2020 article; one of the two articles referenced in "more recently" was published practically at the same time).
@Colin M: I don't really object to mentioning the "far-right misinformation" descriptor when we're discussing the retracted statement, but I don't think a now-retracted statement should be used to summarize how the Bee is described in RS. I think a better option would just be to swap the retracted statement for one made in the Roose piece.
I'm going to make some changes based on this conversation, but I will leave alone any bits we're still discussing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophical question, are we reporting this as an account of what happened in the past, or a more dynamic version of what their current position is? I think it reads more clearly as a chronological account of their position, and it would seem a little odd to whitewash it because they later changed their position rather than noting (as it is structured now) that they changed their position and why.
Re: social media sanctions. It might be helpful to break this into the constituent parts for clarity. The first sentence should be about the impact developing fact checking systems by platforms has had on limiting reach. The second sentence is about articles and the page being suspended as Twitter and Facebook have been implementing algorithms and teams to review content following the rise of fake news. This second should cite the Roose article, as it was his main point.
Re: weight. I understand the weight concept as a balance to ensure that we don't make Steve's opinion sound like it is as widely held as the opinion of 85% of Americans or something. But that isn't what is really going on in this sentence imo. It doesn't imply anything about the size of the group, only that these specific groups have these fears.
Re: NYT and Roose: The reason to keep all the NYTs points in the same section is not based on any connection between the articles specifically. It is done for the exact same reason the Snopes section is grouped. We are grouping them because they are categorically the same, reactions by the NYT to BB's content. Breaking them up means we'd also need to do the same to the Snopes section and the article ends up degenerating into a bullet list of media mentions rather than an encyclopedic article.
Squatch347 (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NYT: What is this about whitewashing? I have no objections to factually stating what the NYT has said about the Babylon Bee and when. It is the WP:OR about a shift in their coverage over time that needs to be removed, as it is a) not supported by secondary sourcing, and b) not accurate to the timing of when the articles were published.

Re: social media: Again, this needs more sourcing. Right now we have one singular source that actually describes the Bee's content being removed. I have no objection to including Roose's points there as well, and will make that edit after I finish this reply.

Re: weight: My concern is not that the concern is being overstated (although it probably is). My concern is that we represent views in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. That means we generally do not include views that are only represented in marginal sources. I assume you recall the Donie O'Sullivan tweet RfC, which concluded that we should not include coverage of O'Sullivan's tweets because they were sourced only to a WP:MREL source (Fox).

The Snopes section is grouped in the way that it is because all of the content in that section refers specifically to disputes with Snopes over their fact-checking. But there is no dispute with the NYT over the Roose article, and including it in that subsection suggests that there is, which is why it needs to be moved. Like I said, if a dispute emerges and is covered by RS, it can be moved back. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re:NYT As I mention a little bit below, the break up of their interactions with the NYT creates an impression that Dillon's demand letter comes out of nowhere rather than this being an ongoing dispute between the two parties. We have good sources on the NYT's interactions and I think there are plenty of sources about the Bee's reaction to the NYTs (where we disagree is on whether those sources meet WP:RSP standards, my position is that since they are reporting an interview that aligns with public statements and since we aren't inserting the site's opinion, we are good). Right now, our article reads as if there are two completely isolated incidents, one of which is a public legal fight seemingly out of nowhere rather than as part of a series of articles and perceived characterizations. As I mentioned below, I'm going to take another stab and structuring to present this more in line both with the Snopes section and, as I mentioned above, almost all of our other pages on media companies.
Re:Social Media, I'm not sure that is quite accurate for sourcing. I offered four additional sources above, three of which directly reference the Bee and its reach, the other discusses policies. I think also importantly, we reference this in the Snopes section as well, so it seems odd that we are a bit hesitant to reference here when we clearly felt it was ok to do so earlier.
Re:Weight. So, I'm not clear one what other opinion we are balancing this against. I agree that RSP is relevant here, but so far, none of the sources I referenced for this section are covered in RSP. Especially the reference inside a Senate hearing, I'm not sure the justification for that being removed.
Squatch347 (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please try to be more careful when you're making edits to this article? I've tried to take a light hand with reverting changes here, as it's not the end of the world if there are statements in there that aren't quite perfect, but we do need to make sure that everything is at least properly sourced. In your recent edits, you re-introduced the sourcing issue I mentioned below. I've reverted for that reason. Ideally we could come to an agreement on changes here before updating the article, which will also avoid inaccuracies or unsourced content being introduced, as I have concerns with some of your changes for that reason.
Re: NYT: You want to represent this as "an ongoing dispute between the two parties", but the sourcing does not support that there was any dispute between the Bee and the NYT prior to the recent interactions with the Times relating to the March article by Mike Isaac. The closest thing to that is the June Not the Bee piece that mentions the Roose article while describing the dispute over the Isaac article, but there is no indication in there that the Bee has actually disputed the Roose article with the Times in any way (requesting retraction, threat of legal action, whatever). If you can find RS to support that they have, I have no objections to the article being included in that section, but so far it doesn't exist.
Re: social media: I think we can probably clarify this with more detail; my biggest concern was that we're overstating the actions that were taken against the site, because a number of them were in error. Let me know if The Babylon Bee#Actions by social media platforms looks okay to you -- I've tried to add more detail to clarify exactly what happened in the incidents mentioned by the sourcing. Your edit mentioned Instagram taking action against The Bee — which source was that from? I'm not seeing mention of any incident with them.
Re weight: WP:WEIGHT describes how we should balance conflicting views in reliable sources, but it also describes how we should consider whether to exclude positions represented in marginal sources. I'm referring to the latter, not the former. I agree that RSP is relevant here, but so far, none of the sources I referenced for this section are covered in RSP. That's not true: WP:RSP#National Review is listed at RSP. RSN discussions on the Catholic Post were no consensus on reliability (Wikipedia:New_page_patrol_source_guide#Religion). National Catholic Register has had no significant RSN discussion. Even if the sources were higher quality, you are very much overstating them when you write that the actions against the Bee's social media accounts has "fueled efforts to address perceived social media censorship from conservative groups and Republican legislators to address a perceived imbalance in deplatforming efforts which they see as overly focused on right-leaning content". The existing citations support that one legislator mentioned social media sites taking action against the Bee. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grr, Wiki ate my last edit. Let's see if I can rewrite it.
RE:NYT. I'm not sure how the NTB article wouldn't qualify, it specifically references the CEO of the company's position that uses the same defamatory claim. To whit, "[Roose] wrote a defamatory piece that claimed we "capitalize on confusion"" Given that source we know this is an ongoing back and forth between the two groups, similar to the Snopes section, and should be grouped in the same manner it would seem. We also have interviews with the Bee's staff in the Washington Times [7], Washington Examiner [8], and Daily Wire [9]. To address RSP concerns, we are only limiting these source's use to verification that the Bee took issue with Roose's article, rather than anything material about the nature of the article or the NYT's intent or anything.
RE:Social Media. I think this is a good edit, I made a few small changes, mostly related to wiki voice (since we aren't saying it was a mistake, they are). I made a slightly more substantive change with the FB section, noting that their position reversal followed social media pressure (from the Poynter article). I think it would be warranted to point out that this was initially an automatic action that was reviewed and upheld manually before being changed following pressure.
how we should consider whether to exclude positions represented in marginal sources. I'm not sure anything in WP:WEIGHT implies the kind of application you are using here. It is one thing to say "we shouldn't have four sentences to describe the position of 10% of people and only 1 for the other 90%." It is quite another to say we should wholesale ignore positions by a US Senator and other groups, especially when we are including quotes from relatively minor groups that are critical of the Bee elsewhere in the article.
I'm open to rewording it of course, I'm just not sure we can remove those groups' concerns and keep this balanced. Would something more like this work for you? "been referenced in the wider effort by conservative groups and Republican legislators to address a perceived imbalance in deplatforming efforts which they see as overly focused on right-leaning content."
Sorry for the confusion on the RSP reference, you are correct that National Review is mentioned. What I was implying was that there is nothing in RSP that limited how we were using these sources in the article, IE as fact verification rather than broader commentary.
Squatch347 (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re: NYT: Seth Dillon not liking something the NYT wrote is not really a "dispute", though. In my view, it becomes a dispute if there is reliably sourced coverage of their objection to that source, or as in the other incidents in those sections if they demand (and/or receive) a retraction, threaten or file a lawsuit, etc. If we included every statement by Dillon or other Bee executives as a "dispute", the section would be enormously bloated. Your first two provided sources are referencing the dispute over the March 2021 NYT article, and I have no objection to that incident being included in the "Dispute with The New York Times" section (though we should stick to the more reliable sources that are available and already being used, rather than an opinion piece). The executives interviewed by The Daily Wire mention the October article, but again this only confirms that they disagreed with it, and furthermore as I've already mentioned The Daily Wire is not a usable source (RSP entry).
Re: social media: noting that their position reversal followed social media pressure (from the Poynter article). The Poynter article says "After The Babylon Bee complained about Snopes’ debunk, the Facebook flag was removed." I'm not seeing anything about "social media pressure". Did you maybe mean the Washington Post source? That does mention that "Ford in publicizing Facebook’s alert on Twitter whipped up public interest, which preceded the response from the company", which is closer, though it also doesn't specify social media. Generally speaking I have no objection to including additional context around the removal, so long as it can be sourced.
Does this edit work for you, with respect to the Mike Lee statement etc.? Like I said the sourcing really doesn't support the broader claim, but we can say what Mike Lee said at least. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RE:NYT. I'm not sure I would classify that as "not liking it." He specifically used the same language as in the demand letter, defamed. I would agree with you if this was the only source on the subject, Dillon's tweet certainly doesn't make it notable for that. But we already have this incident included in the article and the question is solely on where it goes. It would make sense that we wouldn't need the same full level of sourcing to validate.
I also think this misses some of the point. We don't necessarily associate every single incident within the Snopes as being fundamentally related in the manner you are asking for here. They are associated because it was an ongoing interactions between the two groups. I see the two sections as very parallels in both that and in the level of 'dispute' for some of these incidents. Not every snopes article prompted a legal filing, some were social media pressures, but they were social media pressures between the two parties, just like we have here.
RE:Social Media. I'm reading the nature of that complaint as being via social media. It doesn't reference another venue (and I'm not sure anything else was pursued). Open to modifying that language a bit, something more like the Post's language of "after increased public interest" or something?
RE:Mike Lee. Yeah, I think that works. It is still missing the references to the Bee in other groups' discussions about deplatforming, but I think this works for now. Thanks.
Squatch347 (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re: NYT: Feel free to mentally replace my usage of the word "dislikes" with "disagrees with" or "thinks is defamatory". My point remains. But we already have this incident included in the article and the question is solely on where it goes. This is not true. We include the Roose NYT article as a source, and we discuss the dispute over the Isaac NYT article. You are suggesting introducing the Roose article as "dispute", which is not currently in the article, and which I think should continue to not be in the article. Re: Snopes, which of the incidents in the section does not meet one of the criteria I outlined above ("reliably sourced coverage of their objection to that source, or as in the other incidents in those sections if they demand (and/or receive) a retraction, threaten or file a lawsuit")? If there is indeed one, then I would also agree it should be removed.
I'm guessing you're right about the Post, that they are referring to social media pressure. I'm just wary of introducing statements based on inference. I'll tweak the language a bit just for caution's sake. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to mentally replace my usage of the word "dislikes" with "disagrees with" or "thinks is defamatory". Well, if that is the case, then the case for inclusion is solid. If you see 'dislikes' as the same as 'thinks is defamatory' then why would we not include it? If this section is truly about disputes, then clearly there is one because the CEO of the Bee has called both pieces by the same adjective. We can mental replace it either way, both articles are either 'defamatory' (in his opinion) or he 'dislikes' them. But we can't draw a distinction if the same language is used in both sources.
To be accurate, I didn't want to call that section disputes. I, and another editor, called it "Media Reaction and Fact Checking" which I think is a far better title given that the NYTs section isn't even fact checking, it is commentary on the site. If I recall correctly (and I might be wrong) I believe it was you who changed the language to dispute. I would recommend a return to the previous title which fits the content of the section better since only some of it is related to fact checking. That or we seem to break up this section and parse out some of Snopes' commentary as well which seems like a far more ad hoc article structure.
Squatch347 (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The case for inclusion would be solid if the Bee actually filed litigation against the NYT or demanded a retraction. But at the moment we are just talking about the Bee executives' opinions on the piece, which is not a "dispute". Can you explain why you feel putting the Roose article under the header "Media reaction and fact checking" would be more accurate than "Mistaken for factual reporting", when the Roose article stems entirely for the incident in which Trump tweeted out the Bee article about Twitter shutting down? There is still a "fact checking" header and the Roose article could go there (outside of any "dispute" subheading), but it seems more appropriate under the other header to me. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But at the moment we are just talking about the Bee executives' opinions on the piece, which is not a "dispute". Perhaps you are using that term a bit more rigorously than I am. A dispute is a disagreement between two parties in the colloquial usage. That would seem to what we have here, two parties with different positions on the claims in the article.
It isn't so much about 'inclusion' as it is about placement, we agree that it should be covered, the question is where. It makes a much cleaner read to include it in the media reaction because the article, while prompted by Trump's tweet, is also about how the Bee fits into the larger narrative of fake news. That reads, to me, like a part of a larger trend that we are discussing in the Media Reaction section. We also don't need it for the Mistaken for Factual reporting reference, there are literally hundreds of sources for Trump's tweeting about the Bee, with more detail on the incident than the NYT article.
Squatch347 (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I'm repeating myself here. As I said above, If we included every statement by Dillon or other Bee executives [in which they object to reporting on their site] as a "dispute", the section would be enormously bloated. If and when there is significant coverage of the meta-conversation about the Bee's opinions on the Roose article, it can be added to the dispute section; until then, it should just be used for the claims made in the article rather than any higher level conversation about the article itself. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the desire to not include every bit of text, but I'm not really adding any text, I'm suggesting we simply move it to a section where it flows more logically. I don't think we'll reach a consensus here, so I'll drop it. Would it be more acceptable if we altered the title from "Mistaken for factual reporting" to "Media Reaction?" The quoted Roose article is about more than just some people thinking the Bee's articles are factual. All of the cited articles, in fact, while mentioning the confusion are also referencing a larger questions about how to handle satire and fake news. I think the current title undersells that a bit and that is why it reads so oddly to me. Squatch347 (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The cited articles might also discuss other topics, but the section in this article is all about instances where the Bee's content was mistaken for factual. I'm hesitant to rename the section "Media reaction" because that would suggest it is a comprehensive reporting of media reaction to the site in general, whereas right now it's only describing reactions to incidents where the site was mistaken for factual reporting. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Citation issue resolved. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with the first sentence of the NYT section

Splitting out a new section so conversation above can continue without distraction. However I went to go make some tweaks to the article and am finding some pretty serious issues with the first sentence of the "Disputes over fact checking > The New York Times" subsection.

The New York Times' early fact checking attempts referenced the site as 'clearly fake' and 'a right wing version of The Onion."[1]

  • For one, the citation bears the author, title, and website of the October 2020 Emma Goldman NYT piece ([10]) but the URL is a USA Today article.
  • I can't find any NYT article where they referred to the site as "clearly fake": [11]. I looked to see if it was in the USA Today piece, but also no. In fact I'm not really finding it anywhere: [12].
  • The NYT has described the Bee as a "right wing version of The Onion", but it wasn't the Goldman article, it was the October 2020 Kevin Roose one ([13]). Squatch347 can you clarify where these statements actually came from? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry again for the confusion, the ' markers, as opposed to " markers have always implied paraphrase in my experience. I understand why that is confusing here given Wiki's style. The tone of the article by Goldberg implies she sees it as clearly satirical. If it is a bit clearer, I'd propose the below as a modification that replaces the paraphrase with quotes.
The NYT, likewise, has had a hard time classifying The Bee in its writing, profiling them as a "comedy site" whose content obviously "resided on the satirical side of the ledger," while also openly wondering if it is a "deliberate strategy" to "traffic in misinformation under the guise of comedy."
The mislinking came from me using the citeweb template, I missed the one link. It should be this link: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/11/us/politics/babylon-bee-conservative-satire.html
Squatch347 (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That does explain a lot; I am not familiar with the style, but we do not use single quotes for paraphrasing on Wikipedia. You can refer to MOS:QUOTEMARKS for the relevant portion of the style guide. Your suggested sentence will not do, though, as it is again interpretive ("has had a hard time classifying"). I will make some adjustments, though. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand that concern. I'll address this a bit more in the section above, but the movement of the NYT section back into content rather than leaving in its own section just doesn't make any sense. It leaves their reaction to the Times as seemingly out of nowhere rather than as an ongoing dispute. This makes even less sense given that we adopt the ongoing dispute methodology in the Snopes section. I'll make some adjustments to the text to address your concern here in restructuring.
Squatch347 (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed this above. Now that the cite issues have been fixed we can probably just discuss in the above section. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Goldberg, Emma (October 11, 2020). "What 'The Babylon Bee' Thinks Is So Funny About Liberals". New York Tmes. Archived from the original on January 6, 2021. Retrieved June 22, 2021.

Slate Article, Facebook Policy, and "Punching Down"

Hi @GorillaWarfare:, nice to meet you :). I noticed you undid my edit earlier tonight. I'm sure I did something wrong, as I've only edited a handful of Wikipedia pages over the years, and not in a long time. Was curious what I did wrong that led to the removal so I can hopefully improve on what I wrote.

As I noted in my revision comments, my intent was to add context to the Slate article by noting the exact same wording in the Facebook policy days earlier, and how several news sites and the Babylon Bee CEO have commented on this juxtaposition. What can I do to reword this or position it differently in the article to make it 'fit' better? Thank you in advance for any help you can offer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithgreenfan (talk • contribs) 02:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Keithgreenfan: Hello and welcome! Daily Wire is considered to be generally unreliable as a source (see WP:RSP#The Daily Wire), and so should not be used to support this statement. Which news sources have commented on this? If there is a secondary source that is reliable it could potentially be added. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare:Thank you! I see that now, thank you for helping me out! I can just use the article by PJMedia instead in that case. It isn't on Wikipedia's list, however as seen on PJMedia's "About Us" page [1] they are "part of the Townhall family" which IS on the reliable sources list, although with a few caveats. Hopefully it qualifies!
To answer your question, both PJMedia and Daily Wire referred to the juxtaposition of Slate's article + Facebook's policy. It was also referenced in several other sites that I assume wouldn't be "citable", such as several blog posts and Seth Dillon's twitter.
Here's the PJMedia article I plan to link to. Sound fair?
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/06/23/facebooks-new-announcement-on-satire-doesnt-bode-well-for-the-babylon-bee-n1456651
Just for context, here are some of the blog entries I mentioned:
https://reclaimthenet.org/predators-circle-the-babylon-bee/
https://www.christopherfountain.com/blog/2021/6/24/facebook-is-moving-to-de-moneterizing-the-babylon-bee-as-hate
--Keithgreenfan (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Keithgreenfan: WP:RSP is a handy list for sources that come up regularly, but the absence of a source in that list doesn't mean it is automatically reliable (or unreliable). For sources not listed at RSP, the best option is to review past discussions at WP:RSN: [14]. You can see from those that PJ Media is also not usable. As an aside, I'm not sure where you're seeing that Townhall is reliable; that is not what the list says (RSP entry).
You're correct that blog posts are not usable; Reclaim The Net is also not a reliable source. I think your best bet here may be to wait to see if reliable sources report on this. It looks like Dillon only just recently made this allegation; often the unreliable sources will publish first, then be followed by the reliable ones, so it may just be a matter of waiting a few days. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @GorillaWarfare:, I’ll watch for that! I appreciate the help with explaining how this works. I have an additional edit I’m looking to make in the coming days, but will be sure to check those links beforehand! By the way, my Townhall comment is referring to the comment in the box that some types of content on their site is considered reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithgreenfan (talk • contribs) 03:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable sources on that list are marked in green. Sounds good, happy editing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to raise a separate issue on this article. We are including quotes from the article which seems a bit much. This is an article by a PhD student who has exactly one story (this one) in his bio. I don't think he meets the standards for a relevant source. Granted Slate decided to publish it, so I think it is clearly a WP:RSP, but are we really going to attribute quoted criticism to a guy with a single written article who is still a student? Especially given that we quote him twice in the article? Maybe I'm missing some context as to Mr. Bach's relevance in the field. Squatch347 (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slate is a generally reliable source, and part of a PhD is more qualifications than many journalists have. I'm not sure what the issue here is. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that the author is a PhD candidate, not a PhD. It is a concern because this piece, which is the only article this author has written is quoted in multiple places in the article which gives the impression that Bach is a significant industry thinker rather than a student with a single article to their name. Squatch347 (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said "part of a PhD"—that is, working towards earning a PhD. Again, we quote several sources multiple times, most of which are by journalists who are not in academia. I could see your argument if someone was arguing this was WP:EXPERTSOURCE situation (that is, that we should allow a self-published source because it is published by an expert in the field), but it isn't—it's an article published in a reputable publication that is being given approximately the same weight as several other non-expert sources. We could reduce the amount of quoting and paraphrase some of it, if you think that's better, but I don't really think any of it ought to be removed. You seem to be concerned because it is criticism, but I don't think that's entirely accurate—some of it is critical, but Bach is also taking the position that the Bee is not misinformation (which is certainly a position the Bee themselves take). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know if this person completed those portions of their PhD? Our referencing of other sources are usually to journalists with multiple articles published. I'd be wary of calling this author an academic by Wiki standards, he doesn't seem to have published a single journal article that I can find on either Google Scholar or Microsoft Academic. It would make a lot more sense if we were specifically relating a dispute or coverage by Slate as a topic (like we do with NYT and Snopes), but we aren't. We are taking this author's position and inserting it into content in several places as a broader commentary. That is WP:UNDUE to treat this as if it had large impact when, so far, it has had very little and the source itself doesn't meet WP:EXPERTSOURCE as you note. Squatch347 (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What? I'm going off of what you're saying here, which is that he hasn't completed his PhD. I'm not sure why you're interpreting my comment to mean that he has a PhD, or is an accomplished academic, or what have you. But I think someone who is working towards a PhD can be comfortably said on a talk page to be "in academia"—I am not suggesting this ought to be introduced into the article or anything like that. I am pointing out that your objection to the author appears to be that he is working on a PhD (rather than the other journalists, who are presumably not, but I don't see how that makes him less qualified here) and that he has one published article with Slate. WP:RSP#Slate says nothing like "Slate is a reliable source except when the author has one article published with them", nor am I aware of any policy that suggests a media source is less usable if the author is not widely published. If your concern is that the attribution is making his name more prominent in this article than it ought to be, I'm amenable to paraphrasing some of the quotes. But if your concern is that the article is not sufficiently reliable to use for any of these statements or weighted in this way, I think you'll need broader agreement at RSN, because your objections are not based in any policy that I know of. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, you said that his work as a PhD made him more qualified than many journalists. I was asking, given that he is a candidate what you were basing the assumption that he has completed that work on? Given that he hasn't produced a single academic paper, and has one article to his name in Slate, I'm not sure where the topic credibility comes from to give him four separate quote mentions in the article. He is referenced more than any other source in the article except Emma Goldberg who has dozens of articles to her name and is published in multiple outlets. That doesn't strike you as odd? That we are quoting a student with no other published history as much as a well known New York Times' author?Squatch347 (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone your edit because I think something must've gone wrong with it. Your edit summary describes removing a Rolling Stone quote, but that is not what happened. If you actually intended to remove the Slate "riffs on riffs" sentence I'm happy to discuss that too, though if that wasn't what you intended I won't take us off on a tangent. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope, following the subsequent edits my reason was a bit clearer. The original sentence was quoting the Slate article, but citing the Rolling Stone article. Given that we are quoting the source four separate times it seemed reasonable to remove the misattributed quote to align with my comments above. Squatch347 (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it wasn't clear to me there was a citation error. The citation is repaired now, though I'm still happy to work towards consensus about whether any of the quotes ought to be removed or paraphrased. WP:WEIGHT requires us to "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". To me the "riffs on riffs" quote is not so much a "viewpoint" (as compared to the quotes about targeting women and trans people with their jokes, or their thoughts on the site being misinformation or not) but rather a fairly straightforward description of the site's content. Do you disagree there? I'm not opposed to removing it necessarily, but it seems like we'd be removing detail about the site for the sake of reducing quotes to the Slate article, without meaningfully changing the number of opinionated statements sourced to that article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it wasn't clear to me there was a citation error. Self-development aside, I need to invest more time in edit summaries. I think I've gotten too used to consensus talk edits rather than really explaining what I'm doing in the summary.
o me the "riffs on riffs" quote is not so much a "viewpoint" (as compared to the quotes about targeting women and trans people with their jokes, or their thoughts on the site being misinformation or not) but rather a fairly straightforward description of the site's content. Do you disagree there? That is a very interesting take. I had read it as clearly (in my mind) commentary, so I'm curious as to your viewpoint. It would seem to me to be, at least, his interpretation of events. The way I read the riffs on riffs phrase, given the context, is that he is saying the the Bee isn't so much reacting to news as it is reacting to a conservative mythos about reality. That seems to be the thrust of his article and I think our coverage is a bit repetitive. We cover his take on riffs on riffs, then separately mention his restatement that the Bee "reinforces misinformation" and seperately again that they "conspiratorially report." Those to me all seem to be the same point, but referenced in three different areas. I tried to combine those three in my most recent edit, its a bit hard without being repetitive or long winded. Let me know what you think.
I didn't touch the other quote, which does seem to be related to a separate subject. I also wanted to pick your brain on it since you are more widely versed on policies than me. My concern is that it is referencing a very loaded term (punching-down) given FB's policy. Combine that with my concerns about Mr. Bach's prominence (as described much earlier), I'm just a bit concerned about our position. I'm not sure what Wiki's policy is on that (and maybe I'm thinking too much like my day job that involves corporate risk). Let me know if I'm unclear here, I can email you on that if you open to it. Squatch347 (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Squatch347: No objections to your most recent edit combining two of the Slate quotes, that seems reasonable to me.
"Punching down" is a pretty common term in conversations about jokes about marginalized groups, so I was a little surprised to see all of these suggestions that somehow Slate and Facebook were acting in concert by each using the term around the same time (suggestions that were made mostly off-wiki, though someone did try to add a Daily Wire article about the topic a little while ago). I don't share the concerns, but if those who do would sleep better at night if we paraphrased "punch down" with something like "make jokes that target marginalized groups", that's fine by me. It actually might be an improvement in that it defines the term rather than requiring people who are unfamiliar with it visit the wikilink. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I altered it to match your suggestion. Feel free to wordsmith it if I missed an aspect. If you feel comfortable with that wording, I think we are good here. Thanks again! Squatch347 (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "PJMedia About Us".

Mailchimp + Reason Article

Hi again @GorillaWarfare:! As you can see I made two additional edits. One references a new dispute with Mailchimp that just occurred two days ago. The intent is to add that to the list but also (critically) to show how the company is responding.

Second, I added a critical detail to the section on the Reason article. The original wording in the Wikipedia article seems to imply that Kyle Mann "said" that headlines were taken out of context but wasn't necessarily correct. The key detail added from the article indicates that he was stating a fact, not an opinion.

Hopefully I did it right this time :). I did verify both sources are considered reliable this time. Let me know if I need to make any changes!Keithgreenfan (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the edits you made! Thank you for streamlining the one on the Reason article. I guess I need to learn to be brief :). On the Mailchimp one, I was hoping to at least include a brief mention of Seth's response to indicate the pushback. Is there an abbreviated way to do that? How about this:
Seth Dillon responded that the Babylon Bee would "move to an email provider that doesn't make these 'mistakes'".
Keithgreenfan (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Reason is fine; Fox is iffy for politics-related content (WP:RSP#Fox News (politics and science)). I have left the statement in, though, just trimmed it. If a more reliable source reports on Dillon's response, that could be added, but as it was it was a bit much.
No real objections to your addition to the bit about the research in The Conversation—I just fixed the reference and replaced some of the direct quote with paraphrasing, which I don't think was a substantial change to meaning. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again @GorillaWarfare:! Makes sense, except I find it highly unusual that Fox is considered iffy for politics-related content but MSNBC is not? Either way, they're simply quoting Dillon's twitter feed and even include a screen shot with a link directly to it, so it can be clearly determined it is him making the statement. Your edit did remove Seth's response which I thought was important to include. I'll see if I can find it on another site if needed.
Keithgreenfan (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Fox is not a reliable source because it leans right wing and the editors of wiki are left wing and they vote on which sources are reliable. No other reason at all. Even absolute facts cannot be posted on Wikipedia, unless they are first filtered through the left wing lens of a “reliable source” that the left wing editors approve of. You are fighting a losing battle. Seth Dillon could say “A” and a left wing blog could quote him as saying “B” and the majority of editors who troll political articles will fight to include the fake quote over the real one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.241.231.199 (talk • contribs)
If you want to discuss the reliability of either MSNBC or Fox News, that'd be a conversation for WP:RSN, not here.
It is not the veracity of the quotes that concerns me. We are not a platform to republish everything the Bee or its executives post on Twitter, release in a statement, say in an interview, etc. If reliable sources give airtime to these things, then we might include them, but right now we have one marginal source. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understand on quoting tweets @GorillaWarfare:, I had just included it since it was in fact covered in the source. You noted Wikipedia’s opinion is that Fox is iffy in reliability on politics, but how is this story on the Babylon Bee politics-related?
Thanks for the tip on the WP:RSN page. I may chime in. I’d like to know how Wikipedia justifies labeling Fox as questionable on politics!
Keithgreenfan (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A conservative publication claiming they're being "cancelled" is politics-related. As for Fox, if you want to know why the community came to that conclusion, I would recommend just reading the discussion rather than posting at RSN asking for someone to explain it to you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I will check out the link. Keithgreenfan (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article on the Fox News discussion, @GorillaWarfare:! I notice the summary doesn't say Fox shouldn't be used for science and political reporting, but rather should be "used with caution to verify contentious claims". Sometimes Fox is the only source for a story just because they are the only ones who have an "eye" on particular stories, or particular details about a story. Of course that doesn't necessarily make them inaccurate. I will probably run them past you here if I run across a situation like that, which could happen on this WP page. One interesting site that I discovered recently is Ground News, which shows left wing and right wing "blind spots" on certain news stories. It's kind of interesting and might be helpful to WP administrators in gauging fairness on certain articles.
As an aside, I notice someone replied to me earlier in this thread but somehow merged it with one of your replies. Is there a way to fix that? Also, I notice you and other admins have been busy! Looks like a lot of disruptive editing yesterday. You and the other admins do a great job trying to keep this all afloat!
Keithgreenfan (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Keithgreenfan: You're right that Fox is often the only source on a topic (or the only usable source; often I notice it will be Fox and then a handful of generally unreliable or deprecated sources covering a topic). However this often means that including whichever statement in the article is more weight than it ought to be given. A good example would be the tweets by a CNN reporter about The Bee, which Fox covered (as did unusable sources like The Post Millenial, News Break, The Daily Wire, etc.) but more reliable sources apparently found to be unremarkable, an incident that was omitted from this article by consensus at Talk:The Babylon Bee/Archive 1#Donie O'Sullivan edit.
I'm not seeing an edit that was merged with my replies in the page history, but maybe I missed it. Which one? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @GorillaWarfare:! The merge is right after my entry at 01:27, 27 June 2021. The other user’s comment starts with ‘Hi. Fox is not a reliable source because…’. Your reply to me is at the same indent level right below it. If it’s just a matter of fixing indents I don’t mind doing it, but I’d rather leave it to the expert :).
I get your point on Fox, but I’d also say the issue of weight can get skewed. I think Fox is mostly alone among conservative networks (at least those considered reliable) while the other networks are mostly left-leaning, so entire topics or perspectives might be viewed as having less ‘weight’ just because Fox is the only reliable source reporting on it.
Keithgreenfan (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's alright if two comments are at the same level of indentation (so long as both are signed, so that they are not taken to be one comment from the same user)—it just means that the two comments are both in reply to the comment above. Indenting one would suggest that one is a reply to the other which is a reply to the other.
There are plenty of other conservative sources which are reliable on Wikipedia, so I don't agree with that point. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks! Makes sense on the indents, I’m learning. I guess I need to browse the RS list :). Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithgreenfan (talk • contribs) 16:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Wikipedia's talk page style is very unusual so it often takes people a bit to get the hang of it. As for I guess I need to browse the RS list, it's worth keeping in mind that WP:RSP is a handy reference for whether a source has been deemed generally reliable, generally unreliable, etc. via community discussion, but it's far from a complete list, and as I think I mentioned to you earlier the omission of a source from it doesn't mean that that source is reliable or unreliable. It is a handy reference to avoid each person having to go read through all the RSN discussions on a commonly-suggested source and glean the consensus from them, but for sources not on the list that is still what has to happen. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that makes sense, and I do recall your saying that. I’ll check out the list with those caveats in mind. Thanks again!
Keithgreenfan (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare:, I'm not sure I would agree that anything related to being "cancelled" is "politics" related unless we are using a pretty broad definition of politics that would essentially include all human activities. This is a dispute between two private companies about a perception of bowing to social pressure. My concern here is that we are letting in a bit of scope creep that could essentially deprecate a source when there was no consensus on RSP to do so. Squatch347 (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are saying that they are being canceled by social media sites and other platforms which they believe hold a bias against conservatives. That's pretty clearly politics, but if you want to bring it to WP:RSN, be my guest. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it needs to brought up in WP:RSN, that is for us discussing these sources' reliability as to politics. What I'm questioning is your application of that definition. Nothing in any of the RSP discussions covered those sources' ability to cover private company's reactions to political world views, they were limited to the sources' interpretations of politics in the much more literal sense like "Fox said X about Republicans" or "National Review things Democrats' positions are Y." I might have missed it, of course, but do you have an example of the discussion covering something as broad as what you're suggesting here? Squatch347 (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RSN is where to go if you disagree with whether a specific article published by a source is usable in an article, and want outside input. I'm not talking about doing a whole new RfC about Fox's reliability or anything like that—although those kinds of conversations are also held at RSN, many RSN discussions are pretty quick discussions of a given source. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why does satire website has such a large fact-checking section?

I never saw a wiki article on satire site have such a large fact-checking section.87.70.92.37 (talk)

Because the fact-checking of The Babylon Bee has been much of what has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is an effort to ban the site from social media for a litany of offences; from "punching down" to "mis-information". The narrative creates articles in sources deemed reliable, & builds a case in Wikipedia using those reliable articles. Once there is enough in the body, it is imported into the lead and becomes the first thing google and apple users see about the Babylon Bee. Eventually, this becomes a "fact" about the Bee & they will be purged from the polite society internet because they are purveyors of misinformation.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed] That is an extremely bad-faith "explanation" of editors' work here, and I think you should retract it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on the moral character of this particular editor, but I think they have a valid point about WP:UNDUE coverage. This article is 2,463 words long; 1,577 are devoted to e-drama, and 1,001 words are devoted to e-drama with specific websites (of which 647 detail one specific argument with the Snopes guy). Whether or not it's sourced, it seems strange to me that there is so much attention devoted to accusations that were later taken back. jp×g 02:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources, so that my above post isn't pure commentary

https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-propaganda

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/wikipedia-founder-larry-sanger-democrats-b1885138.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9793263/Nobody-trust-Wikipedia-founder-Larry-Sanger-warns.html 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/how-the-babylon-bee-is-fighting-back/

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/wikipedia-conforms-to-wokeness/

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Babylon_Bee&oldid=1036075440"