This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2018. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
The Daily Wire
let's talk about the reliability of "The Daily Wire" and the "controversy" they report about a deleted tweet. [1] does not seem emcyclopedic to me. Psyduck3 (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amy Siskind is an activist, and even though this article does not describe her as one, I think she fits the definition of a reporter. I believe it is very germane to discuss how she treats facts and evidence, especially since she is a prominent disctibutor and disseminator of news. It's very relevant to know what kind of standards she has for evidence. She tweeted two "facts" that she could not have possibly known to be either true or untrue. She simply made up information. She did NOT know the race of the perpetrators - she guessed. When that guess proved to be wrong, and not in line with her political agenda, she simply deleted the factually erroneous tweets (but not before someone was able to screenshot them). She even admits to doing to this on her own talk page: "I put up a tweet which had an error in it and was taken down within 30 minutes." So she does not even dispute that the main claim in the article is untrue. Because it is true, and she knows it's true. She simply doesn't like that she got caught and that she received some negative attention over it. Where is the Wikipedia rule that says public figures can just go and delete true things that they don't like about their bio? It doesn't make it any better when she gets a sympathetic WP editor to do the same. - - HraefenTalk21:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an ad hominem for me to point out that it's inappropriate for a notable person to be removing negative content from their own article. It's also not an ad hominem for me to suggest that you, as the original creator of this article, and someone who the subject reached out to personally for help, may not in fact be unbiased here.
I see no need for me to make an argument for TDW as a reliable source. The RFC that you pointed to was clearly unresolved, there are a lot of arguments on both sides. For what it's worth my opinion is that they are a legitimate albeit partisan website. So like any partisan site, use it with caution, pay attention to context. The relevant context in this situation right here is that the subject of the article admits that the main claim in the article is actually true! So again, do you have a factual disagreement with what is claimed in the TDW article? I don't think you actually do. I think the context here is very clear. The article is accurate. If you take issue with how it is worded, that's a different conversation. But you have raised no actual objection to the factual accuracy of the article itself, and the RFC you pointed to was inconclusive. - - HraefenTalk19:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually address your question about reliable source. My opinion is that TDW can be a reliable source, you just need to pay attention to context. And there were numerous Wikipedia editors on that RfC who agree with me. There are also some who agree with you. So we're really not going to get anywhere in this conversation just trying to determine whether TDW is a reliable source or not. Opinions vary. It is also my opinion that on this specific topic when you take the context into account TDW is a reliable source. What they are saying is accurate. You are not saying it's inaccurate, Amy Siskind is not even saying it's inaccurate. It is accurate. In this instance this is a reliable source. - - HraefenTalk13:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
