| Revision as of 23:23, 2 March 2017 editEndercase (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,855 edits →Breitbart News: Added my POV← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:42, 2 March 2017 edit undoEndercase (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,855 edits →Breitbart News: added <ref> Misplaced Pages:Consensus doesn't have to change</ref> and resignedNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| ::::It's from 2015, so it's not very old. But here are two more recent discussions, both with clear consensus that Breitbart is not normally a reliable source for straightforward statements of fact: ], ]. —] (] '''·''' ]) 22:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC) | ::::It's from 2015, so it's not very old. But here are two more recent discussions, both with clear consensus that Breitbart is not normally a reliable source for straightforward statements of fact: ], ]. —] (] '''·''' ]) 22:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :::::@] and ]: Thanks for this, guys. It's unfortunate that we cannot use Breitbart since I've found it to be pretty accurate on articles about the Mexican Drug War, specifically on the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas and what happens in their respective turfs. The media sources in the areas where these two groups operate in downplay the violence or refuse to report about it because a lot of ]. Border states like ] rely on the Texan media to report on drug violence. The Breitbart writer for the Mexican Drug War is Ildefonso Ortiz, who was a border crime reporter at ] and did a lot of in-depth articles about the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. This is a topic I've studied for many years, and there's journalism phenomenom in Mexico known as "citizen-journalism", where journalists and citizens (criminals included) go on social media to report what happens in the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. Mr. Ortiz has done a great job at hashing out the details and showing what happens in the big picture. Same thing goes for blog sources like ]. ]<small> (</small><big>]</big> • ]<small>)</small> 22:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC) | :::::@] and ]: Thanks for this, guys. It's unfortunate that we cannot use Breitbart since I've found it to be pretty accurate on articles about the Mexican Drug War, specifically on the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas and what happens in their respective turfs. The media sources in the areas where these two groups operate in downplay the violence or refuse to report about it because a lot of ]. Border states like ] rely on the Texan media to report on drug violence. The Breitbart writer for the Mexican Drug War is Ildefonso Ortiz, who was a border crime reporter at ] and did a lot of in-depth articles about the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. This is a topic I've studied for many years, and there's journalism phenomenom in Mexico known as "citizen-journalism", where journalists and citizens (criminals included) go on social media to report what happens in the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. Mr. Ortiz has done a great job at hashing out the details and showing what happens in the big picture. Same thing goes for blog sources like ]. ]<small> (</small><big>]</big> • ]<small>)</small> 22:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :::::: First of all, in these sorts of cases if it is archived it is too old. To be clear I am for testing consensus currently. As such maybe we should move to ]. However, I'm ok staying here if y'all would like. In both cases mentioned the articles in question are accurate, but that is my POV. Also to be clear I am calling for a consensus on the other articles I've mentioned in ] as well. ] brings up great points about the personal history of the author in question here and I think that should also be discussed locally. The automatic removal of the links in ] and ] without any discussion was pretty rude in and of itself but the removal of the information? It would have been more proper to simply switch it to a {{citation needed}} in my POV. I hope we can have a civil discussion and not just a snap judgment on the issues at hand. I think both cases were issues of ] and you had no issues with the information provided just the source(s). I support the inclusion of the source(s) and the information. ] (]) 23: |
:::::: First of all, in these sorts of cases if it is archived it is too old. To be clear I am for testing consensus currently. As such maybe we should move to ]. However, I'm ok staying here if y'all would like. In both cases mentioned the articles in question are accurate, but that is my POV. Also to be clear I am calling for a consensus on the other articles I've mentioned in ] as well. ] brings up great points about the personal history of the author in question here and I think that should also be discussed locally. The automatic removal of the links in ] and ] without any discussion was pretty rude in and of itself but the removal of the information? It would have been more proper to simply switch it to a {{citation needed}} in my POV. I hope we can have a civil discussion and not just a snap judgment on the issues at hand. I think both cases were issues of ] and you had no issues with the information provided just the source(s). I support the inclusion of the source(s) and the information. I also understand that I may be ]. However, I feel like it should be tested given current events. ] (]) 23:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:42, 2 March 2017
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Breitbart News
Moved from User talk:Mx. Granger – —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Mx. Granger – good evening! I just saw your update on Alfredo Beltrán Leyva regarding Breitbart News as a source. Is there a way we can use Breitbart as a source on Misplaced Pages, or is it an absolute no? I'm asking because from what I've read, Breitbart News can be used, as long as it doesn't involve politically sensitive/defaming information. I didn't know Breitbart News existed until a South Texas journalist from The Monitor was hired there. In my opinion, they have a pretty good Mexican Drug War section for a U.S. media outlet, and their editor is an expert in the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. The articles include "ground" information not often seen in Mexican newspapers either because organized crime has a tight grip on the local press. Is there a way we can include Breitbart News if we exercise some caution? Thanks. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Please consider moving this discussion to the article's talkpage. Just thought about this, I apologize for the inconvenience. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. From past discussions at RSN, there seems to be consensus that Breitbart is not a reliable source for straightforward statements of fact. That discussion doesn't seem to mention the Mexican Drug War as an exception, and I have to imagine Breitbart's coverage of that topic would have the same problems (like exaggerating and twisting the facts) as their coverage of other topics. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- That is a really old discussion. Maybe consensus has changed? I suggest elevation on this as well as Stealth banning. Time for another Long TalkEndercase (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's from 2015, so it's not very old. But here are two more recent discussions, both with clear consensus that Breitbart is not normally a reliable source for straightforward statements of fact: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_211#Is Breitbart.com reliable?, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 216#Breitbart News. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Granger and Endercase: Thanks for this, guys. It's unfortunate that we cannot use Breitbart since I've found it to be pretty accurate on articles about the Mexican Drug War, specifically on the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas and what happens in their respective turfs. The media sources in the areas where these two groups operate in downplay the violence or refuse to report about it because a lot of journalists have been killed in Mexico. Border states like Tamaulipas rely on the Texan media to report on drug violence. The Breitbart writer for the Mexican Drug War is Ildefonso Ortiz, who was a border crime reporter at The Monitor and did a lot of in-depth articles about the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. This is a topic I've studied for many years, and there's journalism phenomenom in Mexico known as "citizen-journalism", where journalists and citizens (criminals included) go on social media to report what happens in the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. Mr. Ortiz has done a great job at hashing out the details and showing what happens in the big picture. Same thing goes for blog sources like Borderland Beat. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 22:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- First of all, in these sorts of cases if it is archived it is too old. To be clear I am for testing consensus currently. As such maybe we should move to Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources. However, I'm ok staying here if y'all would like. In both cases mentioned the articles in question are accurate, but that is my POV. Also to be clear I am calling for a consensus on the other articles I've mentioned in Talk:Stealth banning as well. ComputerJA brings up great points about the personal history of the author in question here and I think that should also be discussed locally. The automatic removal of the links in Stealth banning and Alfredo Beltrán Leyva without any discussion was pretty rude in and of itself but the removal of the information? It would have been more proper to simply switch it to a in my POV. I hope we can have a civil discussion and not just a snap judgment on the issues at hand. I think both cases were issues of Misplaced Pages:If it ain't broke, don't fix it and you had no issues with the information provided just the source(s). I support the inclusion of the source(s) and the information. I also understand that I may be Misplaced Pages:Consensus doesn't have to change. However, I feel like it should be tested given current events. Endercase (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Granger and Endercase: Thanks for this, guys. It's unfortunate that we cannot use Breitbart since I've found it to be pretty accurate on articles about the Mexican Drug War, specifically on the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas and what happens in their respective turfs. The media sources in the areas where these two groups operate in downplay the violence or refuse to report about it because a lot of journalists have been killed in Mexico. Border states like Tamaulipas rely on the Texan media to report on drug violence. The Breitbart writer for the Mexican Drug War is Ildefonso Ortiz, who was a border crime reporter at The Monitor and did a lot of in-depth articles about the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. This is a topic I've studied for many years, and there's journalism phenomenom in Mexico known as "citizen-journalism", where journalists and citizens (criminals included) go on social media to report what happens in the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. Mr. Ortiz has done a great job at hashing out the details and showing what happens in the big picture. Same thing goes for blog sources like Borderland Beat. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 22:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's from 2015, so it's not very old. But here are two more recent discussions, both with clear consensus that Breitbart is not normally a reliable source for straightforward statements of fact: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_211#Is Breitbart.com reliable?, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 216#Breitbart News. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- That is a really old discussion. Maybe consensus has changed? I suggest elevation on this as well as Stealth banning. Time for another Long TalkEndercase (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. From past discussions at RSN, there seems to be consensus that Breitbart is not a reliable source for straightforward statements of fact. That discussion doesn't seem to mention the Mexican Drug War as an exception, and I have to imagine Breitbart's coverage of that topic would have the same problems (like exaggerating and twisting the facts) as their coverage of other topics. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)