Talk:Atlantis High

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Atlantis High. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310232440/http://www.atlantishigh.com:80/atlantishigh/introduction/introduction_01.html to http://www.atlantishigh.com/atlantishigh/introduction/introduction_01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail review
I removed the review from the Daily Mail, on the grounds that it was a deprecated source (per WP:DAILYMAIL), therefore not a WP:RS as required for WP:V, and WP:UNDUE, as an opinion from a deprecated source.

reverted this, the first time with the grounds "This is an exception: it is sourcing a "review", not an item of fact." and the second with the grounds "the RfC was not absolute".

The claimed exception is not to be found in either RFC conclusion- it's a completely made-up exception - and the second does not respond to the undue nature of the inclusion.

I'm challenging this inclusion under WP:BURDEN, which is policy: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

To meet this burden, WP:BURDEN specifies: it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

The Daily Mail is, prima facie, not a reliable source. Its facts cannot be trusted, and its opinions are from a deprecated source so would prima facie fail WP:UNDUE - which is also policy.

IJBall, this isn't a reliable source, so can't possibly qualify under that criterion. How does it qualify for inclusion under WP:BURDEN? e.g., does something make this review so very important that it's required to meet WP:NPOV? - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a patently absurd interpretation of the RfC – the use of Daily Mail was prohibited as a source because it was not trusted as a factual source. IOW, it should not be used to back up "statements of fact" (and there are exceptions even here, in the WP:DAILYMAIL RfC), esp. in terms of WP:BLPs. I understand this. However, that cannot and should not disallow its use for opinion – doing so is not covered under the RfC, and quite frankly would run afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED. It's a ridiculous interpretation of the RfC. IOW, this isn't being used as a WP:V source – it's being used to demonstrate a "critical opinion" on the show.
 * Now, the reason it is used in the article is because it was literally the only opinion/review coverage of this show I could find. If you want to actually be useful, rather than just removing content without looking for "valid" replacement sourcing (which editors such as yourself have been doing at many articles lately – and which I find downright to be a downright disruptive practice), then please find another "review"-type source for this article. But in the absence of that, the current one should stay so that this one has at least "review"-type source in the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my main interest here is that this article have at least some "critical response" (section) in the article – if somebody can find other reviews, then I would be fine with removing the DM one. But, without other reviews, the DM needs to stay, as the only "review" we've got. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * So, the key RFC finding is: generally prohibited. There is not a loophole in that - you're making one up.
 * Claiming that Wikipedia sourcing policy constitutes censorship frankly sounds bizarre. Are you absolutely sure you really want to make this assertion?
 * If the article only has a single review, and that review is in a deprecated source - a source which is generally prohibited - then I want you to consider that, perhaps, this show is not very notable. In any case, it clearly fails WP:UNDUE. If a deprecated source writes about a show, and nobody else can be bothered reviewing it ... what does that say about the show?
 * This is not a reason to keep the review that seems within the results of the RFC. It also specifically fails to meet WP:UNDUE - your reason for including it is, literally, that nobody except the deprecated source bothered covering the thing. That seems the perfect example of UNDUE.
 * WP:BURDEN is still policy and still applies, even if you claim that literally Wikipedia sourcing policy constitutes "censorship".
 * I note also that there was discussion at WP:RSN a few weeks ago that actually failed to carve out a reviews exception. If you want such an exception, WP:RSN is the place to achieve it - not trying for a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a talk page to make a hole in two broad general RFCs for the sake of the only review of a barely-notable show having been in a deprecated source. Do you think you have a case for such an exception to two broad general RFCs that you're confident you could convince with at WP:RSN or a similar broad venue? - David Gerard (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Still after your responses on all of the above - any of which would be enough to remove the cite, but particularly the bit where you admit that the only review coverage is in a deprecated source, which would seem prima facie evidence it wasn't actually very noteworthy and including a review for the sake of it was WP:UNDUE - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And I'm not interested in participating against your Holy Jihad against every Daily Mail cite (including those that are justified), when it's clear that you are not at all interested in being constructive about this (which, indeed, your previous editing history on the topic shows). Instead of looking for alternate sourcing (which in most cases exist and is easy to find), you'd rather just bulldoze through. (And, no, I didn't say the "only source" – I said the only source I could find online – this series is 20 years old, and it is very likely that there is sourcing out there which is not readily available online – but I'm not in the UK, and wouldn't know where to look for that.) So, no – I'm not interested in participating in your little project, which in no way improves the encyclopedia, which is actually the real point of why were all here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Right, so you're specifically unwilling or unable to defend this cite against all the problems I've noted with it? - btw, it was never broadcast in New Zealand - David Gerard (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This Daily Mail cite is ridiculously bad. It's a plot summary and their entire opinion is "Very odd." It hasn't even got a name on it. Here is literally the whole text:


 * This would fail WP:UNDUE from an RS, let alone from a deprecated source. I've removed it from the article again, though it's fully preserved here on the talk page - this is breathtakingly bad sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)