Talk:Bot Sentinel

Separate 2 activities of Bot Sentinel -- please read
I'm changing my talk page submission for this article to try to focus my warning about WP:NOR the article is changing quickly. I still have a pet peeve not only about this article, about the notion in this and some other articles about the phrase "research shows" or "research found." That these statements at top level constitute orig research if they could be interpreted like the wikiedia editor is doing a literature review, unless they are about some objective fact, so it would not be orig. research, and quite appropriate, to say "bot sentinel found that 43% of accounts were robots," but by contrast it would be orig. research (and not OK) to say "Research found that Biden is disgusting," or "the report found that 23% of accounts were inappropriate," in the latter case the Wikipedia editor has to clarify that the article is not a literature review, not a meta analysis of research, and explicitly state that such-and-such secondary source or meta review (not the actions of Wikipedia) determines or claims that research shows that Biden is disgusting. Createangelos (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing up this article, I think it is a valuable addition to Wikipedia.Createangelos (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Egisca
Is there any reliable source that connects Bot Sentinel to Egisca (see e.g. this edit)? I haven't found any. Currently the article only includes a reference to PRWeb, a site that publishes press releases. The source was published years before Bot Sentinel was founded, and obviously doesn't mention Bot Sentinel. Hence, connecting Bot Sentinel to Egisca is original research and not good. Politrukki (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As there has been no response, I'm removing the content about Egisca per no original research policy. Politrukki (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2023
Please change "who runs an anti-Amber Heard[4] YouTube channel named NateTheLawyer" to "who runs a legal analysis YouTube channel named NateTheLawyer." The YouTube channel covers a broad range of legal issues, not specific to Amber Heard. Whether Nathaniel Broughty is "anti-Amber Heard" is an opinion and has no place on Wikipedia.

User:Isi96, who repeatedly edits the page to insert this opinion appears to be strongly biased and should be barred from making any further edits to this page. Graburn (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please respond to this edit request thanks Lightoil (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Isi96 (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That description of Broughty was a bit shocking to read, and it discredits Wikipedia when its editors refuse to change it. Broughty has been making content for years, and his channel has little to do with Amber Heard. Its primary focus is legal analysis, as noted in the law.com article [link] that's cited on this very page. There's also an article in Forbes [link] from back in 2020 that discusses his analyses of other legal topics and trials at the time. Millions of people were following the Depp v Heard trial; of course it would be covered by YouTubers and other commentators whose primary focus is on legal analyses. Just because he covered it and milked its popularity doesn't mean that's the main focus of his channel. This is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.146.236.42 (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ The source in question does not describe the channel that way. Like anything else, the channel should be described on Wikipedia as it is by reliable sources; no editor's opinions, commentary, or analysis of the channel are relevant here. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Actualcpscm The "anti-Amber Heard" descriptor was sourced to an article from The Information (there's even a quote, "One anti-Heard YouTuber, NateTheLawyer...") Isi96 (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I must have either missed that this is pay-walled and thus incomplete or missed this source entirely. Weird, thanks for pointing it out.
 * I currently cannot verify this myself due to the paywall, I would suggestmy opinion! that we keep the neutral wording until someone can verify this, largely because the repeated reverts indicate that other editors have objected to it. I wouldn't undo your edit again, though, my bad on that.
 * Assuming that this is the wording used by the source and the reverting editors also lacked access to the source, I think the channel is best summarised as "legal analysis" or "legal commentary", as it has been described elsewhere, but the stance taken on the legal proceedings that led to the lawsuit ("anti-Amber Heard") is certainly relevant and should be included somehow. What do you think? Actualcpscm (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Actualcpscm I actually added the quote myself from the source (I briefly had access to the article). You could request access to the article via WP:SOURCEACCESS.
 * As for the descriptor, I believe that the "anti-Amber Heard" descriptor is the best one; the Law.com article just mentions that Broughty runs a YouTube channel, and the Forbes article is by a contributor (WP:FORBESCON). Isi96 (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delta ∆ (You changed my mind!) Actualcpscm (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)