Talk:Calendargate

Too many primary sources, risk of SYNTH
This article is heavy on non-RS commentary and risks becoming a WP:SYNTH essay. We shouldn't be featuring tweets as cites, for example. That someone wrote something on the Internet doesn't mean including it is WP:DUE.

What would this article look like if it were cut down to claims directly cited to third-party solid RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you explain more specifically how this becomes SYNTH, with examples from the text? I have tried very hard to avoid that; are we to presume that simply a plenitude of directly quoted text from participants in both sides becomes SYNTH at some point no matter how it's worded? If that is so, then we ought post haste to revise SYNTH so it says that explicitly.
 * I might be willing to cut it down to mostly third-party sources (and I've got some more that I haven't cited yet), because I have found a few that reiterate some of the broader themes sounded in the debate. But I do think some of the tweets should be cited directly so we can demonstrate their existence independent of the sources when those sources get accused (as they inevitably do, when they involve coverage of the many subjects of this article and their political movements) of fabricating the screenshots entirely. Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * so? We (generally) trust the RSes. If they say a tweet happened, bad-faith actors can say whatever they like.
 * these sources are terrible. Black Tea News appears to be a one-person gossip blog. Newsweek post-2013. Jabberwocking is a personal blog. Fox is listed as generally unreliable for political coverage. Christian Headlines is a group blog.
 * I might have a hack at what I can make of it today (and not just complain) - David Gerard (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Does our general aversion to Fox News as a source extend to Fox Business? The language at WP:RS/PS explicitly says Fox News, and we have specifically exempted Fox affiliates from that deprecation. It to me follows that Fox Business cannot be considered to have been covered by that statement.
 * Looking through the RS/N archives, I find no discussion specifically taking on the reliability of Fox Business save this one ... and as you can see it was closed quickly because the basis for the challenge wasn't one we consider valid. Unless there is some clearly stated principle somewhere that separate media outlets under the same brand inherit a determination of deprecation, I cannot consider the deprecation of Fox News to de facto extend to Fox Business.
 * Also, re Jabberwocking, Kevin Drum has long been a published journalist in Mother Jones and has blogged for the Washington Monthly as well. That comes under "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" per WP:SPS, and thus per RSOPINION. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Maybe? It's a bit gossipy still IMO. YMMV I guess if it doesn't engage BLP - David Gerard (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Which "it" were you referring to? Drum or Fox Business? Daniel Case (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Jabberwocking. If a professional journalist self-publishes, it's prima facie still just a blog not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since all I used from it was an opinion, really, I think it's OK. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Test revision restricted to RSes
I did a test version (and self-reverted), which you can see in the page history.

The RS list is very short. The only plausible RSes I could find in Google News for this topic were Vox, Daily Dot and Mediaite - and the latter two are very gossipy IMO, Vox is by far the most substantial RS here.

I didn't add it, but this NRO column might be usable as a relevant conservative RSOPINION. The Salon piece would be prima facie RSOPINION - but it doesn't really add new facts, so I left it out.

I cut down the story of the Bud Light boycott as we already have a linked article on it, and we shouldn't use refs in an article that aren't about the topic.

Newsweek post-2013 is a trashy source and listed as GUNREL. Black Tea News is just a pile of unencyclopedic gossip, so I cut all that.

Mediaite is very gossipy as a source but probably usable?

In any case, tell me what you think of the posited cut-down version. Could add NRO and Salon in a commentary or reception section as RSOPINION - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I was planning to do exactly that ... I knew I should have developed this in draftspace. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It works ... I have removed the tags since your edits more than addressed all the relevant issues.
 * I have a couple of hours left to nominate it for DYK. Would you be OK with being named as a coauthor? Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since you hadn't replied and the deadline was at hand, I went ahead and did it ... I can take your name out if you'd like. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * cool, thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)