Talk:George Sidney Herbert

Daily Mail
, I reverted your removal of the Daily Mail as a source. The Daily Mail article in question was from 1939; as stated by WP:DAILYMAIL, which you linked to in your edit history, "[s]ome editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context". This recalls by you some months ago, which also removed a 1939 source and which was  for the same reason.

The desire to remove the Daily Mail as a source is certainly understandable. At the same time, it would help to treat older Daily Mail articles more generously than newer ones. And it would be even more helpful to look for non-Daily Mail sources which could replace Daily Mail sources, rather than entirely removing all Daily Mail-sourced material. After all, the Daily Mail's demonstrated issues with reliability do not mean that what the Daily Mail reports on is not worth including in Wikipedia; they just mean that better sources are needed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am tempted to chorus 'Hear, hear!' The Daily Mail is older than most present day tabloids - the sins of the Rupert Murdoch era should not be visited upon older editions which are of more historical value.Cloptonson (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)