Talk:John Franzese Jr.

Daily Mail
Would like to have a consensus on one edit. I've done this once before but the issue has come up with another editor. I stated my reasons on his page but will do so now and make sure it is within bounds. This is the edit in question []. There is nothing defamatory, controversial etc, it simply states John Franzese Jr wife was featured on this TV show on one episode. That's it. If you look at the results of a search [] there is lots of PR stuff and IMDB. One written article which does feature actual writing about the subject verifying, this person was on this TV show is from the Daily Mail. That's the only thing used to source the one statement. The guideline on it is found |about deprecated sources allow for rare exception and that "Editors are also expected to use common sense and act to improve the encyclopedia. If an exception applies, the source can be evaluated and used like any other." Now this may have been a reach but the search results, all promotional, verify this woman was indeed on this TV show. My common sense says ok, it improves the article without compromising overall on quality. Also when looking at WP:NOTRELIABLE, it sates that they can't be used "contentious claims" and further down it mentions one criteria is "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." Ultimately I don't feel like we are compromising on integrity with this one use of that source to say this person was on tv and she is his wife. The person I disagreed with today didn't feel inclined to discuss the situation at all and was rather relying on a hardline no without even the idea of thought of compromise based on the content of the edit at all. I feel there is enough in this one edit and sourcing that it is allowable per the policy and an appropriate use of WP:IAR at worst. It improves the article, not a lot but it does. It doesn't demean or promote either subject. Just seems like an exercise of cutting off the nose to spite our face. Unbroken Chain (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Although you make some strong points to ignore all rules to use Daily Mail, I would still lean on following WP:DAILYMAIL here given that it is such a low quality source. For this article, I am indifferent on its use and don't really mind either way given the information it is citing isn't overly important. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I already challenged your re-addition of the Daily Mail under WP:BURDEN - which is policy. Wikipedia doesn't have many hard policies, but this is one of them. WP:BURDEN says: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. That editor is you. So if you can find a Reliable Source, then by all means put that source in - but the Daily Mail is not in any regard a reliable source - David Gerard (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And that was the discussion stopping point, exemplified pretty well perfectly. Hasn't considered one point. It's a shame that a user with 15 or so years experience can't discuss like a normal editor seen above...Unbroken Chain (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the policy is clear and long-standing, and my long experience suggests following it is a common-sensical idea. If you really, really want an exception to the two general RFCs that concluded the DM is "generally prohibited" - and especially if you want an exception so you can add a Daily Mail reference to a BLP - then trying to get agreement on an article talk page is insufficient, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I'd suggest WP:RSN and/or WP:BLPN.
 * I'm pretty confident in stating that the strong consensus view is that the intersection of "Daily Mail references" and Category:Living people should be an empty set, barring possible WP:BLPSELFPUB or similar remarkable exceptions.
 * If you're really sure you're right, you should be able to argue it at WP:RSN or WP:BLPN - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If a consensus on this situation doesn't emerge I will pursue it further, but I'll start with a RFC. There isn't exactly a flood of people that are flocking to agree with you either, the one person that has commented here said, that either way in this case it wasn't a big deal, they leaned to remove it but what it was sourcing was trivial and not of much importance. If this was saying something that dude was a druggie and the source of the all the informant stuff I'd agree with you hands down, no question. The fact is that it isn't, it is a very situational issue. My replies are a tad delayed at the moment, in the middle of moving and Grad school project will update later today or tomorrow. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are indeed unlikely to get much comment on an out-of-the-way talk page. An RFC on the topic definitely belongs on WP:RSN, which is literally the venue for discussing reliable sourcing - if you run one elsewhere, you should definitely notify RSN - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just use wsj and call it a day? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I searched quite a bit for sourcing on this but missed this. I will update it later tonight, I again apologize for my response delays. Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)