Talk:Stella (solar vehicles)

challenging Daily Mail under WP:BURDEN as a prima facie unreliable source
keeps edit-warring in a deprecated source, the WP:DAILYMAIL, apparently being unable to find any other source for a claim.

WP:BURDEN - which is policy - says:


 * All content must be verifiable. 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.

, you're repeatedly inserting material that is cited to a source that is so remarkably unreliable that two general RFCs have deprecated it - that is, deemed it unusable on Wikipedia except in truly remarkable circumstances. Per WP:DAILYMAIL:


 * Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.

, repeatedly inserting bad sources - including re-inserting them - is against Wikipedia policy. Do you have a reliable source for the claim, or do you just have the Daily Mail? - David Gerard (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I'm sometimes disappointed when Wikipedians are perhaps overemphasizing rules a bit ?
 * Please keep in mind the five pillars of Wikipedia — especially the "there are no firm rules" bit (WP:5P5).


 * For instance, Strict application of the WP:BURDEN rule would threaten roughly 90% of all text up on Wikipedia today, because it is not directly backed up by an inline citation, I would estimate !?


 * And unreliability of sources applies to many news sources. Every child learns early on, that you shouldn't trust everything you read in printed sources.
 * Categorically singling out one popular news source as "verboten" to use on WP is rather unbelievable to me, and certainly a blatant violation of WP's own rule to assume WP:GOODFAITH.
 * Why not forbid Fox News entirely as well then ?


 * The Daily Mail printed this number twice (in 2014 and in 2017), and it has gone unchallenged since. That's why I deel it deserves the benefit of the doubt.
 * I already included the "better source needed" tag to represent your criticism.

--GeeTeeBee (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a strong argument at Wikipedia. Nor is "but it was bad for ages, why can't it stay bad".
 * Wikipedia doesn't have many hard policies - but WP:V, of which WP:BURDEN is a part, is one of them.
 * If you literally don't have a verifiable RS that backs up this claim when it's challenged (and I'm challenging it here), then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I agree with David Gerard, and User Praxidicae. Please drop that. Sorry. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree that this claim should be challenged and removed if a RS cannot be found to support its inclusion. Note that the source used can be from any language, not just English. Loopy30 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)