Talk:World on Fire (TV series)

Deleted Edit
Why have my edits on its criticism been removed. The series was widely condemned for its Woke agenda and for pushing a BBC driven PC view?
 * You have forgotten to sign your question. I can’t speak for the removing editor, but looking at your edit, you cannot rely on the Daily Mail article, as an unreliable (and clearly, in this instance, highly partial) source.  The Daily Telegraph article is almost entirely about historical accuracy and doesn’t support the wording you added to the article. I would add that your phrasing suggests you may have an agenda to pursue, since it wasn’t really in neutral encyclopaedic style.  Further, you made the edit to the wrong place in the article.  I hope this is helpful. MapReader (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

User:MapReader seems to be removing both my and former editor’s edits which show that the series’historical accuracy has been criticised in major UK news publications. MapReader is clearly claiming ownership of page, which is in violation of Wikipedia’s rules. See Ownership of content. reinthal (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

User:MapReader has claimed that Peter Hitchens is not a reliable source for an encyclopaedia. However MapReader is happy to let Lucy Mangan’s review from the Guardian stand. This is clearly inconsistent. In fact, since Peter Hitchens is a published author of a popular history book on Britain in WWII, i.e. The Phoney Victory, his criticism of this series which, after all, is set in the events in WWII cannot be discounted and removed from this Encyclopaedia just because one editor dismisses Mr Hitchens’ 50 year career in journalism, nor because of the fact that he is the author of a half dozen published non-fiction books, mainly about Britain in the 20th and 21st centuries. reinthal (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is quite possible that the earlier IP editor was your sock puppet, given the similarity of the content added to this article. But, even if not, there is no requirement to be “consistent” between the Guardian and the Daily Mail (or Mail on Sunday), since one is listed under WP policy as a reliable source and the other is specifically listed as an unreliable one. In any event, if you wish to challenge WP policy on referencing from the Mail, you need to take the issue elsewhere.  Edit-warring on this page is not acceptable; you are already in breach of 3RR and I will file a report later after giving you a few hours to reflect and self-revert. MapReader (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That is not the case. The June 2020 editor was someone else entirely. Actually, it is you, MapReader, who is in violation the three revert rule and you have already been notified on your personal talk page. Please check. reinthal (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Mail on Sunday
Edit warring aside, I believe the Mail on Sunday is still considered reliable. WP:DAILYMAIL does not cover the MoS; while these aren't completely different papers, they're also not the same. Unless there is a clear policy stating it's not reliable that I may have missed, it should stay. —  Czello  19:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet Mailonline, which takes material from them both, is covered. Looking back at the two RfCs, this potential confusion was flagged both times in the comments, but never resolved by the outcomes. The political stance of the two papers may differ (occasionally), but their general approach to fact versus polemic isn’t that different. MapReader (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So we have a Venn diagram situation here I think, in that some, but not all, of MoS content may appear on Mail Online. Indeed, their political views are similar, but that's not the issue -- the issue is the level of reliability of the paper itself. MoS generally is held to a higher standard; but regardless, there is no policy on Wikipedia against the MoS. —  Czello  20:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Follow the link in this particular citation: it takes you straight to a page with the Mailonline logo at the top. Then read the actual article.  It’s polemic, but TBF does have a few interesting points to make.  But serious or academic analysis of the facts of the matter, it ain’t.  Hitchens is notorious as a polemicist and, while the cross-reference from this article isn’t worth dying in a ditch over, the citation nevertheless exemplifies many of the reasons why WP decided that the Mail is not an RS. MapReader (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hovered over it and saw "https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/", but didn't click it. Now I see it actually does go to Mail Online -- fair enough. —  Czello  21:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, the problem seems to stem from us crediting Lucy Mangan's positive view of the series, and wanting to adhere to WP:NPOV by providing an alternative viewpoint. Did anyone else share Hitchens' view? I think my views tally with MapReader, it's not a hill I want to die on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * MoS might be, but Peter Hitchens is not. There's a review in the NYT here, LA Times here. Reactions are almost universally positive (83% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes) but there's a huge negative response from people of... a certain political persuasion. Cherry-picking Hitchens - neither an historian not a TV critic - just because he hates it, is WP:FALSEBALANCE, not balance as such. Guy (help!) 09:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)