Talk:Bedfordshire on Sunday

Daily Mail

Regardless of whether or not the Daily Mail is a reliable source (and it is not forbidden to add links to the DM), the fact that the newspaper published nationally what this newspaper published locally is the whole point of the reference. Removing it just because it is published in the Daily Mail removes something of value from this article. Shritwod (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC finding says clearly: the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. It is an unreliable source, and fails to meet the requirements of the policy WP:BURDEN.

If the fact of the DM using the story is noteworthy, you need a non-deprecated source as evidence this is a fact worth noting.

Per the RFC, the DM explicitly can't be used for this purpose. It fails the policy WP:BURDEN. You need to stop spamming it in.

Has anyone else noted the fact anywhere in an RS? - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Reliability concerns aside, how exactly does Daily Mail support the claim that a Bedfordshire on Sunday story was picked up by a national paper? The source makes no mention of this. –dlthewave ☎ 03:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The article in the DM is the article republished in a national newspaper, so simply the article states the story was picked up in the Daily Mail with a link to the supporting evidence. Perhaps interestingly, the actual facts of the story about firefighters being told not to use ladders (from my memory) were disputed and that the DM chose to publish it on the basis of salaciousness rather than anything else is rather telling about the Daily Mail itself. Shritwod (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the DM link, it doesn't support the claim - it fails verification. Is "Bedfordshire On Sunday" mentioned? No, it is not. Shritwod can claim the story was cribbed from BoS - but that's blatant WP:OR. You haven't provided evidence, and the evidence you have provided doesn't support the claim.

And the same for the claim that The Times cribbed the story - that's a dead link. Please bring verifiable evidence.

The "national newspaper" argument doesn't swing it either - as determined in both the Daily Mail RFCs.

So what you're arguing is that a deprecated source should be used to support your original research claim about Bedfordshire on Sunday.

If you have an RS supporting your claim, you've yet to bring it - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the Failed Verification tag. I haven't been able to find anything that supports this claim; I'm willing to give folks a few days to work on it but if it's not sourced then it needs to be removed. –dlthewave ☎ 16:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought this was a discussion about WP:RS, not WP:OR. Which is it? Shritwod (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You're managing to violate multiple policies at a time. I see you've now included the original, which doesn't mention said national newspapers either. The claim is OR. Do you have an RS making the claim in the text? This is not a complicated question. If we don't have such an RS, then the claim needs to be removed, as it's failed challenges under WP:BURDEN, from two editors now. Please produce a reference that actually supports the claim in the text - David Gerard (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Shritwod: Did you verify the existence of the original article? If so, could you at the very least add title and author to the cite so that others can look it up? –dlthewave ☎ 22:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I realise that I hadn't pressed the Submit button for the headline and author date, that has been done. Shritwod (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You're now adding more stories that verify the claim that they were lifted from Bedfordshire on Sunday either. Adding lots of bad cites is WP:REFBOMBing - Another common form of citation overkill is to load an article up with as many sources as possible without regard to whether they actually support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. Please find any cites that directly back the actual claim here - or admit that you don't have any such cites, and the claim can be removed - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The newspaper published the story on the morning of 21st October 2007, subsequently the story was substantially copied by several other publications. If you look at the timeline of investigations then it is obvious who covered the story first, the fact that they didn't cite their source is irrelevant. You did not challenge the claim when you first steamrollered through the article, instead attempting to remove the link under a good faith (but in my view ill-conceived) attempt to deprecate unreliable sources under WP:DAILYMAIL. When challenged about WP:ABOUTSELF which would clearly apply in this case, you then attempted to seek other ways of removing the reference, as well as potentially violating WP:CIVIL by your tone. This is the point where I believe that you have stepped over the line from good faith editing and instead want to remove the reference at any cost. Even a brief search of the stories would have found some alternatives to the DM if you wished to engage in some constructive editing. Shritwod (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

What you're doing here is literally original research, in the Wikipedia policy sense - you're looking at primary sources and putting your synthesised conclusion into article text. There are no secondary sources that support your synthesised claim. Unless you can find a source that makes the claim in the text, what you are doing is literally against policy.

It's not just me - as dlthewave has also noted, I haven't been able to find anything that supports this claim; I'm willing to give folks a few days to work on it but if it's not sourced then it needs to be removed.

Please read WP:NOR and tell me your understanding of how it relates to what you're doing. - David Gerard (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

If you'd actually read the article history you would see that this hitherto wholly uncontroversial claim has been in there for a decade, added by another editor. I am aware of the WP:OR policies, but it seems you weren't fully aware of the WP:DAILYMAIL policies before you edited the article. I trust you have had time to look at them again. Perhaps you can tell me your current understanding of WP:ABOUTSELF? Shritwod (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"we should keep bad content because it's old bad content" is not a good argument, and goes against how Wikipedia works. This was never good content, and being old doesn't make it better. WP:SELFSOURCE is, per its wording, for articles about the source, not articles not about the source - in those, the DM is just another deprecated source. Now your turn: how is what you're doing here not WP:OR? - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Why do you keep on with this blatantly false allegation? I did not add that part of the article, some other editor did. However, I don't believe that it is WP:OR, especially not as written now. The facts are that BoS published it as an exclusive on 21st October 2007 and all the other publications did so afterwards. Admittedly it took some time to dig up that reference to add it, however it is there now. Shritwod (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Working Times link (for future reference, stories with a timesonline.co.uk URL can be found on thetimes.co.uk, often by simply doing a Google search for the name of the story). FDW777 (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I also added the editor's comment showing that the original article (sadly unavailable online) was an exclusive, which clarifies the timeline of publication. Shritwod (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. Do we actually have a source which verifies the claim or not? What we need is a source which either clearly attributes Bedfordshire on Sunday or one which says the story was picked up. IMO BoS is probably reliable enough that we can accept a source from them which says their story was picked up by the national media. What we cannot do it OR. Anything which relies on comparing dates or claims of exclusivity or whatever is clear OR. The fact that someone else added the OR is no excuse to keep it when challenged. I had a look at the Telegraph and can't see where it mentions the BoS but do not have access to the full article. Nil Einne (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

firefighters news reports.

I am a bit confused by the verification issue you imply, are you saying the sources for legit news groups are not verified? The sentence clearly says that the same story was picked up for national news organisations. However I can't see how it adds anything to the article. I think that section should be removed and all those citations removed! I don't think it adds anything important to the article. Govvy (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

See my comment above. Do any of those sources actually mention the BoS or say that BoS's story was picked up by the national media? If they don't, then they do not verify the claim. The fact that a story appeared in the BoS before it appeared in the national media suggests this is probably what happened, but it's WP:OR to make the claim without a source which makes it clear this happened. Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I still think we should remove it all. Govvy (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The point with showing examples of how local news can be picked up by national and international news is important not just for this article, but as an example about how local news fits (or used to fit) into the supply chain for stories of interest. Local newspapers are a dying breed sadly, but the stories they raked up in local communities often made a difference. Consider this article in the Press Gazette about how the lack of local press coverage may have indirectly contributed to the disaster of the Grenfell Tower fireShritwod (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)