Talk:Martin Saidler

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Martin Saidler article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Business

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Lingveno (talk · contribs) has been paid by Centralway Numbrs on behalf of Martin Saidler. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. Freelancer via UpWork per this and this COIN thread
pplc (talk · contribs) has been paid by Racosch on behalf of Centralway. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Declaration, see here
Andrewdavidcurran (talk · contribs) has been paid by Centralway. see here
Andrew.centralway (talk · contribs) has been paid by Centralway. Likely sock of Andrewdavidcurran see here
Andrewdjc (talk · contribs) has been paid by Centralway. Likely sock of Andrewdavidcurran see here
Cwsalo (talk · contribs) has been paid by Centralway. here
Jacqueline Cetralway (talk · contribs) has been paid by Centralway on behalf of no. see here
LukeCTRLWAY (talk · contribs) has been paid by Centralway. see here
Poljourno15 (talk · contribs) has been paid by Centralway. see here

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Saiony (talk · contribs) has been paid by Centralway. see here
Lallykloz (talk · contribs) has been paid by Centralway. see here
GustReims (talk · contribs) has been paid by Centralway on behalf of Martin Saidler. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. Freelancer via Upwork, sock of F1F2F2, see here

CoI edits

Hello all,

I've been contacted by someone at Centralway asking me about the CoI tag currently on this article (there's also a couple of requested changes, see below). This is a mildly interesting story, but the bottom line is that they would like to do things the right way (after doing it many times the wrong way).

There are basically three articles related to the company: Martin Saidler (founder), Centralway and Centralway Numbrs. It appears that over the years a number of employees have been editing the company articles: the gentleman I spoke with told me that Andrewdavidcurran (talk · contribs) and Jacqueline Cetralway (talk · contribs) most certainly belonged to former employees (and for the former I would add Andrew.centralway (talk · contribs) and Andrewdjc (talk · contribs)). He could not tell me about LukeCTRLWAY (talk · contribs), Poljourno15 (talk · contribs), Cwsalo (talk · contribs), Saiony (talk · contribs) and Lallykloz (talk · contribs) who also edited in the past: it's a reasonable bet that they were close to the company, but probably not part of his department (or gone before he arrived; in any case they haven't edited in ages and unlikely to come back and confirm one way or the other). He also told me about two Upwork contracts (300 USD each): one with Lingveno (talk · contribs) for the present article (see above), and another one with a guy whose username he did not know - by the look of it, I'd say the person behind GustReims (talk · contribs) (apparently sockpuppet of F1F2F2 (talk · contribs), now banned). I've updated the talk pages of Centralway and Centralway Numbrs with the appropriate declarations for Andrew and Jacqueline, with a note redirecting people to the present section. For the others, I leave it to others to make the call.

All in all, there is a genuine and good faith effort at coming out clean and trying to do things the right way (having new people helps): they've only asked to upload a picture of M.Saidler (OTRS ~~pending~~ cleared) for the article, and remove the University of Vienna from the Infobox (he never graduated, as indicated in the second sentence of the career section).

@Doc James: in light of the above, I'm pinging you as you've put the CoI banners here and on Centralway Numbrs (anyone else: feel free to pitch in). The present article has apparently already been scrubbed clean of non-factual info, and the appropriate declarations made. What do you think? Pplc (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that these articles are written by someone (a group of people) for pay. This is Wikipedia, we do not really allow "ads". We are supposed to be independent. These articles are not and thus they are tagged.

They have also not disclosed all the account that they have paid... So not exactly coming clean. If they did not wanted tagged articles they should not have bought them. They are simple contributing to our sock puppet problem. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No offense meant, but I think you have an unreasonable expectation that people should spontaneously know the rules : of the accounts above, three at least tried to add "centrlway" to their usernames, so there hardly is a concerted attempt to hide things. Wikipedia's very design encourages wannabe editors to directly try their hands at editing. For the undisclosed professional paid editor who gave them a bad job I guess they should sue, but that's not very realistic either.

Now, as far as the present article is concerned:

the tag seems unwarranted as the CoI declaration was properly made when creating the article (else the author should have been blocked, which he hasn't; the other guy with a blocked account was active elsewhere). No SPA edited here either;
the photo has been released under a CC-license; and
there is an incorrect claim that does need to be corrected.

As indicated earlier, for the other two articles I don't know what to do for the CoI declarations (include all suspect accounts, or not?). I haven't looked in details but the tone and content seem factual and neutral enough, which should be the most important part. Pplc (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the tag, for no other reason than that it does not meet the criteria for its addition, as laid out clearly at Template:COI#When to use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it. This article was written by someone with a conflict of interest without a full review by someone without. Hiring someone to come and get the tag removed is not how things work.

The policy says "If the article/ edit also has problems with neutrality, however, then use of the tag is likely appropriate."

No ref for example supports this text "He has also worked on projects to improve access to financial services that led to a meeting with former president Shimon Peres at the Peres Center for Peace in 2016."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I've removed it again, for the same reason as before. Please read the template's documentation before using it again, on any article. They include: "Do not use this tag if you can quickly solve the problem, e.g., by removing peacocking and puffery..." (emboldening in original). And please refrain from splitting this discussion over multiple talk pages. Finally, please strike your utterly bogus insinuation that I was "hired" to remove the tag. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger concern is what is left out. The person in question requests all positive details placed. Without a neutral person looking at the person in question we are not going to get a neutral article.

No one said User:Pigsonthewing was hired to remove the tag, what was said is User:Pplc was hired to remove the tag. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you said it; I said you insinuated it, since I alone (and of my own volition) removed the tag. Strike it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it or insinuated it. But have adjusted the wording.

Details that are missing include those discussed here[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...I alone (and of my own volition) removed the tag. No you didn't, you're doing it on behalf of a COI. Whether you're getting a cheque is immaterial, so all the Wikilawyering in the world doesn't change the validity of the COI tag. --Calton | Talk 05:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitionary has a good definition of "volition". HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest tags

I've added a conflict of interest and advert tag to this article. This signifies to readers that the article has been extensively edited by someone with a conflict of interest, and is likely to have bias, in the form of missing negative content, overemphasis on "positives", non-neutral language (all of which are violations of the WP:NPOV content policy), and is likely to have unsourced or poorly sourced content, in violation of the WP:VERIFY content policy. It is likely that the content promotes the subject of the article, in violation of the WP:PROMO policy. Independent editors need to review the article and correct it, and then may remove the tag. If you do so, please leave a note here. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the {{COI}} template's documentation before using it again, as you did so in error on this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I work with it more than you do. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from authority; how droll. If you use the template so much, all the more reason why you should learn about your error regarding its use. As for your post on my talk page, I'm utterly unimpressed by your asinine threats. Bring it on. Far better you waste your time investigating me, than smearing BLP subjects with miss-applied "badges of shame". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is it not appropriate to include it? We know it was written by a paid editor whose articles have from experience been less than exemplary in terms of sourcing and NPOV. Unless you have reviewed all the sources cited, as well as reviewing what others are available, then is completely appropriate to include the COI tag as a warning to readers. This is in no way a "badge of shame" as you contest ~~and to suggest that it can't be used on BLPs is frankly ridiculous.~~ SmartSE (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From Template:COI/doc:

Do not use this tag simply to mark an article which you believe or even know with certainty was created or edited by someone with a conflict of interest if the editor with the conflict has already made a declaration about this on his/ her userpage, the article talk page, or in a COI edit summary, as this disclosure makes use of the tag redundant. If the article/ edit also has problems with neutrality, however, then use of the tag is likely appropriate.
Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning.

Can someone explain to me just what the non-neutral passages are in the article text? and I'll volunteer to clean them up myself, if nobody else is going to. Smartse I don't see where the editors placing the tag started a discussion or explained just what the non-neutrality consisted of. In those circumstances, what would be the point of the second paragraph I quoted above, if not to allow the removal of the tag? --RexxS (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: Just choosing something at random, currently this source is used to reference He subsequently sold off the companies to various major firms including Axel Springer, Daily Mail UK, CME (Time Warner), Deutsche Telekom, Tamedia, MCI, Jelmoli, and others.[2]. First problem, regardless of sourcing is that this is promotional name-dropping of large important companies. Second problem, the source is an interview with the subject which is not a brilliant source of information. Most seriously however, is that none of that information can actually be found in the source - i.e. it's a fake reference. From my experience with the editor who wrote this, this is a common occurrence and obviously if they are just inventing content out of thin air, potentially received directly from the subject, then the content cannot be NPOV. As I said before, all the content needs to be checked like this, and until it has been, the COI tag should remain in place. SmartSE (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse: Thank you. I had assumed that the original placement of the tag had followed a source checking, so I would have hoped that the list of problems would already be available (to avoid duplicated effort). If that's not the case, then perhaps we can use the remaining few days of full protection to create such a list here – forcing discussion is normally the point of protection.

In that specific example, I quickly found that the third reference http://www.boersenpoint.de/boersenblog/blog/martin-saidler-der-erfolgreichste-online-unternehmer-der-schweiz-1793041/ supported the sales to Daily Mail, Axel Springer, and Time Warner, but I agree that such confusion smacks of having a prepared script, rather than working from the sources. That makes it worth investigation. I'm going to suggest a copyedit to clean out the extensive name-dropping in two other places. We almost certainly don't need "including ..." followed by seven names and " ... and others"! At most one example of a notable company would be DUE in each case, IMHO. --RexxS (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Doc James, but I certainly add coi tags without listing every single problem on the talk page first. While ideally we would do so, in practice there are so many articles affected that we barely have time to find them and tag them, let alone list every problem. Feel free to create a list, but the topic of this current discussion is whether or not Andy was justified in removing the COI tag, which he clearly was not. SmartSE (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not listing everything is fine, but you should be posting at least one problem on the talk page when you add this tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Smartse, but Andy was clearly justified. You seriously can't read if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning any other way.

The topic of this discussion is how to improve the article. You can save aspersions about editor behaviour for elsewhere. --RexxS (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse: I have never claimed that "it can't be used on BLPs", so please do not misquote me. What I have pointed out is that using it contrary to the criteria in its documentation (which I linked to, and which RexxS has kindly quoted in part above (the highlighting is in the original, BTW); and another part of which does indeed refer to the misuse of the template as a "badge of shame", hence my use of quote marks), breached WP:BLP. Note also that "it was written by a paid editor whose articles have from experience been less than exemplary" is not one of those criteria for using this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True... my mistake. You are still saying that adding the tag is a BLP violation which I disagree with in the strongest possible way. The "badge of shame" thing is about tagging an article that is 100 % ok content wise, purely because it has been edited by a COI editor, but this is clearly not the case here as outlined above. You've made zero effort to verify anything, and yet have declared that the article is NPOV. Template documentation is not policy or even a guideline and given the previous problems I've found with Lingveno's work, adding a tag to an article until it has been reviewed is prudent. SmartSE (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue as I previously mentioned is that this article is not neutral. Ie notable details are missing that are less than positive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is how PR works. You state all the positive wonderful things about your client and than simple leave out anything you do not want to be seen. What one gets is non neutral non indepedent content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still utterly irrelevant to your misuse of the {{COI}} template. And Saider is not my client - that's another snide insinuation which you should strike. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? We have 12 accounts that have a COI. I am NOT talking about you Andy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You replied to my comment - no-one else's - with "...this is how PR works. You state ... your client ", and the rest of your ad hominem smear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Take it to ANI if you wish. The "you" refers to those involved in "PR" not Andy Mabbett. If I meant Andy Mabbett I would have written that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No that's not what I'm saying, as I have just pointed out. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy what you wrote above was smearing BLP subjects with miss-applied "badges of shame". You just completely misrepresented your argument. More wikilawyering bullshit. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument is consistent. Your comment makes no sense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are confusing the article with the person. There is no doubt, whatsoever, that this page has been heavily trafficked by paid editors (like yourself) who have come here to promote their CEO. You have not said - not once - that you yourself took the effort to go look for sources to make sure that the article is actually NPOV. The COI tag says explicitly that it may require cleanup. Since you did not actually check, your edit warring has nothing to do with WP or its policies. Not a damn thing. It is pure wikifriend bullshit with no integrity. Not a drop. It is remarkable that your focus is purely on your wikifriend's paying client and not on the actual content, nor on our readers. Remarkable. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

one of the sources in the article even talks about how Wikipedia has been manipulated to promote him. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Think you got your links mixed up as I can't see any mention in there but the 2014 piece in SonntagsZeitung does mention it. SmartSE (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More on the template's documentation

Doc James is now edit-warring ([2],[3]) to remove some of the wording that cautions against applying the template in the manner that he did on this article - the first half of the wording quoted by RexxS, above. It is ironic not only that he should do so after complaining of me edit warring, but that he should do so when he clearly has a conflict of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That really needs to be discussed on its merits at Template talk:COI #When not to use this template?. It will not be solved by edit-warring. --RexxS (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you could join the conversation on that talk page. Reverting without discussion is frowned upon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is. As is WP:BRDR

. Nevertheless, I've tried to make a contribution there. I'd like to see some compromise wording you could both agree on. More eyes welcome. --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy's perspective on this is not mainstream and will not get consensus as we go improve the documentation. We need to fix the documentation so it cannot be wikilawyered in this way. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I thought the mainstream view on virtually all maintenance templates is "No discussion = No tag". Otherwise it's not fair on those editors trying to clean up. It's great if the tagger does the clean-up, of course, but the tag ought to be attracting other editors to help. Getting them started and filling in the background seems to me the most courteous, and ought to improve the chances of getting those other editors to join in. --RexxS (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the tag was first added in this diff on 18 September 2017, which was the fourth edit to the page. The article was created directly in mainspace with no review, with the paid editor disclosing in their edit note. Any editor looking at the article and its history for a half a second can see the reason for the tag; of course an article created directly in mainspace that is the product of paid editing needs a basic review done.

This principle was confirmed in the just-closed arbcom case, which stated in its second principle:

Because Wikipedia is intended to be written from a neutral point of view, it is necessary that conflicts of interest are properly disclosed, and articles or edits by conflicted editors are reasonably available for review by others. Editors are expected to comply with both the purpose and intent of the applicable policies, as well as their literal wording.

In this case the tag is what signals that the article needs that review -- it is what makes this page "available" for review. This is neither controversial nor even hard to understand. The fact that no independent editor wanted to volunteer their time to assuage the concerns of a paid editor, in a way that met whatever timeframe paid editor is working within and who was focused solely on removing the tag, has nothing to do with the need for review signified by the tag. Pigsonthewing has no leg here. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What part of if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning., conveniently highlighted in yellow both in the original and twice in quotes given above, are you having trouble grasping? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your position here is fringe. You can highlight and bold things all you want. I suggest you get oriented to the realities of Wikipedia in 2018. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what is quite interesting is that when you parachuted in, in response to the request from your wikifriend, and removed the tag, and made your first comment here on talk, there was already significant ongoing discussion about why the tag was needed. No independent editor had done the needed review yet. Your pal had indeed disclosed the heavy trafficking by conflicted editors and Doc james had already explained the problems. You really have no leg. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only specific content discussed is a note about a single referenced statement (to which no {{Cn}} had even been added), made after my first post here. Nothing "significant"; nothing whatsoever about what was supposedly non-neutral. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog: "In this case the tag is what signals that the article needs that review -- it is what makes this page "available" for review" - No it isn't. That tag is an invitation for other uninvolved editors to help resolve concerns that have been expressed in discussion. You'll get no consensus for slapping tags on articles merely on the suspicion that something may be wrong with it. By acting so far beyond what is considered reasonable by most editors, you risk alienating the vast majority of uninvolved editors when we go after the genuinely problematic paid editors. The end most often does not justify the means and you need to appreciate that. You make the case that specific text is POV and you'll have my support 100% to apply tags, recruit uninvolved helpers and do whatever we have to in order to clean-up. Heck, I've even volunteered to work on specific problems that Smartse identified – and I'll keep that promise. But in the time you've been prosecuting an non-existent case here, you could have listed a dozen issues that we could have agreed to fix. What's your priority here? --RexxS (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. But in any case his should be discussed further at the template; we are far afield from discussing how to improve this article, which is what this page is for. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think Jytdog has made a good case here. Aspro (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refresh cache

I've updated the infobox image (portrait crop). Normally I would do a dummy edit to refresh the cache, but I can't since the page is currently protected. Please do a dummy edit for me. Cheers. nagualdesign 01:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. nagualdesign 02:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone involved, and I am sorry it escalated so quickly and so aggressively. I'll leave it there so everyone can cool off. Cheers, Pplc (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is only beginning. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cite news access dates

This article relies heavily on {{Cite news}}, whose documentation says:

access-date: Full date when the content pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article... should be used for links to news articles on commercial websites (these can change from time to time, even if they are also published in a physical medium).

So I am at a loss to understand why all such access dates were removed from this article with an edit summary of "trim access date parameter clutter from refs that have a dateline". Absent a valid justification for this action, they should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Access dates are not needed on citations that have datelines and are just clutter. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have missed what I quoted above, from the documentation of {{Cite news}}, so here it is again: should be used for links to news articles on commercial websites. You'll understand, I'm sure, that I think it better to believe the template's documentation (which has included that guidance since July 2012) over your unsubstantiated assertion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Jytdog, but you're mistaken. Acccess dates are an invaluable aid to recovering dead links on news sites because they specify a date at which the news article was live. That makes it far easier to retrieve a working version from archive.org, in particular the version used by the editor writing the content. I do understand that you're used to academic journals whose url/pmid/doi is very stable, but newspapers regularly archive their articles or otherwise fiddle with the url, so we add access dates for them. I saw your removal, and rather than revert, I went though and checked all 29 sources. Only one of them was a dead link for me, so I added today's date for those that I was able to verify, and restored the original access date for one. --RexxS (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup the internet archive bot uses these I think when it pulls archive links. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]