Talk:The Daily Sceptic

Lead edits

Hi @Rwatson1955, why do you keep changing the lead? The cited sources support the assertion that the website publishes misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, it's not just an accusation. Isi96 (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You say it yourself: 'support the assertion' that is not a fact and the information about vaccines is correct and The Daily Sceptic checks its sources and statistics very carefully. The sources you cite are biased against the editor of TDS and also will not publish data on vaccine harms (demonstrable by VAERS and Yellow Card systems) their ineffectiveness (~1% ARR) and that they are the most probably cause of excess deaths. Governments across the world will eventually investigate and when they do I'll change it again,. Meantime, have a nice day! Rwatson1955 (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The cited sources are reliable. Also, reports from sources such as VAERS and the Yellow Card system are unreliable due to being user-submitted and unverified: [1][2] It also seems like you have a conflict of interest, as your article mentions that you are a contributor to the website. Isi96 (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliable does not always might that they are right. Simply slapping the "reliable" label on a source because they used to give you good info, doesn't cut it. If the article used as a source is bogus, it's bogus, no matter where it's coming from. Similarly, calling something fringe is not sufficient to discredit it. The original article DOES have the graphs that reuters claims is misread and it does not explain that it cannot be read as it is presented. Claiming that the daily sceptic is pedling misinformation is simply dishonest. If the authors of the article wanted the data to be read in a particular way, they should present the data so that it is hard to read it any other way. They have neither done so, nor have the updated the article to explain how to read the graphs. Since the articles does not provide the data it is discussing to the reader, the only information available is the graphs. The reading from the daily sceptic must be the only reasonable one that the author could ever have expected anyone to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

If you think that you can convince any experienced Wikipedian to reject a reliable source on your say-so, even with a far stronger argument than "they could be wrong", but without giving us a reliable source, you are very, very wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, you need to read WP:WAR and WP:BRD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

And after that, when you have self-reverted to prevent a user block: WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to controversial topics like global warming, claims of "misinformation" are typically just a way to try to censor information that the people crying "misinformation" disagree with, or prejudice readers against that information.

Over time, the overuse/misuse of this tactic will likely just cause many people to disregard assertions that something is "misinformation", which is of course not helpful when it comes to raising awareness about REAL misinformation. Starchild (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You have been misinformed. Climate change is not controversial within science. Denial of it is WP:FRINGE and misinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Volcanoes

Isi96 added in a "Climate change denial" section on 17 June 2023 A May 2023 Daily Sceptic article claimed that underwater volcanoes could cause global warming which is otherwise attributed to human activities, and that climate models do not take volcanic activity into consideration. etc. This is false. The source is an article by Nikolaj Kristensen in logicallyfacts.com with headline = Mapping of the seabed does not prove underwater volcanoes to be the cause of human-made global warming. Since I doubted that the Daily Sceptic author is so breathtakingly stupid as to claim that humans make volcanoes, I looked for the original article, which logicallyfacts.com doesn't link to (there's waving at Facebook which I didn't find), but Daily Sceptic in May indeed published Scientists Uncover the Role of Undersea Volcanoes in Climate Change – But the Media Don’t Want to Know. And lo, it does not even say that volcanoes contribute enough CO2 to be globally significant for warming. It does say that eruptions can cause local warming affecting currents and marine life, and that researchers think seamounts can influence ocean circulation. So I favour removal, and of course Isi96 needs consensus. So let's see who else says remove or keep. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The linked article is an example of climate change denial. Climate change denial, as is common with other fringe topics, often uses evasive, loaded, or misleading language. Expecting the article to say that volcanoes contribute enough CO2... is unrealistic and misguided, as well as shifting the goal posts. Still, in this case, the pseudoscience is almost front-and-center anyway. The Daily Skeptic article cites climate change conspiracy theorist Joanne Nova as a "science writer", and specifically quotes her "sarcastically" attributing warming volcanoes and not rising CO2. The story is presenting a pseudoscientific narrative. Like most conspiracy theories, it warps and decontextualizes isolated facts to allow insecure and ideologically sympathetic readers to come to a predetermined conclusion. That it doesn't outright say 'man-made climate change is a lie' is merely half-assed plausible deniability. Grayfell (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"Climate change denial"

Questioning whether human activity is driving climate change is not "climate change denial". Scientific critics of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory do not deny that earth's climate changes naturally, and has been changing throughout the planet's existence. Starchild (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Climate change denial explains the meaning of the term well, which is different from your interpretation of it. For example "Climate change denial (also global warming denial) is a form of science denial characterized by rejecting, refusing to acknowledge, disputing, or fighting the scientific consensus on climate change." and "Many issues that are settled in the scientific community, such as human responsibility for global warming, remain the subject of politically or economically motivated attempts to downplay, dismiss or deny them—an ideological phenomenon academics and scientists call climate change denial". JaggedHamster (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Starchild, would you mind putting a "==[New Topic]==" line before your post so it's clearly separate from the "Volcanoes" thread? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Starchild: Perhaps you missed my request because I didn't ping? The idea is "Make a new heading for a new topic" per WP:TALKNEW. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Seeing no reply I added =="Climate change denial"==. Please use the Volcanoes thread to discuss the narrow topic described at the start of the Volcanoes thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is misleading

This is not an article about a website, this is a hitpiece attack on one.

The Daily Sceptic is a site that covers a range of topics, and that posts highly accurate information regarding those topics in addition to some potentially less reliable information.

The article on here selectively picks out the tiniest subset of its content and portrays the site based only on that. It's disgraceful and far more misleading than anything the Daily Sceptic posts. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The article reflects the sources we have. That is how Wikipedia works. If you have other reliable sources talking about TDS, bring them. Until then, there is nothing we can do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Then delete the page. It's adding no value. It's a political attack against a website, and not remotely close to being an objective informative description of that website.

Source: Read the website. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You need a valid reason to delete the page. WP:IDLI is not a valid reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

G10 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion

Valid reason and entirely and completely applicable. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Not applicable. G10 says entirely negative in tone and unsourced. The article is not unsourced. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

G10 includes that in its 'or', should the prior conditions not apply.

The prior conditions do apply.

"Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose" is very clear.

But then the explanatory text also states "Examples of "attack pages" may include: [...] material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person". At no point does it exclude attack pages that include material intended purely to disparage their subject.

This article is intended purely to disparage its subject. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Examples of "attack pages" may include: libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced

The intention is not "to harass or intimidate a person", it is to repeat what reliable sources are saying. The article is not even about a person, it is about a fake news site. It is our duty to inform the reader about that. Of course, the liars themselves and their fans do not like that, but WP:NOTCENSORED. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, basic English skills. "May include" means it's examples and not an exhaustive list. We agree, this is indeed not intending to harass or intimidate a person.

Allow me please to point out nonetheless precisely why this page qualifies:

"Pages that disparage [..] their subject [..] and serve no other purpose"

What other purpose does this article serve? 81.110.254.162 (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Be aware that calling The Daily Sceptic a 'fake news site' is actionable defamation in the UK.

It very clearly is a news site, and it provides links to the things it posts articles on so that you can verify its posts for yourself.

Your continued support for this hitpiece is something I shall now discount as I do not perceive you providing a fair and objective viewpoint. I'll see if I can find a Wikipedia member of staff with whom to pursue the deletion conversation. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find a Wikipedia member of staff Good luck with that. In the meantime I suggest that you read WP:RS, which will help you to understand what material is (or is not) appropriate for Wikipedia pages. You should also read WP:NLT - really, read it - because is actionable defamation could easily be interpreted as a legal threat, for which you can be blocked. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Quite how drawing attention to actionable defamation is a threat is beyond me. If anything I'm providing assistance to help prevent action, as the individual involved can now assess whether they're comfort incurring that risk. I do also notice that you haven't addressed that this page entirely contravenes G10 on the criteria for speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.254.162 (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It is "beyond you" because you did not read the linked page WP:NLT, especially the section "Perceived legal threats". --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

actionable defamation in the UK - Simon Singh has a similar story about people happily promoting bogus treatments. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Antarctica

Isi96 has added that a January 2023 Daily Sceptic article about an Antarctic study was claiming that it proved that human-driven climate change is an "unproven hypothesis". That's a quote so per MOS:LWQWP:RS/QUOTE Isi96 should have linked to the article, but didn't, but I found it, it's Scientists Struggle to Understand Why Antarctica Hasn’t Warmed for Over 70 Years Despite Rise in CO2. It actually says "The lack of warming over a significant portion of the Earth undermines the unproven hypothesis that the carbon dioxide humans add to the atmosphere is the main determinant of global climate." And later "The science, as always, must be out." And it spells the study's co-author's name correctly. In other words I can't find anything there that supports Isi96's addition. So I favour reversion. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The addition seems to accurately summarise the contents of the PolitiFact article which is referenced. PolitiFact's a reliable source per WP:RSP, and including this information seems pertinent in a section covering the climage change denial that the Daily Sceptic engages in. JaggedHamster (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The essay-class WP:RSP page says PolitiFact is reliable about political candidates (which isn't this) provided there's attribution (which isn't there) but my concern relates to real guidelines: WP:RS/QUOTE since there's a quote but no link to the original source, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV since there's an opinion, and most importantly WP:RSCONTEXT since anyone who looks at the context -- the original source -- can see that Andy Nguyen got this wrong, it's not in the Daily Sceptic article. I acknowledge that Isi96 belatedly fixed Andy Nguyen's spelling, but didn't and presumably can't defend the whole thing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Sub-discussion, split from above

PolitiFact is politically skewed, and even if as a site it's considered reliable it's clearly not providing a balanced accurate assessment. This is why Wikipedia is losing credibility. It pushes agendas and refuses to allow dissent. Which is why I haven't even bothered to try and update the article; you'd just revert any changes. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not PolitiFact's fault that some people lie more than others. It is a reliable source.

What you call "dissent" is actually denialism and alternative facts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Stop attacking me using politically loaded phrases.

The correct response is surely, "Since the source of the article cited by The Daily Sceptic does contain the key message within The Daily Sceptic post, and Politifact fail to acknowledge this, I'll add commentary to that effect and a reference to the article."

But that would allow dissent against the Politifact and Wikipedia agendas. Prove me wrong: Make the change. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not even understand what your "correct response" is saying. What article? What post?

You will not succeed in moving Wikipedia away from honesty and toward disinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

To do that Wikipedia would have to start from a position of honesty.

As can be seen from this article and the refusal to accept that Politifact lies through omission Wikipedia is sadly a very long way from being honest.

This whole page reeks of disingenuity. It looks like a creation by the 77th Brigade or the CDU, aimed at discrediting a site that challenges the propaganda put out by the British Government.

Perhaps you're not aware that the CDU - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fact-sheet-on-the-cdu-and-rru - or that they were monitoring the creator of the site this article describes? https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/government-monitoring-of-covid-19-policy-media-critics-revealed/

I'm not against honesty. I am in fact posting in support of Peter Gulutzan in challenging clear bias on the platform. Better to delete this whole page. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

As long as you cannot give reliable sources that contradict what PolitiFact says about TDS, you are wasting your time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

(here from ANI) Honestly, there's a fundamental issue with how this entire article is written. This seems less like an article on the site, its history and its content and more like a fact checking page that attempts to debunk it at every sentence. (claimed vs explained see WP:WTW).

Think about what you would expect if you opened up a paper encyclopedia on "Small UK News Websites" and this site came up. Would you really expect something like this?

I absolutely hate this sort of semantic political discourse more than anything. He isn't wrong that it needs to change, however, he isn't right that it's pure defamation and should be deleted either. Really, there isn't an easy way to build on top of this, maybe move what we have now to a "controversies" section.

I don't agree with what the site says either - but this is very poorly written. DarmaniLink (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, there's very little else to say about it because there's very little in reliable sources. I do wonder, since despite having other contributors the site is effectively Young's blog, whether it should be merged to Toby Young ... but on the other hand that's more negative material being moved into his biography, which he has objected to in the past using at least two accounts. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there any kind of history we can piece together from the RS, or copy/integrate from Toby Young's page on this site's history?

Do they have an "our history" section the website? If we can find RS to verify those claims, we could use that, if nobody disputes the factual basis of that history, obviously leaving out any grandiosity (if it's there). Edit: turns out we already were using the site's history as a source. Is there any way to build on that, using sources outside of just the website itself? DarmaniLink (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

There's an about section at [1] which is already referenced in the article. It's rambling and very promotional. Given the Daily Sceptic and Toby Young's well documented and referenced history of misinformation, I'd be opposed to using any additional information from it without support from better sources. JaggedHamster (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I said "Is there any way to build on that, using sources outside of just the website itself".

You do see the current problem with the page though, being largely a compilation of fact checks without any encyclopedic merit, right? DarmaniLink (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

DarmaniLink: perhaps you could put a new section heading before your first post, then comment on the Antarctica thread if you have a specific comment about Isi96's Antarctica insertion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

right, sorry, i saw this in ANI, didn't intend to derail DarmaniLink (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Refutation of scientific disinformation is not semantic political discourse even if the disinformation is politically motivated, as in the case of climate change denial and COVID denial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read what I'm actually saying instead of trying to shut out any discussion.

A wikipedia page purely made up of failed fact checks rather than the history, background and story of a website is not encyclopedic in the least. (What this means is - add more about the website, and make this into an encyclopedia page. Before you ask, no, I'm not saying the failed fact checks should be removed) I'm not interested in this WP:BATTLEGROUNDing where you shut out people's concerns due their percieved opinions. The semantic political discourse comment was in response to what you were saying earlier in the thread. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Obviously battleground behaviour is to avoided, as a polite suggestion it would help a lot there if you toned done the way you're repeatedly characterising the page as "without any encyclopedic merit" and "purely made up of failed fact checks". It comes across as quite confrontational to people who disagree with that and believe the page reflects what RS have to say about the topic.

I'm sure if reliable sources are found which provide relevant additional info then people will welcome that but none have been identified, if you can find any then that'd be great. In the absence of them, the page is going to have to remain as it is. Obviously you're free to propose merging or deleting it, although it's hopefully clear that not everyone agrees with you there and so you're likely to get objections. JaggedHamster (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that this website is full of shit, I'm disputing that this article is nothing more than a compilation of failed fact checks with sub-stub tier history. Which if you look at the article, you have 1-2 sentences of lede, 1-2 sentences of history, then 9 paragraphs of failed fact checks. I don't know enough on this topic to know what's true and what isn't, what's reliable and what isn't, and frankly, all the history on the website seems shrouded in so much BS that it'd be hard for someone who isn't already deep into it to find truth or what is actually reliable. If there's no history on the website, nothing of value to write about, or any backstory to be of note, other than them being wrong, in which you could write articles about entire twitter profiles, then frankly this article *should* be deleted. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding more history

Is there anything more to say about the website, its author, and its history other than a compilation of failed fact checks?

The history section seems sub-stub-tier while the fact checking section has more than adequate content.

I don't know anything about this website or its history, I just saw the NLT thread in ANI. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)