Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Binger
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Thomas Binger
- ... that Thomas Binger, the lead prosecutor in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, unsuccessfully ran as the Democratic candidate for district attorney of Racine County, Wisconsin in 2016? Source: <https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2021/11/11/thomas-binger-lead-prosecutor-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-kenosha-wisconsin-judge-yells-at-assistant-da/6387009001/> <https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/a-look-at-key-players-in-the-upcoming-kyle-rittenhouse-trial/article_b7f6d9e3-2a4b-54ae-b525-d6807db09516.html>
- ALT0a: ... that Thomas Binger, the lead prosecutor in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, unsuccessfully ran as the Democratic candidate for the office of the Racine County, Wisconsin District Attorney in 2016? Source: <https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/a-look-at-key-players-in-the-upcoming-kyle-rittenhouse-trial/article_b7f6d9e3-2a4b-54ae-b525-d6807db09516.html> <https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2021/11/11/thomas-binger-lead-prosecutor-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-kenosha-wisconsin-judge-yells-at-assistant-da/6387009001/>
Created by Mhawk10 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC).
- @Mikehawk10:
Article is new enough, long enough, neutral, and plagiarism-free. However, i have an issue with the sourcing—the article relies heavily on a Fox News piece, and Fox News is rated "no consensus" at WP:RSP for U.S. politics (which, as candidate for a U.S. political office and lead prosecutor in a trial that absolutely dominated the U.S. news cycle, this article falls under). I'd prefer that use of that source be cut down significantly first. Hooks are cited and interesting, though, and a QPQ has been done, so we're almost there! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: I'm going to push back on your reading of the existing community consensus in this case. My reading of the relevant RfC close (which is what the community consensus on the source actually is) is that Fox News should be used with caution when it is used to verify contentious claims in the areas of politics and science, but for other sorts of claims the source is generally reliable. That RfC also found that
there is a reasonable consensus that Fox does not blatantly make up facts
in its written content (though its headlines are not so good).
- In light of this, I don't think any use of Fox News here is inappropriate. The only places that the nominated article uses Fox News as its sole source are:
- in the "Legal career" section, to support that
As of November 2021, he continues to work in his role as an Assistant District Attorney for Kenosha County
; and - in the "Personal life" section, to support that
Binger is married to his wife, Nicole Gustafson-Binger. As of November 2021, he has had three children with her
.
- in the "Legal career" section, to support that
- Neither of these statements appears to be contentious. So, the use of Fox News to support those statements is perfectly fine when in light of the close of the pertinent RfC.
- In all other cases throughout the article where the Fox News piece is used as a source, it is used alongside at least one other source from an established news organization—Fox News is never cited alone for contentious facts. As a result, I think that the article uses the appropriate caution when citing Fox News that the RfC close calls for. I also believe that WP:MINREF is well satisfied.
- If there is a specific contentious statement in the Wikipedia article that you feel is not well-sourced, please let me know so that I can modify it or find an appropriate citation.
- @Theleekycauldron: I'm going to push back on your reading of the existing community consensus in this case. My reading of the relevant RfC close (which is what the community consensus on the source actually is) is that Fox News should be used with caution when it is used to verify contentious claims in the areas of politics and science, but for other sorts of claims the source is generally reliable. That RfC also found that
- @Mhawk10: oops, bad ping... you have to enter your actual username in this thing when making nominations. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- At the time, that was my username (I usurped this username on November 23). My apologies for the inconvenience of not updating this. I've updated the references to my old username above. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, where does this review stand? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
sorry, stuff has been slipping through the cracks a little lately. Mhawk10 is correct about their use of FOX being appropriate as far as DYK is concerned, so we're good to go. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, where does this review stand? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- At the time, that was my username (I usurped this username on November 23). My apologies for the inconvenience of not updating this. I've updated the references to my old username above. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Mikehawk10:
Pinging @BlueMoonset: — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Promoting the main hook to Prep 5 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)