This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

On 4 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maddie Shevlin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Maddie Shevlin dislocated her thumb on debut in her first season of Australian rules football and missed the next ten weeks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maddie Shevlin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Maddie Shevlin), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass ( talk) 00:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

On 14 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Emerson Woods, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Australian rules footballer Emerson Woods was a premiership player in the VFL Women's while still in secondary school? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Emerson Woods. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Emerson Woods), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile ( talk) 00:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. You mention "Content removed without explanation". So far as I am aware, I added rather than removed content? I may have removed a Facebook citation as that is now broken (the MP or her agents having removed their own post). You also mention "no reliable source provided for content added". However, I cited the Guardian and orderorder.com, both of which were specifically relevant and respected references. You have deleted both. I'm not a regular editor/contributor, and I appreciate your assistance, but I wonder if perhaps time pressures caused an error? I see that others have subsequently added their own updates consistent with the key element of my contribution. I'll check that now and add anything appropriate that may still be missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnersaurus43 ( talk • contribs) 10:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello @ Gunnersaurus43: and thank you for your reply. I reverted your edits for two reasons. Firstly, in this edit you removed the section on political views, another on Smith abstaining from a vote, and two categories. I'm not necessarily endorsing the content but it seemed legitimate enough and you provided no reason for its removal. Secondly, the content you added about Smith's hypocrisy was poorly sourced. OrderOrder.com is, frankly, appalling. If a source announces outright on its "about" page that We don't believe in objective impartiality nor pretend to it, then it's clearly unsuitable for use on Wikipedia, especially on a biography of a living person, which particularly needs to maintain high standards of accuracy and neutrality. The Guardian is a fine source but doesn't say Smith was accused of hypocrisy.

Thank you again for replying, communication is key on Wikipedia. To assist, please "sign" your posts by typing four tildes ("~") after your message which will show your username and the date you posted. It helps people tell who said what. – Tera tix ₵ 10:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. Strictly speaking, I didn't 'delete' anything, but restored an earlier user's edit. I do, though, concur that the material removed in the first place by the original edit should not have been removed - it looks like it was accidental collateral damage by that editor when adding their content (overwriting rather than adding). Anyway, happy with the corrected content. Thanks for spotting the issue and fixing it.

Regarding the authority of the citation from order-order.com ... Order-order.com has won the Guardian’s "political commentary blog of the year" and numerous other awards, so dismissing it as "appalling" appears to be a statement of your opinion inconsistent with Wikipedia spirit rather than an objective and impartial basis for dismissing the citation. You quoted their own statement that they do not pretend to impartiality, but you omitted the immediately preceding sentences that provide essential context to that position: "The Guido team see themselves as campaigning journalists. Campaigning against political sleaze, corruption and hypocrisy.". The citation in question is hardly contentious - it simply juxtaposes this person's support for a political campaign against private schools (not in dispute, and evidenced buy a citation from the Guardian) and their position as founder of a company that profits from the private school business (again, not disputed, and cited by the company's own - now deleted - website and Facebook posts). That all seems pretty factual and authoritative so, regardless of one's view of order-order.com generally, I don't see any grounds for removing the entry. Gunnersaurus43 ( talk) 12:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your change and I'm sorry I missed the earlier editing. I'm glad that's sorted out.

A witty political blog and a reliable source are not the same thing. Blogs are often written to push the opinions of the editors rather than giving the bare facts. It is quite possible for a blog to be exemplary as a blog but not as a reliable source. I would argue the preceding sentences I omitted actually strengthen the case against its reliability – it's pushing an anti-establishment point of view, with the editorial team considering themselves "campaigning journalists" (according to the Guardian: while rightwing, the blog is anti-establishment in the broadest sense). If it is to be used, at a minimum it must be attributed, but I am firmly opposed to its inclusion at all until better sources are available, considering the subject is a living person.

If you wish to take this discussion further and receive input from other editors, I recommend either the article's talk page, the biographies of living people noticeboard or the reliable sources noticeboard. The noticeboards are heavily watched so responses will come faster. – Tera tix ₵ 13:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A witty political blog and a reliable source are not NECESSARILY the same thing, but the two are NOT mutually exclusive. I cannot see any logical basis to the argument that being "anti-establishment" or "rightwing" necessarily makes a source "unreliable". In the case of order-order.com, they hold a 9/9 rating from industry monitor NewsGuard for meeting all 9 of the standards for transparency and credibility: ^[1]. Clearly, That kind of validation must carry more weight than any individual's non-objective opinion? On that basis - and given that we have already established that the article simply links two established and verifiable facts and pints out the their obvious incompatibility - I don't feel it necessary or appropriate to raise this myself on the other noticeboards. I will, however, copy this to the article's talk page as that might be helpful to others.

Gunnersaurus43 ( talk) 13:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Tom Atkins (footballer) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 ( talk) 22:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)