Talk:The Babylon Bee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Babylon Bee article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
RSP and Public Comments
This diff brings up an interesting subject. When WP:RSP deprecates a source as generally unreliable, how does that impact references that they obtained that are publicly available and verifiable by editors?
In this case, the Daily Wire was direct quoting a tweet and linked the tweet from Dillon. We aren't quoting what they said or think about it, but just the direct language of his tweet itself. There is no doubt that he made the comment, whatever the veracity of the Daily Wire's other reporting in the article. Is the preference to quote the tweet directly (which feels incorrect) or validate that, in this particular case, the source happened to be reliable?
Squatch347 (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- If it's needed for NPOV, just put the tweet itself in as a primary sourced statement? No reason to go via a bad source (it's technically WP:GUNREL not deprecated, but still a source we should avoid where not necessary) that only embeds it anway, when we could just link the tweet itself - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)