Talk:David Rowland (property developer)/Archives/2013

Daily Mail

I want to underline that per WP:BLPSOURCES we cannot use sources like the Daily Mail on this article or any article on living people. It is surprising to me to see two editors reverting back and forth literally dozens of times without discussing here. Please take any future concerns to talk rather than edit-warring. --John (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. To me, only "redtops" (ie the Sun, Daily Star or the Daily Mirror) should count as unreliable sources. Presumably you will go round every other BLP to ensure that the Daily Mail is not used as a source? Absurd. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's ok for you to disagree; you could take this discussion to WP:BLPN or WP:RSN to attract other views and maybe even get a change to the long-standing project-wide consensus that the Daily Mail is worthless as a BLP source.

This archive on Jimbo's talk page from 2011 is pretty suggestive; "The Daily Mail is of frightfully low quality most of the time, but - as Hans acknowledges - they do (rarely) get a scoop of some importance. I'm not comfortable with us using them as a source for anything, other than in some very very specific circumstances" and "It should be a blocking offense to use the Daily Mail - and similar sources - to add negative information to BLPs. It's really really really bad." I don't agree with Jim Wales on everything, but I do agree with him on this. Now, if you disagree, the onus is on you to show us why the DM is ok and we have all been wrong all these years.

And, yes, I do make every effort to remove this sort of garbage from BLP articles whenever I see it, although that is neither here nor there. --John (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked up WP:RS and under the various discussions there was no consensus whatsoever as to whether the Mail counts as a RS. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Given that there is dissent as to its reliability, and given the higher sourcing standards that biographies of living persons WP:BLP are held to, it may be wise to find other sources to replace or back up the Daily Mail. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Other sources used

Hi All

I was wondering if source 2 (need to register for the website so unable to check it out) and the blog source are reliable links?

Regards

Hope55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatherhope55 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I have tagged the highbeam link with a "dead link" tag, which is the normal procedure for reliable sources where the url no longer works. I have replaced the blog link (Icelandic journalist) with content from the Guardian profile of Rowland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Blogs are not considered reliable sources, please see WP:USERG. JanetteDoe (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

How do we know this dead link is a source? I've searched the net and can't find anything regarding "In 1989 Rowland bought a controlling interest (34%) from the Barclay brothers in the company Gulf Resources & Chemical Corporation." Regards Hope55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatherhope55 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question specifically, we don't know that it is a source. I checked the wayback machine and that page does not seem to have been archived. Theoretically we can remove any uncited information immediately, though frequently it's a good idea to place a {{citation needed}} tag to see if someone can find a source. Biographies of living persons are the exception to this. "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced", per WP:GRAPEVINE. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine i'll look around for a link sometime. Thanks a lot Jannett =) Fatherhope55 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Just looked around and can't find information regarding the quote i showed above. I'll remove it until we find a suitable source Fatherhope55 (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)