Talk:The Exposé

Did you know nomination

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 97198 (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the The Exposé's false claims that COVID-19 was created by Moderna was republished by Chinese state media outlets? Source: Polygraph.info, Coda Media
  • ALT1: ... that The Exposé was created by a mechanic from Scunthorpe? Source: Logically, Coda Media
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This is my second DYK nomination.

Created by Isi96 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article is long enough, has adequate sourcing, and the hook is verifiable. However, the article has a bit too much close paraphrasingfor my liking. I also think that this article's hook could be better to be something like this:

• ALT2: that the The Exposé's false claims that COVID-19 was created by Moderna was republished by Chinese state media outlets? Source: Polygraph.info, Agence France-Presse, PolitiFact Spodle^Talk 01:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Spodle I updated the first hook to your suggestion and made some changes to the content of the article. Hope it's better now. Isi96 (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Isi96: Close paraphrasing is much less noticeable. Nom ready for DYK. Spodle^Talk 01:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Is the source used reliable?

This page relies heavily on one source, Logically, which seems to be a blog. Cdefm (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Other sources for this page, in the main, are "fact check" articles. "Fact check" articles are opinion articles and not necessarily facts as admitted by Facebook in a court case. Most "fact check" articles are written by writers or bloggers and not experts. "Fact check" articles cannot be considered as credible sources for Wikipedia pages any more than blogs can be.

The more truth pushes through "the more fakeism is promoted" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:2D0B:5200:325:6AD3:FCD2:FF32 (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The exposé is similar to a blog too, it cannot be considered a reliable source either. 83.37.36.63 (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy

I believe using the word conspiracy is inadquate as several cases have shown truth in much of the argumentaiton against the "public" narrative. Oxycotin is an example of people being labled "conspiracy" where it indeed deemed to be true what they said. Conspiracy is based on non-fact (according to Wiki), but several courtcases have proven that many of the things deemed as misleading Covid information, is indeed true. Also, who are deeming them false? The same media/organisations that deem the information misleading - which by itself consitute a problem. 93.161.218.211 (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

who are deeming them false? That is not the cuestion. The cuestion is, Do you have any proof of what you are publishing?

the burden of proof falls on the accuser, In The Expose many claims are made without evidence, that is the problem 83.37.36.63 (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)