Talk:Oxiris Barbot

Sourcing/Bias

Nearly exclusive hard right-wing 'sources' and references. Clear intended bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1404:8499:ADCE:B009:B087:1085 (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to counter this sourced information with other information you are free to do so, provided you similarly source it.

Agree w/above editor. This is all RS sourced. Feel free to add other RS info if you like and can find it. --2604:2000:E010:1100:9AD:56F9:5EE0:1FF (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Those aren’t WP:RS for the post part and per WP:BLP they need to be. I will be removing all non-RS as required by the BLP policy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Please show consensus that those are not RSs, per the RSN. The NY Daily News is not an RS? Otherwise, lacking consensus, it is disruptive to removed RSs and accompanying text, and they must be restored. Your deletions seem unusually heavy handed and inappropriate. Perhaps User:Blueboar can weigh in and give us an informed view. 2604:2000:E010:1100:4879:DAE5:B3E1:EEC5 (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand how consensus works in this context, for use on a BLP there needs to be consensus of reliability and per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources there is not that for either of those sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Also who is Blueboar and why are you tagging them? They don’t appear to have ever edited this page or to have any relationship with any edits made by you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Again - please show consensus that those are not Rss, per the RSN. You've again failed to. But you deleted a lot of text supported by those refs. User:Blueboar is a veteran of RSN issues, so seems a good seasoned editor to give a third opinion here. 2604:2000:E010:1100:4879:DAE5:B3E1:EEC5 (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I linked you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the onus is on you to go look (why would you trust me anyways?). I assure you it won’t take more than ten seconds, they’re right next to each other. They’re also the same color, what color do you think that is? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Repeating that a source is RS does not make it RS. Tucker Carlson has next to nothing to do with this article and does not belong here. A far-left editorial would be equally out of place. This is editorial convention, not personal bias. Nearly every article sourced comes from a clearly-biased website. Tag should be restored; this debate proves, if nothing else, that consensus does not exist. Furthermore, re-adding Tucker Carlson's irrelevant comments (temporally inconsistent with the paragraph in which they are present), despite the fact that they have been called into reasonable debate, demonstrates the clear bias of the author. One should at least make the effort to appear neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1404:8499:9CC5:AE2D:D26:7227 (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is not an authoritative guide to reliable sources. As the introduction says,

This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

So you can't assume that a source is not WP:RS just because WP:RSP says it's not.

BTW, WP:RSP lists the New York Daily News as "generally reliable." --Nbauman (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:Reliable sources WP:BIASEDSOURCES:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Therefore, Tucker Carlson could be a WP:RS for a viewpoint on Oxiris Barbot, even though he may be non-neutral or biased. For purposes of consensus, I believe that he is. --Nbauman (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The policy WP:NPOV requires that we represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Tucker Carlson is not the only WP:RS to present this view of Barbot. For example, the following article gives a similar criticism:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/nyregion/new-york-coronavirus-response-delays.html

How Delays and Unheeded Warnings Hindered New York’s Virus Fight

The federal response was chaotic. Even so, the state’s and city’s own initial efforts failed to keep pace with the outbreak, The Times found.

J. David Goodman

New York Times

April 9, 2020

I recommend a Google search of the New York Times for Barbot (use "Site:nytimes.com oxiris barbot"). If you want to find out her public health work besides the coronavirus epidemic (which this article could use), you should do a Pubmed search https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ for "oxiris barbot". --Nbauman (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)