Talk:Stella (solar vehicles)

challenging Daily Mail under WP:BURDEN as a prima facie unreliable source

GeeTeeBee keeps edit-warring in a deprecated source, the WP:DAILYMAIL, apparently being unable to find any other source for a claim.

WP:BURDEN - which is policy - says:

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

GeeTeeBee, you're repeatedly inserting material that is cited to a source that is so remarkably unreliable that two general RFCs have deprecated it - that is, deemed it unusable on Wikipedia except in truly remarkable circumstances. Per WP:DAILYMAIL:

Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.

GeeTeeBee, repeatedly inserting bad sources - including re-inserting them - is against Wikipedia policy. Do you have a reliable source for the claim, or do you just have the Daily Mail? - David Gerard (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I'm sometimes disappointed when Wikipedians are perhaps overemphasizing rules a bit ?

Please keep in mind the five pillars of Wikipedia — especially the "there are no firm rules" bit (WP:5P5).

For instance, Strict application of the WP:BURDEN rule would threaten roughly 90% of all text up on Wikipedia today, because it is not directly backed up by an inline citation, I would estimate !?

And unreliability of sources applies to many news sources. Every child learns early on, that you shouldn't trust everything you read in printed sources.

Categorically singling out one popular news source as "verboten" to use on WP is rather unbelievable to me, and certainly a blatant violation of WP's own rule to assume WP:GOODFAITH.

Why not forbid Fox News entirely as well then ?

The Daily Mail printed this number twice (in 2014 and in 2017), and it has gone unchallenged since. That's why I deel it deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I already included the "better source needed" tag to represent your criticism.

--GeeTeeBee (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a strong argument at Wikipedia. Nor is "but it was bad for ages, why can't it stay bad".

Wikipedia doesn't have many hard policies - but WP:V, of which WP:BURDEN is a part, is one of them.

If you literally don't have a verifiable RS that backs up this claim when it's challenged (and I'm challenging it here), then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, I agree with David Gerard, and User Praxidicae. Please drop that. Sorry. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I also agree that this claim should be challenged and removed if a RS cannot be found to support its inclusion. Note that the source used can be from any language, not just English. Loopy30 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)