This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United Kingdom C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Websites: Computing C‑class Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Alternative Views C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hi @Rwatson1955, why do you keep changing the lead? The cited sources support the assertion that the website publishes misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, it's not just an accusation. Isi96 (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say it yourself: 'support the assertion' that is not a fact and the information about vaccines is correct and The Daily Sceptic checks its sources and statistics very carefully. The sources you cite are biased against the editor of TDS and also will not publish data on vaccine harms (demonstrable by VAERS and Yellow Card systems) their ineffectiveness (~1% ARR) and that they are the most probably cause of excess deaths. Governments across the world will eventually investigate and when they do I'll change it again,. Meantime, have a nice day! Rwatson1955 (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources are reliable. Also, reports from sources such as VAERS and the Yellow Card system are unreliable due to being user-submitted and unverified: [1][2] It also seems like you have a conflict of interest, as your article mentions that you are a contributor to the website. Isi96 (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable does not always might that they are right. Simply slapping the "reliable" label on a source because they used to give you good info, doesn't cut it. If the article used as a source is bogus, it's bogus, no matter where it's coming from. Similarly, calling something fringe is not sufficient to discredit it. The original article DOES have the graphs that reuters claims is misread and it does not explain that it cannot be read as it is presented. Claiming that the daily sceptic is pedling misinformation is simply dishonest. If the authors of the article wanted the data to be read in a particular way, they should present the data so that it is hard to read it any other way. They have neither done so, nor have the updated the article to explain how to read the graphs. Since the articles does not provide the data it is discussing to the reader, the only information available is the graphs. The reading from the daily sceptic must be the only reasonable one that the author could ever have expected anyone to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that you can convince any experienced Wikipedian to reject a reliable source on your say-so, even with a far stronger argument than "they could be wrong", but without giving us a reliable source, you are very, very wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you need to read WP:WAR and WP:BRD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And after that, when you have self-reverted to prevent a user block: WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isi96 added in a "Climate change denial" section on 17 June 2023 A May 2023 Daily Sceptic article claimed that underwater volcanoes could cause global warming which is otherwise attributed to human activities, and that climate models do not take volcanic activity into consideration. etc. This is false. The source is an article by Nikolaj Kristensen in logicallyfacts.com with headline = Mapping of the seabed does not prove underwater volcanoes to be the cause of human-made global warming. Since I doubted that the Daily Sceptic author is so breathtakingly stupid as to claim that humans make volcanoes, I looked for the original article, which logicallyfacts.com doesn't link to (there's waving at Facebook which I didn't find), but Daily Sceptic in May indeed published Scientists Uncover the Role of Undersea Volcanoes in Climate Change – But the Media Don’t Want to Know. And lo, it does not even say that volcanoes contribute enough CO2 to be globally significant for warming. It does say that eruptions can cause local warming affecting currents and marine life, and that researchers think seamounts can influence ocean circulation. So I favour removal, and of course Isi96 needs consensus. So let's see who else says remove or keep. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article is an example of climate change denial. Climate change denial, as is common with other fringe topics, often uses evasive, loaded, or misleading language. Expecting the article to say that volcanoes contribute enough CO2... is unrealistic and misguided, as well as shifting the goal posts. Still, in this case, the pseudoscience is almost front-and-center anyway. The Daily Skeptic article cites climate change conspiracy theorist Joanne Nova as a "science writer", and specifically quotes her "sarcastically" attributing warming volcanoes and not rising CO2. The story is presenting a pseudoscientific narrative. Like most conspiracy theories, it warps and decontextualizes isolated facts to allow insecure and ideologically sympathetic readers to come to a predetermined conclusion. That it doesn't outright say 'man-made climate change is a lie' is merely half-assed plausible deniability. Grayfell (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about a website, this is a hitpiece attack on one.

The Daily Sceptic is a site that covers a range of topics, and that posts highly accurate information regarding those topics in addition to some potentially less reliable information.

The article on here selectively picks out the tiniest subset of its content and portrays the site based only on that. It's disgraceful and far more misleading than anything the Daily Sceptic posts. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article reflects the sources we have. That is how Wikipedia works. If you have other reliable sources talking about TDS, bring them. Until then, there is nothing we can do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then delete the page. It's adding no value. It's a political attack against a website, and not remotely close to being an objective informative description of that website.

Source: Read the website. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need a valid reason to delete the page. WP:IDLI is not a valid reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G10 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion

Valid reason and entirely and completely applicable. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not applicable. G10 says entirely negative in tone and unsourced. The article is not unsourced. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G10 includes that in its 'or', should the prior conditions not apply.

The prior conditions do apply.

"Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose" is very clear.

But then the explanatory text also states "Examples of "attack pages" may include: [...] material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person". At no point does it exclude attack pages that include material intended purely to disparage their subject.

This article is intended purely to disparage its subject. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of "attack pages" may include: libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced

The intention is not "to harass or intimidate a person", it is to repeat what reliable sources are saying. The article is not even about a person, it is about a fake news site. It is our duty to inform the reader about that. Of course, the liars themselves and their fans do not like that, but WP:NOTCENSORED. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, basic English skills. "May include" means it's examples and not an exhaustive list. We agree, this is indeed not intending to harass or intimidate a person.

Allow me please to point out nonetheless precisely why this page qualifies:

"Pages that disparage [..] their subject [..] and serve no other purpose"

What other purpose does this article serve? 81.110.254.162 (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that calling The Daily Sceptic a 'fake news site' is actionable defamation in the UK.

It very clearly is a news site, and it provides links to the things it posts articles on so that you can verify its posts for yourself.

Your continued support for this hitpiece is something I shall now discount as I do not perceive you providing a fair and objective viewpoint. I'll see if I can find a Wikipedia member of staff with whom to pursue the deletion conversation. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find a Wikipedia member of staff Good luck with that. In the meantime I suggest that you read WP:RS, which will help you to understand what material is (or is not) appropriate for Wikipedia pages. You should also read WP:NLT - really, read it - because is actionable defamation could easily be interpreted as a legal threat, for which you can be blocked. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

actionable defamation in the UK - Simon Singh has a similar story about people happily promoting bogus treatments. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isi96 has added that a January 2023 Daily Sceptic article about an Antarctic study was claiming that it proved that human-driven climate change is an "unproven hypothesis". That's a quote so per MOS:LWQWP:RS/QUOTE Isi96 should have linked to the article, but didn't, but I found it, it's Scientists Struggle to Understand Why Antarctica Hasn’t Warmed for Over 70 Years Despite Rise in CO2. It actually says "The lack of warming over a significant portion of the Earth undermines the unproven hypothesis that the carbon dioxide humans add to the atmosphere is the main determinant of global climate." And later "The science, as always, must be out." And it spells the study's co-author's name correctly. In other words I can't find anything there that supports Isi96's addition. So I favour reversion. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The addition seems to accurately summarise the contents of the PolitiFact article which is referenced. PolitiFact's a reliable source per WP:RSP, and including this information seems pertinent in a section covering the climage change denial that the Daily Sceptic engages in. JaggedHamster (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PolitiFact is politically skewed, and even if as a site it's considered reliable it's clearly not providing a balanced accurate assessment.

This is why Wikipedia is losing credibility. It pushes agendas and refuses to allow dissent. Which is why I haven't even bothered to try and update the article; you'd just revert any changes. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not PolitiFact's fault that some people lie more than others. It is a reliable source.

What you call "dissent" is actually denialism and alternative facts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop attacking me using politically loaded phrases.

The correct response is surely, "Since the source of the article cited by The Daily Sceptic does contain the key message within The Daily Sceptic post, and Politifact fail to acknowledge this, I'll add commentary to that effect and a reference to the article."

But that would allow dissent against the Politifact and Wikipedia agendas. Prove me wrong: Make the change. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not even understand what your "correct response" is saying. What article? What post?

You will not succeed in moving Wikipedia away from honesty and toward disinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To do that Wikipedia would have to start from a position of honesty.

As can be seen from this article and the refusal to accept that Politifact lies through omission Wikipedia is sadly a very long way from being honest.

This whole page reeks of disingenuity. It looks like a creation by the 77th Brigade or the CDU, aimed at discrediting a site that challenges the propaganda put out by the British Government.

Perhaps you're not aware that the CDU - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fact-sheet-on-the-cdu-and-rru - or that they were monitoring the creator of the site this article describes? https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/government-monitoring-of-covid-19-policy-media-critics-revealed/

I'm not against honesty. I am in fact posting in support of Peter Gulutzan in challenging clear bias on the platform. Better to delete this whole page. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you cannot give reliable sources that contradict what PolitiFact says about TDS, you are wasting your time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]