Trichome

thcscience_admin

Number of followers[edit]

Remember WP:ABOUTSELF, that is the only reason we allow the use of an unreliable source like The Daily Wire here, and then ONLY in a manner that is not "unduly self-serving". Violations will be deleted. -- Valjean (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a notable topic to keep following, and it's a bit childish and immature to do so. It smacks of desperate amateurism. -- Valjean (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make your point without insults? -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pemilligan: although Valjean may not be using the appropriate tone I still agree with them. Generally a reliable secondary source should be cited when making claims like this. Similarly, I would normally remove an arbitrary list of guests from an article like this unless there was a reliable secondary source making note of the appearance. I'm also curious why Ben Shapiro is listed as a "political pundit" while Michael Knowles is listed as a "political commentator" while still others in the list get no identifier at all. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was the tone that I was addressing. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that comment wasn't my finest, and I have stricken the offensive part. -- Valjean (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remove the sentence that says "As of January 7, 2022, the show's YouTube channel had 566,000 subscribers." for the following reasons. First of all, WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOREF both discourage the use of YouTube as a source because they often pose WP:COPYRIGHT problems. WP:VIDEOREF also states that "YouTube and similar sites do not have editorial oversight engaged in scrutinizing content, so editors need to watch out for the potential unreliability of the user uploading the video." The reliability is also noted at WP:RSP with the following shortcut: WP:RSPYT. I also believe that this is a clear example of WP:ORIGINAL research. The first two sentences of WP:OR states that "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Unless an independent and reliable secondary source can be provided to support a claim related to the number of subscribers the channel has, then I see no reason that it should be included. The number of subscribers continues to be updated both on YouTube and, if you check the edit history, on the Wikipedia page as well. This creates a maintenance nightmare and the number on the Wikipedia page will constantly be an inaccurate representation of the ever-changing source. It's also worth pointing out that the number of subscribers or likes that someone gets on any given social media platform can be artificially inflated and is not a measure of notability or merit. I also agree with Valjean that the sentence is a violation of WP:ABOUTSELF. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dswitz10734 and Pemilligan, do you oppose my suggestion? If so, why? Can I remove that sentence or will it be reverted? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care. My edits were more about formatting than content. Dswitz10734? -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TipsyElephant Good catch, this does look like it violates WP:ABOUTSELF. My question is if there is any other data concerning following from a secondary source we can use? Dswitz10734 (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guests[edit]

Hello Dswitz10734, would you mind discussing why you undid my edit? You noted that my edit was done in good faith, and I'm not sure I understand why we would keep an arbitrary list of guests for a show like this. For instance, I've participated in similar discussions like this one that ended noin a consensus to remove lists of guests and I have a history of removing long arbitrary lists from podcasts without anyone reverting my edits. What makes this particular instance different from the others? Are there reliable secondary sources that make note of these guest appearances? TipsyElephant (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, this is the edit at issue. -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TipsyElephant, thank you for contacting me about these edits. The list of guests section wasn't the primary target of my edit. If you think the people who were guests on this show aren't notable, feel free to remove them them from the article. The main reason for my edit was the section about Trump's quote. I felt that the quote was propaganda-ish and put Candace in a bad light. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with Trump in general, what I didn't like was the article putting Candace in a bad "anti-vax" light and the pro-Covid vaccine message per WP:NPOV. Again, I'm certainly not against vaccines or Trump, but I felt like this section had a pro-Covid vaccine bias, so that's why I removed the edit. Back to what I said earlier though, if you don't want the list of guests for notability reasons, please feel free to remove them. Dswitz10734 (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, in it's current state I would outright delete all the prose after, "It premiered on March 19, 2021", unless reliable secondary sources can be provided for some of the content. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think her interview with Trump is worth keeping. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pemilligan: can you provide a reliable secondary source that discusses the interview? As I've already noted, Forbes and Newsweek are not considered reliable by the Wikipedia community. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From CNN and The Hill:
A columnist in The Tennessean wrote about it:
There are probably more. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORBESCON and WP:NEWSWEEK are both relevant to the current sourcing. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TipsyElephant, there isn't any total ban on using Forbes and Newsweek. Their use is judged on a case-by-case basis, and the usage here is innocent and straightforward. I'm going to restore the Trump interview content, but will also use the other sources. -- Valjean (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that the Washington Examiner is listed at WP:RSP with the comment that "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled with the appropriate guideline." and the New York Daily News is listed at WP:RSP with the comment that "Most editors consider the content of New York Daily News articles to be generally reliable, but question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines.", and I would consider "Cardi B and Candace Owens threaten to sue each other in epic Twitter battle" to be a clear example of a "tabloid-style headline". TipsyElephant (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dswitz10734, you wrote: "put Candace in a bad light". That is a clearly expressed violation of NPOV. YOU, as an editor, are not supposed to censor such information. NPOV does not allow that kind of editing motivation. NPOV expressly allows biased sources and biased content (because it may be based on biased sources), but forbids biased editing. (To learn more about this, read my essay: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content.)

Your deletion of the content about Trump's interview is problematic. I suggest you promptly restore that content. See your talk page for more. -- Valjean (talk) 17:58, January 8, 2022‎ (UTC)

Since you haven't restored that content yet, I have done so, and with even more and better sources. -- Valjean (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this content should probably be included, but perhaps it should be done with fewer quotes and more paraphrasing. Right now there are 75 words of quoted text in a 200 word article. Quotations should be used sparingly because they can become copyright violations among other problems. I also believe that the use of paraphrasing will allow us to use more subtle wording and cause less of a problem with neutrality. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I previously opened a WP:PROD and I am still concerned about the notability of this topic. I am not suggesting that Candace Owens or The Daily Wire are not notable, but that this show is not notable as an independent subject and does not WP:INHERIT notability from its host, network, or guests. The current sourcing is very poor in regards to coverage related to the show specifically. Most of the sources are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the show and instead are heavily focused on Candance Owens, The Daily Wire, or Donald Trump. For example, the Forbes article only contains one sentence that mentions the show. Most of the sources don't mention the show at all. For instance, the New York Daily News, NewsweekCNN, and The Washington Examiner sources all discuss related topics such as Candace Owens, The Daily Wire, and Trump but never even mention a show or podcast let alone provide in depth coverage of the show. Sources like the first and second references from The Hill as well as the Black Enterprise are largely WP:INTERVIEW content, which means that they are primary or not independent of the subject.

The reliability of the current sources is also quite concerning. I would expect to see a few sources that have made it to WP:RSP as "generally reliable" or a few sources that are not on RSP but appear reliable. However, the reliability of The Washington Examiner, The New York Daily News, Newsweek, and Forbes are all in question at RSP and as such likely do not contribute to notability. The reliability of OutKick and Black Enterprise have not been evaluated at RSP/RSN as far as I can tell. For OutKick, I can't find anything about an editorial board, mission statement, or even a list of staff and the parent company is simply OutKick Media. The site is at the very least a clearly partisan source and the author of this particular article is included on the site's list of "contributors", which is often flagged at WP:RSP as a potentially unreliable (WP:CONTRIBUTOR is relevant). The Black Enterprise source at least has an about page and a management staff page, however, I don't see "Cedric 'Big Ced' Thornton" listed as a member of the staff.

I also believe that WP:NOTNEWS is extremely pertinent. When looking for sources I find tons of news stories about Trump and his support of the vaccine rather than discussion about what the show is, how long an average episode is, what are similar or related shows, or a review of the show as a whole. Based on these searches it appears that Trump's views on vaccines is more notable than this show. The whole interaction between Candace and Cardi B sounds like WP:NOTGOSSIP. I also think WP:ROUTINE is relevant considering the few sources that do discuss the show are mostly just announcing that the start of the show and Candace's move to The Daily Wire.

There was a merge discussion that ended in no consensus with very little evidence suggesting that the show is independently notable. I believe this topic is more suited for a section at both the articles for Candace Owens and The Daily Wire rather than an independent page.

Does anyone else have input on this or does anyone know of any reliable sources that discuss the show in some depth? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You three appear to have been editing this page the most as of late so I'm pinging you in hopes of some discussion on this particular issue: Pemilligan, Valjean, and Dswitz10734. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could try an AfD. -- Valjean (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've no strong opinion on the subject. I would just hope that if this article is found not to be notable, that any notable contents be included in the Candace Owens article. -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for keeping this article, the show did draw a lot of critical response after Trump's second interview, but if you don't believe it's notable, my question is which article are you putting the content into, Candace Owens or The Daily Wire? Dswitz10734 (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dswitz10734: I felt that there was so little content in the article currently that it wouldn't be a bad idea to merge the content to both articles. I would think that even if this article continued to exist there should probably be a small section in each of those articles dedicated to the subject anyway. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Candace_(show)

Leave a Reply