| Revision as of 20:58, 24 February 2021 editGorillaWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators119,185 edits →Can this legally be considered “satire”?: +← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:43, 9 January 2025 edit undoGorillaWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators119,185 edits Undid revision 1268449145 by RopeyDope (talk)Tag: Undo |
| (285 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C| |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|class= start|importance=low |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance = low}} |
|
|attention= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Comedy|importance = low}} |
|
|needs-infobox= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet|importance= low}} |
|
|orphan= yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Computing|importance= low |websites=yes|websites-importance=}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Comedy|class = start|importance = low |
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance= mid }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Miami||importance= low }} |
|
|attention = |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Florida |importance= low }} |
|
|small = |
|
|
|listas = |
|
|
|category = |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet|class= start|importance= low |
|
|
|attention= |
|
|
|needs-image= |
|
|
|SWTF= |
|
|
|SWTF-importance= |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Computing|class= start|importance= low |websites=yes|websites-importance=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture|class= start|importance= mid }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Miami||class= start|importance= low }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Florida |class= start|importance= low }} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
| algo=old(365d) |
|
| algo=old(90d) |
|
| archive=Talk:The Babylon Bee/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| archive=Talk:The Babylon Bee/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| counter=1 |
|
| counter=2 |
|
| maxarchivesize=150K |
|
| maxarchivesize=150K |
|
| archiveheader={{tan}} |
|
| archiveheader={{tan}} |
| Line 32: |
Line 19: |
|
| minthreadstoarchive=1 |
|
| minthreadstoarchive=1 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{notavote}} |
|
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
| subject = article |
|
|
| author = Seth Dillon |
|
|
| title = How The Babylon Bee Is Fighting Back |
|
|
| org = ] |
|
|
| url = https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/how-the-babylon-bee-is-fighting-back/ |
|
|
| date = {{date|3 July 2021}} |
|
|
| quote = |
|
|
| archiveurl = |
|
|
| archivedate = |
|
|
| accessdate = |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ford's reasons for sale as WP:DUE == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can we review the removal of the sourced material on why Ford sold the Babylon Bee? |
|
|
|
|
|
From what I can see, it was removed for two main reasons; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) Sourcing |
|
== Bias == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This doesn't seem to be an issue here given that we have no issue with The Christian Post at <nowiki>]</nowiki>, especially given the topic expertise in the area the Bee is in; and that it is in Ford's voice, so it isn't a particularly controversial topic. |
|
introduces biased commentary from a hostile source. There have been hundreds of articles written about the Bee. It seems inexcusable to lead this section with a quote from The Rolling Stone, which maligns the Bee by describing its content—without justification—as being "explicitly misogynistic or transphobic." That description is not just uncharitable and disputed, but malicious. Shouldn't this section offer a straightforward, objective description of the site's content—or, at the very least, balanced commentary? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2) <nowiki>]</nowiki> |
|
It's hardly a reach to call the bee transphobic. They're quite proud of that label themselves <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the source, it isn't the first reason mentioned, but it is the reason Ford elaborates on at greatest length, so it is clearly relevant to his thought process. We could add those other reasons as well, but they seem less related to this article. Further, this specific reason is DUE for the this article given that a large bulk of the article relates to the Bee's conflict with Social Media companies. That the founder sold the site to avoid those specific controversies, in part, is pretty related to the article's overall content. |
|
How is there no reply from the editors on this? The description of this site's content should be written from a neutral point of view. The source cited (Rolling Stone) makes allegations that could be considered defamatory. Those allegations are not supported, here or in the Rolling Stone article. And nothing is provided here to counter-balance their biased commentary. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:''Rolling Stone'' is a reliable source (see ]), and this statement is properly ]. If you have any reliable sources that contradict ''Rolling Stone'''s statement, feel free to provide them and they could potentially be added, but there is no reason to remove the statement. ] <small>]</small> 04:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm sure people on the left consider it a reliable source because it slanders all the right people and expresses politically correct views. But that's beside the point. The fact remains that hundreds of articles have been written about The Babylon Bee over the years. Why lead with quotes from this one, in particular? Leading off the "Content" section with commentary from a site that is hostile to The Babylon Bee and its worldview just validates any claims that this page is being written and edited with bias rather than encyclopedic neutrality. If anything, the content section should be a straightforward, neutral description of the type of content the Bee writes. The addition of another section called "Criticism" would be an appropriate place for RS's critical commentary. A change like that would restore integrity to this page. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::No, ''Misplaced Pages'' considers it to be a reliable source. Not all Wikipedians are leftists. Most sources have some kind of point of view, and that does not disqualify them from use on this project. Per ], {{tq|Misplaced Pages 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.}} It also notes that {{tq|Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate}}, and we are attributing this statement from ''Rolling Stone'' in-text as is appropriate for statements like this. |
|
|
:::The quote is included because it usefully describes the kinds of content published by the ''Bee'', as is appropriate in a section about content. As I already said, if you have other sources that describe the ''Bee's'' content that you think ought to be used here, provide them. Simply saying "hundreds of articles have been written about The Babylon Bee over the years" is not an actionable suggestion. |
|
|
:::As for your suggestion that this statement be relegated to a "criticism" section, we specifically avoid doing that. Per ], {{tq|Likewise, the article structure must protect neutrality. Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), '''best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section'''.}} The bolded statement is precisely what is happening here. ] <small>]</small> 16:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You said the quote "usefully describes the kinds of content published by the Bee." No, it describes how critics who loathe the Bee view the content. For balance, where is the commentary from sources that view the Bee's content more positively? My actionable suggestion is that such sources be included. The Bee's content is described without justification as misogynistic, transphobic, anti-left and pro-Trump. Trump is literally and demonstrably the most targeted figure on the site, and it's not even close. A source like RS may be generally reliable while still missing the mark in particular cases. Christianity Today, as a counter-example, as, "a Christian-themed satire website in the vein of The Onion, lampooning the faithful across denominations, political affiliations, and age groups" that captures "the perfect tone of speaking truthful harassment in love." The New York Times as "an upstart Christian satirical website that lampoons progressive ideas, Democrats, Christians and President Trump." Sounds pretty well-rounded there. And flatly contradicts Rolling Stone's claim that the site is "pro-Trump." A simple search of the site contradicts that claim, too. In one of , for example, Trump is skewered ruthlessly for his arrogance. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::::{{tq|For balance, where is the commentary from sources that view the Bee's content more positively?}} One notion I should disavail you of is the idea that in order to present something negative about a subject, we must also present something positive (or vice versa). We "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in '''proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint''' in the published, reliable sources" (]). This means if the majority of coverage about a subject is negative, the article reflects that; the same is true in reverse. We do not create a ] when such a balance is not representative of RS. |
|
|
:::::Thank you providing specific sources in this comment. |
|
|
:::::Regarding the Trump thing, ''Rolling Stone'' wrote (and this article quotes) that the site "initially started out as something of an equal opportunity offender, but over the past four years the Babylon Bee has evolved into a more explicitly anti-left, pro-Trump publication". Given that the ''NYT'' article predates the ''RS'' one, it does not seem to me to be in contradiction. Regardless of whether they contradict, it's alright for two RS to hold different views of something, and we can ]. I am noticing that both of these sources predate the ''Rolling Stone'' statement, and am curious if you have any other sources that you feel describe the site's content more accurately that were published around the same time or after the ''Rolling Stone'' piece? Otherwise we can't really present them as multiple views on the same topic, since ''RS'' (and ) have said the site's content evolved over time. ] <small>]</small> 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Noting that I've edited the content section, and I've added both sources you've suggested. Thank you for providing them, and feel free to comment here if you find any other RS with viewpoints you think ought to be incorporated. ] <small>]</small> 19:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I think those edits were substantial improvements. However, I still think a statement like this is just an assertion being presented as a verified fact: "the site grew less critical of Trump and became more anti-left and anti-liberal." <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::::::::It is supported by three reliable sources (''Rolling Stone'' and two articles in the ''New York Times''), and I've not seen any sources that contradict it. ] <small>]</small> 21:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Oh please. Misplaced Pages has become a parody in and of itself. The one-directional "lawyering," arbitrary enforcement of "rules," and jealous guardianship against any and all entries that are not in-line with the transparently obvious heavy-handed leftist agenda; the scrubbing of even the talk page discussions (this comment of mine will likely have a shelf-life of 5 or 10 minutes); the sloppy and grossly blatant one-sided POV and partisanship; the constant disingenuousness and lack of intellectual honesty; the hiding behind the trite "but you must assume good faith" sanctimony that, again, is always one-sided; and, lastly, the list of "reliable sources" that are deemed yellow journalism at best -- and propagandist schmaltz at worst -- by all but a select few smug self-superior circles. Keep "showing your ass" as the saying goes. ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 09:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::::::Do you have any suggestions for changes to this article? This is not the place for general screeds against Misplaced Pages as a whole. ] <small>]</small> 16:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 18:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Can this legally be considered “satire”? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Misinformation == |
|
Isn’t satire supposed to be humorous in some way? Or at the very least, have some sort of coherent comedic structure to it? I’ve read many Bee articles and they largely seem constitutionally unable to craft anything even resembling a joke or satirical barb. Open to others’ thoughts on this <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Misplaced Pages reflects what is published in reliable sources, and those sources generally describe the ''Bee'' as a satire site. ] <small>]</small> 17:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agreed with ]. This is about what reputable sources say, not any individual editor's sense of humor ] (]) 22:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::It is most unfortunate though, because in reality the Babylon Bee is no different from any other right wing disinfo site. Fox, OAN, Newsweek, Bounding into Comics, you name it, they're all the same. The Bee simply found a way to protect themselves from liability by adding "loljk" at the end of every article. Which is perfectly in line with the usual tactics of the trump era. Every time they are caught lying they simply say it was just a joke the whole time. But as long as they avoid being fact checked, Republicans eat this nonsense up like it was candy. I'm pretty sure snopes did release an article defending their decision to fact-check the Bee. They even had statistics showing that over 40% of republicans can't tell the difference between babylon bee "satire" and actual news stories. To call this site "satire" is like calling the anti abortion movement "pro life". ] (]) 07:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Have secondary reliable sources said what you are saying here? If so, it could be incorporated into the article. ] <small>]</small> 18:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::There was a Snopes article from August 16, 2019, titled "Study: Too many people think satirical news is real", with a survey showing a very high percentage of Republicans falling for Babylon Bee "satire". I don't remember the specifics, and I'm not very good at looking this stuff up. Does Snopes not count as a secondary source? ] (]) 19:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No, Snopes is fine: ]. ] <small>]</small> 19:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: ] (]) 03:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I see. This definitely doesn't support the claims that "The Bee simply found a way to protect themselves from liability by adding "loljk" at the end of every article. Which is perfectly in line with the usual tactics of the trump era", but it does seem to have some useful information to add here. I've done so: . I'll note that although Snopes republished the article, it was actually originally from ''The Conversation''. ] <small>]</small> 04:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::There's an issue with the Snopes study. Rather than using the actual headline, they used a summary of the article. If you compare the actual headline with the Snopes summary, the issue makes itself clear: |
|
|
{| class="wikitable" |
|
|
|+ Headline v. Summary |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! ''Babylon Bee'' Headline !! ''Snopes'' Summary |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| || Most Americans believe that major media companies should apologize for pushing the now-debunked news story of collusion between President Trump and Russia. |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| || Representative Ilhan Omar said that being Jewish is an inherently hostile act, especially among those living in Israel. |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| || CNN news anchor Anderson Cooper said his belief that Trump colluded with Russia is unshakable; it will not change regardless of statements or evidence to the contrary. |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| || Bob Iger, CEO of Disney, said that the company will move its Georgia-based filming operations back to Hollywood in order to avoid filming among “depraved, immoral people.” |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| || Cory Booker is one of several prominent Democrats to describe the Second Amendment as a dangerous “loophole” that allows people to buy guns. |
|
|
|} |
|
|
:::::::By rephrasing the articles to sound more believable, Snopes is able to inflate the amount of "definitely true" responses and exaggerate the gullibility of Americans (although people can be really, really dumb). This was a poorly-done study with numerous methodology flaws. ] (]) 15:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::{{re|AngryBird029}} I've to the article based on this ReasonTV source. Just as a note, this study was not performed by Snopes. They published a piece that cited the research, but it was ''The Conversation'' who actually performed the study. ] <small>]</small> 16:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Correct, Snopes did not originate the flawed study. They just promoted it and tried to give it legitimacy. It's good that Mann's response was included. I'm sure there were articles published debunking the junk study. Perhaps one can be cited here in fairness to sites it disparages so dishonestly. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::::::::::If you find any, feel free to point us to them and we can add them. Our reliable sourcing policy is at ] if you need it. ] <small>]</small> 21:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::: in the Washington Examiner is critical of the study's methodology. "By rewording the headlines to remove the obvious comedy tells, the survey was predetermined to get the result it did. The researchers ought to be embarrassed, and Snopes ought to be doubly embarrassed for continuing its bizarre jihad against the Babylon Bee." One point I haven't seen anyone make is that part of the joke is the photoshopped image that accompanies the funny headlines. Many of The Onion and Babylon Bee stories rely on a combination of funny headlines paired with ridiculous photoshops. , for example. If you divorce the headline from the image, you make it more believable. That would be bad enough. But to pull the headline away from the context of the image ''and'' to paraphrase it seems to just be an egregiously dishonest effort to force the study to find what they wanted it to find. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::::::::::::The ''Washington Examiner'' is ]. ] <small>]</small> 19:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Yellow just means "no consensus," right? That doesn't mean it's unreliable. Snopes is green on that list, which is just comical. The whole system is rigged, end to end. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::::::::::::::It means there is no consensus that it is reliable (or unreliable). I usually try to avoid using them as sources. If you would like to revisit the reliability of Snopes, feel free to begin a discussion at ], but nothing is "rigged". ] <small>]</small> 17:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::I came to this discussion after reading about it here: . I am of the opinion that the Snopes study is not worth mentioning on this article.--] (]) 20:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::: {{re|Epiphyllumlover}} Can you elaborate on why you are of that opinion? ] <small>]</small> 21:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Should probably also note that the Examiner piece was an OPED, not an article in the traditional sense. We should be wary of including it for that reason. I think the adding of AngryBird's Reason link does a good job highlighting the issue. ] (]) 21:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::That seems fair, but it's worth noting that opinions are not only expressed in pieces that are labeled as op-eds. For example, the Rolling Stone gave their opinion — and it is merely an opinion — that the Bee's content is explicitly hateful (misogynistic and transphobic). Including that opinion in this article was justified by one of the editors because Rolling Stone is listed as a "reliable source." But does the source from which an opinion comes magically transform it into fact? It certainly is not objectively the case that the Bee hates women. The Bee makes jokes at the expense of both women ''and'' men. It's what the site has always done. It makes fun of Christians, too, and the site is run by Christians. Most people who read the Bee think these jokes are funny and lighthearted, not hateful. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::::::::::::::This is precisely why the ''Rolling Stone'' statement is directly quoted and ], as is directed for statements that may be "biased statements of opinion". We have done the same with other statements of opinion in the article, both positive and negative, as is appropriate. I note you don't seem to have an issue with the positive statements that are also based in opinion, such as the statement that the site "excels at poking fun at the small idiosyncrasies of believers". |
|
|
:::::::::::::::{{tq|The Bee makes jokes at the expense of both women ''and'' men. It's what the site has always done... Most people who read the Bee think these jokes are funny and lighthearted, not hateful.}} for all of this if you wish it to be incorporated into the article. Your own opinions on the site's content, or how it is received, are no more useful in determining how the article ought to describe the site than mine are. ] <small>]</small> 17:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::I'm not suggesting my opinions be included. I'm offering feedback. Anyone can look at the site and find jokes that mock men. I just performed a search for "Dad" on the site and . The site should be accurately represented, and some of the opinions quoted on this page are more accurate than others and can be verified by visiting the site directly, or by reviewing the public statements of the founder and current leadership. I don't object to the opinion that the site excels at poking at believers because that was ''the stated purpose of the site at its inception'', Adam Ford. As for the fact that most people who read the site's content find it funny and lighthearted, I'm not sure how you source that beyond evaluating the reaction its posts receive on social media. It's not hard to find countless people sharing the Bee's content thinking it's hysterical. That counts for nothing, unless The Rolling Stone points it out? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::As I said in the sentence immediately after where I said your opinions can't be included in the article, your opinions (nor mine) ''also'' can't be used to determine how this article ought to describe the site. You are suggesting ] when you mention visiting the site and "verifying" what reliable sources have published. If you think a reliable source's description of the site is inaccurate, only a contradiction by another reliable source is useful; your own research cannot be used. If you look at the discussion of the research in ''The Conversation'' just above in this discussion, you'll see where that has been done once already. |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::{{tq|I don't object to the opinion that the site excels at poking at believers because that was ''the stated purpose of the site at its inception''}} Our ] policy requires that Misplaced Pages articles "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." It does ''not'' suggest that we should describe subjects as they describe themselves; otherwise this would not be an encyclopedia, it would be an advertising site. |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::{{tq|It's not hard to find countless people sharing the Bee's content thinking it's hysterical. That counts for nothing, unless The Rolling Stone points it out?}} Almost correct; that counts for nothing unless a reliable source (''Rolling Stone'' or otherwise) points it out. ] <small>]</small> 20:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Babylon Bee is owned and ran by a Jewish person. To call it a “Christian” website is categorically false. ] (]) 13:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
Well, this really took off while I was gone. Ok, a couple of quick questions for @]; first though, looking through the edits offered I support their inclusion. We might be giving a bit undue weight to this single article, it is really kind of a side story, but the current version is pretty balanced and well sourced. I was curious though, why did you remove the "Not the Bee" section? That is a parallel site of the Babylon Bee in much the same way the AV Club is for The Onion and the tie seems like a logical inclusion. Also, I'm not sure we need a secondary source for a reference on what books the site has put out, it isn't really a questionable claim. ] (]) 20:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I think we need some clarifications before making this change. 1) Do you have a reliable source a la ] that states it is "owned and run" by a Jewish person? 2) Does the ownership of the site by someone who is (ethnically or even religiously Jewish) mean the site itself isn't Christian? We would need a couple of sources for that one given how many sources are currently on there that refer to it as Christian. |
|
:{{re|Squatch347}} {{tq|We might be giving a bit undue weight to this single article, it is really kind of a side story, but the current version is pretty balanced and well sourced.}} Which article do you mean? The one from ''The Conversation''? |
|
|
|
:My sense, given the timing, is that this is probably more motivated by the Candace Owens blow up rather than anything serious and doesn't qualify for inclusion here. |
|
:I removed the section on "Not the Bee" for the same reason I removed the book information: I couldn't find any secondary sourcing about it. Neither of the removals were based in verifiability concerns; the fact that I can't find any secondary sources even ''mentioning'' them makes me think they are not noteworthy enough to mention. ] <small>]</small> 20:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] (]) 14:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
::Yes, the article from "The Conversation," not a big deal, like I said the current version is a good balance. |
|
|
|
::Seth Dillon himself has said that he is Jewish. |
|
::I'm not sure we generally require a secondary source for a list of publications. The Onion's list, for example, is just internet archival of the video The Onion released announcing its publication. Ditto for referencing Not the Bee. As a spinoff it is akin to some of the additions on the Onion's Wiki page of sections or parallels sites that are solely referenced by that site's address. The point of insisting on secondary sources is to provide weight for things that might be challenged. That the site exists probably doesn't fall into the category of controversial. ] (]) 21:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:: ] (]) 14:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
:::Fair enough, if you want to put it back in that's fine by me. I'm not too bothered either way, so long as we're not going into a ton of detail (which the previous revision was not). ] <small>]</small> 21:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::Neat. 1) This is a primary source, Wiki uses secondary sources, I would encourage you to read ] for more information. 2) I'm not sure how Seth Dillon's ethnic background affects the Babylon Bee's categorization. This is an article about the Bee, not Seth Dillon. Nor does ethnic background really impact its religious categorization. To reference the Bee article that kicked this whole thing off, Jesus was a Jew, does that mean we should strip the Christian categorization from his page? |
|
::::Just noting for other readers of this discussion that this is {{done}} ] <small>]</small> 17:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::Bottom line is that unless you have ] secondary sources that say the Babylon Bee is not Christian (since we have several labeling it as such) it is inappropriate to remove that label. ] (]) 15:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::1) Cool story, but I was directly addressing the disingenuous challenge of not knowing whether Dillon is Jewish. Best source for that information would be the man himself. |
|
|
::::2) As for secondary sources that debunk your claims: here is one explaining how the Babylon Bee |
|
|
::::Here’s another secondary source that how the Babylon Bee has changed over the recent years as to not be a “Christian site” any more. |
|
|
::::Here is an that explains how the Bee is no longer a “Christian site.” |
|
|
::::I can keep citing more sources if you want… ] (]) 18:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:Why couldn't a Christian website be owned by a Jewish person? ] (]) 18:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::I never claimed it couldn’t be, but it definitely seems like a conflict of interest to say the least. Don’t take my word for it, I’ve cited multiple secondary sources that also explain why the Babylon Bee is no longer a “Christian site” whatever that even means. A simple google search will show how the site has transformed into something else over the last few years. ] (]) 18:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::I would ask Dillon himself (via X) if he considers the Babylon Bee to be a “Christian site” but his response would be irrelevant to some people here since it’s not a secondary source even though he owns the site lol ] (]) 18:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hmm, perhaps I missed it, where did you cite a secondary source? Looking back here and with your edits, you only offered the Dillon X post, which isn't secondary as you note. I just reviewed all of your contributions and you don't appear to have offered a single secondary source . Perhaps you did it under a different account or IP? |
|
|
:::Your post seems to be a bit more of your opinion on the Bee rather than what the sources state. Without sources, this conversation is moot per ].] (]) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Here’s one: https://hackingchristianity.net/2022/08/punching-down-behind-the-babylon-bees-practice-of-christian-mockery.html |
|
|
::::And another: https://thepostcalvin.com/weird-or-not-weird-a-critique-of-the-babylon-bee/ |
|
|
::::I’ll stop embedding them as I think that may be why they’re hard to see ] (]) 20:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Both sources you've provided here, though probably not reliable sources, explicitly describe the ''Bee'' as a Christian satire site. ] (she/her • ]) 20:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::None of the sources you offered meet ] standards. All three are ] self-published blogs and appear to be opinion essays. We don't need to get into the fact that all three of them label the site as a Christian satire site (even if they are critiquing their application of Christianity), we simply shouldn't even consider self-published opinion blogs. |
|
|
:::::I would really encourage you to click the RS link above and read through it, it will help you get a better sense of how we approach source review and discovery. ] (]) 20:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
Can we review the removal of the sourced material on why Ford sold the Babylon Bee?
This doesn't seem to be an issue here given that we have no issue with The Christian Post at ], especially given the topic expertise in the area the Bee is in; and that it is in Ford's voice, so it isn't a particularly controversial topic.
In the source, it isn't the first reason mentioned, but it is the reason Ford elaborates on at greatest length, so it is clearly relevant to his thought process. We could add those other reasons as well, but they seem less related to this article. Further, this specific reason is DUE for the this article given that a large bulk of the article relates to the Bee's conflict with Social Media companies. That the founder sold the site to avoid those specific controversies, in part, is pretty related to the article's overall content.
