|
}}
{{Contentious topics/aware|blp|ap|gg}}
== ''[[The Oxford Student]]'' and ''[[Cherwell (newspaper)|Cherwell]]'' ==
I can easily find other sources for O'Neill's views regarding freedom of speech. However, the student papers seem to have been the only ones covering the protests over his 2018 visit. I am not using them to make controversial claims - I am using them to verify that Oxford students protested O'Neill's 2018 visit. This should not be an issue.--[[User:LadybugStardust|LadybugStardust]] ([[User talk:LadybugStardust|talk]]) 19:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
:It is an issue, as protesting someone for their views is inherently controversial. We need high-quality sources to support such a claim regarding living persons. Additionally, if only one source is reporting on the situation, that's a sign that it's an [[WP:UNDUE|undue or minority viewpoint]]. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 19:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
::Okay, what if I reframed the wording to say that "In 2018, Oxford student newspapers reported that..."?--[[User:LadybugStardust|LadybugStardust]] ([[User talk:LadybugStardust|talk]]) 19:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
:::If reliable, secondary, independent sources—that is, ''not'' the student newspapers but reputable sources ''reporting on them''—have covered this situation, that might be fine. But it would really have to be widely reported, by several sources at least, to be DUE. Considering the number of reverts you're currently at, I would strongly suggest trying to workshop any phrasing on the Talk page rather than adding it yourself—which would likely be seen as further reverts. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 19:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
:Okay, I noticed that you just removed a large amount of content from the article because it used "primarily sources". You ''are'' aware that linking to primary sources is perfectly fine when it's used to reference the subject's stated views, right? Those links were citing op-eds when talking about the subject's point-of-view, which is the only time that it's acceptable to cite op-eds. Where else are you going to get the subject's stated views?--[[User:LadybugStardust|LadybugStardust]] ([[User talk:LadybugStardust|talk]]) 01:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|Where else are you going to get the subject's stated views?}} From reliable, secondary, independent sources. Coverage from reliable sources is what makes a person's views worth mentioning here. In most other cases, we don't care. See [[WP:SPS]], for example. If O'Neill were a subject matter expert on homosexuality, racism, religion, environmentalism, etc., then we might care. But he's a pundit. And keep in mind that, per policies like [[WP:BLPSPS]] and [[WP:ABOUTSELF]], we can never use his self-published sources to support claims about other living persons. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 01:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
== [[Brendan O'Neill (columnist)|Brendan O'Neill]] ==
:Never mind. I found out that it had nothing to do with the sources. It was the documents. Technically, Alexa just censored her home address on her restraining order document to keep it private. [[User:Chidie345|Chidie345]] ([[User talk:Chidie345|talk]]) 04:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
::For our purposes, it really doesn't matter if she censored one thing and not another. On Wikipedia, we simply can't use documents like that to support claims about living persons. I urge you to read through our [[WP:BLP|policy on content about living persons]] if you're going to be editing articles about them. I hope this helps. Cheers! [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 13:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
|