This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Miami metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.MiamiWikipedia:WikiProject MiamiTemplate:WikiProject MiamiMiami
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
I think we need some clarifications before making this change. 1) Do you have a reliable source a la WP:RS 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.
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.
Neat. 1) This is a primary source, Wiki uses secondary sources, I would encourage you to read WP:SECONDARY 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?
Bottom line is that unless you have WP:RSP 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. Squatch347 (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. RopeyDope (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 RopeyDope (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 [1]. Perhaps you did it under a different account or IP?
None of the sources you offered meet WP:RS standards. All three are WP:RSSELF 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. Squatch347 (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem to be notable enough for article inclusion, but I think this conversation was spurred by the online contingent sometimes referred to as Groypers and their attacks on the Bee. You can see here for a background on the feud the Bee has had with Candace Owens and her ilk. I wouldn't be surprised if this page sees more traffic of that sort. It was low level persistent, but might get more traction if this continues. Squatch347 (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This diff [2] brings up an interesting subject. When WP:RSP deprecates a source as generally unreliable, how does that impact references that they obtained that are publicly available and verifiable by editors?
In this case, the Daily Wire was direct quoting a tweet and linked the tweet from Dillon. We aren't quoting what they said or think about it, but just the direct language of his tweet itself. There is no doubt that he made the comment, whatever the veracity of the Daily Wire's other reporting in the article. Is the preference to quote the tweet directly (which feels incorrect) or validate that, in this particular case, the source happened to be reliable?
If it's needed for NPOV, just put the tweet itself in as a primary sourced statement? No reason to go via a bad source (it's technically WP:GUNREL not deprecated, but still a source we should avoid where not necessary) that only embeds it anway, when we could just link the tweet itself - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
