Talk:Danney Williams

Need advice

Hi DrStraus. Your reason for not accepting this stub is: "Lots of these claims need multiple references per WP:BLP."

I ran across this article and saw that it had been rejected, for VERY good reasons! Most of the problems were easy to fix, so I immediately did so, and then gradually added more and better sourcing.

I've been here since 2003 (autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 52649 edits since: 2005-12-18) and written several articles, plus editing a wide variety of subjects. This is a new interpretation of BLP for me. I haven't seen it before. If it were contentious content, then of course we'd demand rigorous sourcing above the ordinary. Then I would see a need for multiple sources for any seriously contentious claim.

The content here is fringe and not really very contentious (in the sense of being contended by many), and the sources used are impeccable RS. It's a fringe claim with a pretty low bar per WP:PARITY. The false claims are easily debunked with the sources used, and the sourcing for the false claims was very poor and unreliable sources.

Maybe you noticed some particularly weak area that needs bolstering? I'd be happy to try to do so.

I feel this article is worth saving as this is a very notable false claim floating around out there and it does need to be met, and we can do it using RS. Our primary job here is to document "the sum total of human knowledge" (Jimbo) as we find it documented in RS. Not dealing with this subject would leave a hole in our coverage, and that would be a violation of our primary goal here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DrStrauss is blocked and can't help. I have moved this from draft since the problems have been fixed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The story of the "paternity test" appears to be very convoluted. It also appears that Star is now denying they conducted one, that's at least what Danny says. Seems like that part needs to be clarified and cleaned up to reflect facts instead of one paper saying what they claim another paper told them but didn't publish. youtu. be/_f01_bCI4Qg 2001:558:6033:19D:35E9:5652:4D55:FC71 (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WaPo an unreliable source?

Ahrtoodeetoo, please explain this edit:

00:01, June 18, 2019‎ Ahrtoodeetoo talk contribs‎ 4,234 bytes -103‎ Undid revision 902312205 by BullRangifer (talk) not a reliable source for that point, Snopes source explains that TIME article was based solely on unreliable Star story.

WaPo is normally considered a very RS. It's also an important detail we have in the body, and it's important enough to include in the lead, even more important than the "unproven" from Snopes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, WaPo is generally quite reliable, no argument there. However in this case The Fix (which isn't as consistently reliable as WaPo's newsroom) got something wrong, as revealed by Snopes: they relied on the reporting of Star (magazine), a totally unreliable tabloid. Or, arguably, The Fix wasn't citing Star as an accurate news source, but only to indicate that Drudge was full of shit. Either way, the WaPo source can't be used for this particular point. R2 (bleep) 00:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Drudge usually is full of shit! In this case they pushed nonsense, along with the other fringe sources, until they "saw the light" and turned 180 degrees and defended Clinton's honor. When a normally antagonistic source does that, they can become an unusually reliable source, sort of like when Fox News actually criticizes Trump.

Then Trump came along and Drudge has been part of the pro-Trump conspiracy mongering crowd, facts be damned.

But that's really a diversion. The point is, and it still stands, that Clinton's DNA is part of the public record, and Williams did provide his own DNA sample. The comparison of the two sets of DNA could not have affirmed with certainty that Clinton was the father, but that comparison did 100% EXCLUDE Clinton as the father. That point is still firm and should be included.-- BullRangifer (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not when it's based on an analysis commissioned and reported by a tabloid like Star. Did you read the Snopes article? R2 (bleep) 20:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This must be the fifth time I have read the Snopes story. It was Star which ordered the test. It was also them which declared that the test did not prove that Clinton was the father. This result was not in their interest, hence they are likely telling the truth, and we should accept their word for it. Time magazine and Drudge also back this version, with the added benefit that they make it clear that the test excluded Clinton as the father. If you don't want to credit Star or Drudge with that info, then credit Time with it. They are a RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When a tabloid or other unreliable source reports something that's not in their interest, that doesn't turn their reporting into a reliable source, especially when it's based on a single anonymous source. Star doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; that makes them unreliable, end of story. As we know from recent history, tabloids get involved in all sorts of shenanigans. Who knows, maybe Star was doing Clinton a favor, just as Pecker did Trump a favor. In any case, the fact that Drudge (of all outlets!) relied on Star is no surprise and says nothing about Star's reliability. And if TIME had added some corroborating evidence, then maybe it would have been a reliable source. Instead, the TIME story was just a two-paragraph blurb passing off tabloid journalism as real journalism. This has been pointed out by Snopes, one of the most reputable fact checkers. R2 (bleep) 15:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you, but this seems like OR rejection of Time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's based on Snopes, so it's not OR. R2 (bleep) 16:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Time magazine article came before the Snopes article, and we could just use the Time source for that item. Does Snopes contradict Time? -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not about whether one source contradicts another. Snopes points out why the Time source is unreliable. The Snopes source is reliable; the Time source is not.

I feel like we’re arguing in circles now. R2 (bleep) 01:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to figure this out. You present arguments I hadn't heard before, so I have to rethink this and read the sources again every time. I'm still confused. I still don't see why we can't have both "unproven" and "excluded" in the lead. Snopes seems to accept both as true. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Snopes has simply come to a different conclusion than Time, then I might have agreed with you, as then we'd arguably have two conflicting reliable sources. But that's not what happened. Snopes acknowledged the Time story, explained how it was poorly sourced, and then completely discounted it in its final analysis. That amounts to a refutation. I agree with that refutation; therefore, the Time source isn't reliable. So we're left with one reliable source, that has come to a verdict on this issue, namely Snopes, and its verdict is "unproven." R2 (bleep) 16:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Snopes article cited concludes that the claim that a reliable paternity DNA test was conducted is “unproven “. We need to remove the statement “The claim was refuted by DNA testing” citing the Snopes article that actually concludes that our statement is “unproven”. If there is a RS for our statement, then cite it. Harpervi (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]