This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump 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.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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 articles
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Despite being deprecated by Wikipedia, I chose to use a Daily Caller link to back up the impact of joebiden.info. There are other references but I feel it was important, in balance, to include. tedder (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
The Daily Caller deprecation RFC says: There is an overwhelming majority, arguments and all, for option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail. The 2017 Daily Mail RFC says: its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited. This is a strong general consensus, which would be difficult to reasonably override with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
What makes Daily Caller overwhelmingly the correct source to use here, over and above any other possible source? - David Gerard (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
