Talk:Sybil (cat)

message: Is Sybil a mouser? I thought she was just a pet. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assorted early comments 

message: Sybil died strangely young and nobody investigated? The world needs to know what happened to this cat, we demand answers! 2A02:C7E:280B:8600:1084:27B3:FB89:F7DA (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mysterious death of Sybil! 

message: @Nikkimaria Just to let you know why the Daily Mail source is there: I am aware that it is an unreliable source, which is why I put it into a note, talking about the Daily Mail's article, not using it as a reference of fact. I even said this in the edit summary: "". It was simply to illustrate that the animal in question did not die in Edinburgh, but as I couldn't use the Daily Mail as a source, that was my work-around, to include all points of view. Additionally, we should treat the sources on a source-by-source basis; quoting WP:RSPSS "" Hope that's fine with you, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately no, that doesn't work - this approach to "include all points of view" means that you're citing a claim about the subject rather than about the Mail. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Nikkimaria The note said "The Daily Mail had previously reported"; deliberate choice of words there. It doesn't mean that what DM reported on was true, it simply means that the Daily Mail, as a newspaper, reported on something. If, however, you are against it? Not the end of the earth. Just means the article isn't as comprehensive as it could be. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't agree that adding "X reported" changes a factual claim about a third party into a legitimate ABOUTSELF exception. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Nikkimaria - Right. But what I suppose I'm saying is: the source backs up the claim that the Mail reported on the subject of the article, not verifying the actual fact they presented. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the argument you're making, I just don't agree that it is in keeping with the RSPSS note. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Nikkimaria - Alright. But, the question I'm really asking is, do you think that we can make an ad hoc exception here; also, whilst the Daily Mail's headquarters are, I'll admit, stuffed with of morally compromised journalists, would they really lie about the whereabouts of an animal? All I'm attempting to explain with the source is that Sybil died in London, not, as The Independent said, in Edinburgh. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't we already have three sources saying that? What is the benefit of making an exception to add this one? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Nikkimaria - It was to clarify that whilst Alistair and Margaret Darling had intended to return Sybil to Scotland, it ended up not happening. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - so you're not trying to cite the factual claim of the cat's whereabouts, but actually the intentions of her "people". Using a reference that attributes these intentions only to an unnamed source close to the cat. That seems much more questionable than the location claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget it; I'll find another source. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

text: @Nikkimaria I admit I'm having some trouble. What would you say to changing the wording of the note to ""? That way we would have a direct quote, avoiding claiming anything in wiki-voice. Sound fair? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that doesn't address my concerns. But you're welcome to start an RfC to see what the wider consensus might be. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Mail