User talk:RunningTiger123

Archives (Index)

1 2

Janet(s)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 6 December 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2023. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Online Safety Act

Hi. You have made a number of edits to this article - once to suggest OR and once to delete content. I'm assuming good faith, and asking that you discuss any further edits on the talk page first before making any further edits. The issue here is simple but unusual. This article page - up until 26th October related to the Online Safety Bill - draft legislation. This article was well source. However, on the 26th, according to sources, the Bill received royal assent, making it current law, ie an Act. Normally when this is the came the text of the Act is published on leglasation.gov.uk at the same time as royal assent. For some reason - unknown - this has not happened. Similarly, on Wikipedia articles, when the articles relates to an Act there's always an external link and/or citations to the text of the Act. In this case, there has resulted in a situaiton where an article about the Online Safety Act is actually very thinly and inadequately supported by sources, since nearly all the sources relate to the draft Bill. The sources that do relate to the Act do so only in a thin and passing manner and only repeat the Government press release announcement. This source is flawed since is does not provide any evidence of the text of the Act. This is a highly unusual situation where a potential front page Wiki article is underpinned almost entirely by a Government announcement, and no substance. I would image that this situtation would be short lived and that the text of the Act will be published shortly. Until then, however, I think it would be prudent to keep this clarification paragraph. Otherwise, the Wikipedia article would not only be inaccurate, but could lead to Wikipedia looking less than encyclopaedic and impartial if the situation turns out not to be short lived for any reason. I will reprint this on the article's talk page, please do discuss further. Thanks for your understanding. Tonyinman (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tonyinman: If the situation is indeed so unusual, it would be covered in secondary sources. We should not try to draw conclusions about whether this is unusual. I ultimately removed the paragraph because it was inappropriate synthesis – pointing out the lack of publication in a primary source and pointing to a different primary source relating to when publication should occur to conclude on your own that something is unusual is basically the definition of inappropriate synthesis. I'll leave a message on the article talk page for others to weigh in. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Noted. However, be aware that, in the event that this is unsual, the edit history is public - as it should be. Tonyinman (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tonyinman: What do you mean by the edit history is public - as it should be? That comes across as intimidating to me. If I'm wrong and other sources point it out as unusual then I'll fully support a mention of that – no need to cast aspersions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Simply a factual comment. No intimidation intended and no aspersions cast. Tonyinman (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)