The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Created by Daniel Case (talk). Self-nominated at 22:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: @Daniel Case: Good article. But I have a question. What makes Unsolved Mysteries a reliable source? Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
@Onegreatjoke: Granted, it's not listed on WP:RSPS, which of course doesn't say anything either way, since both reliability and unreliability are indicated there; really, that page is only about reporting for easy reference by editors as to sources where discussions at RS/N have reached a consensus about a given source.I do not think we presume anything regarding the reliability of a given source if it is not covered on that page, even where (as it seems in this case) there have not even been any RS/N discussions, so I of course won't make that argument. But ...
Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Frankly, it's more of a secondary source (two years ago, The New York Times described the show's website as "an information portal"—does that meet your standards? Comics Beat characterizes the episodes of its original series thusly when writing about the recent revival: "Much like the original, the show doesn't reach conclusions. It prefers to present the facts, perhaps nudge the audience down a particular road or two, and then leave viewers up to their own devices." Sounds almost familiar ...), really, aggregating all the factual claims from the other articles into one page, as well as some direct, attributed quotes. I don't see any difference between it and this article save in the style—there are no original theories of the case being advanced there, no facts reported only by Unsolved Mysteries.
And again, it establishes the case as having achieved national notability. I'm willing to add more sources to the end of sentences in addition to UM, but for a variety of reasons, not all of which I've gone into yet, I think it would be ill-advised and short-sighted to remove them all from the article entirely. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should use characterizations of a television program's style and aesthetics as a criterion to judge the reliability of the facts it reports. You didn't quote Tallerico saying that UM ever got anything wrong, because he didn't. A sensationalistically-reported fact is nevertheless a fact, just as much as a lie reported in the most sober and neutral-sounding language, with apparent real sources cited in its support, is no less a lie (as we and many major respectable mainstream media outlets have found out to our embarrassment on more than one occasion). Just because a story feels like it's playing fast and loose with the facts doesn't necessarily mean that it is.
And as to the question of whether UM is credible in reporting facts of true-crime stories, I would note that The Hollywood Reporter said recently, in comparing the Netflix reboot unfavorably to the original series, "The original series was driven heavily by re-enactments and, yes, sometimes they were cheesy as heck, but they were a way of illustrating claims or possibilities." Just as we cite and attribute sources to illustrate claims or possibilities.
I also find this unusual level of scrutiny on this one particular source to have potentially troubling implications that, of course, I am sure neither you nor Onegreatjoke intend, but that makes it especially more compelling that we discuss them.
This incident occurred in a remote corner of a sparsely populated state, far from any major media centers. The two victims were Native Americans, further marginalizing them. And the one nationally broadcast program that publicized the story outside southeastern South Dakota is relentlessly questioned here as somehow suspect in its recounting of the facts despite no real reason to do so, just a sort of "it feels icky because I mainly remember watching it during high school with my friends while we were all drunk or stoned out of our gourds" type argument.
It would be altogether too easy, at least to me, for someone outside to look at this and wonder if in fact systemic bias isn't in play, at least at a structural level. And where someone wonders that, the perception will at least linger, perhaps even strengthen, no matter how forcefully we deny it.
If this case had happened with exactly the same set of facts to a couple in the suburbs of Minneapolis, and been covered by local newspapers there as well as Unsolved Mysteries, I think we might not be having this discussion. We have the article Missing and murdered Indigenous women because activists have called attention to not only those women and their cases but the relative lack of media coverage due to the same factors I pointed to above, making the subject notable enough for us. I know and accept that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, but neither should we knowingly play a part in perpetuating them, and one of those wrongs, we would all agree, is one we have an article ably documenting: missing white woman syndrome, partly enabled by the fact that it's structurally easier for the media to cover those cases for geographical reasons, but knowing that doesn't make the media look any less racist to many people.
All that said, I am willing to trim the citations down to just those that quote Dep. Youngstrom as to facts of the case he believes to be true based on his observations and investigations, since he gave those quotes to no other media outlet, and any supporting the segment's actual airing. But not till later today, after I have had a good night's sleep. Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Actually, that might work in our favor. It might be enough time to request copies of the police reports from the Charles Mix County Sheriff's Department, so I can cite them instead since, apparently, Unsolved Mysteries is such an untrustworthy source that we cannot trust even quoted material from on-camera interviews where the speakers are clearly identified. Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)