Talk:Killing of Alexandra Mezher
Latest comment: 8 years ago by AusLondonder in topic Reliable sourcing
Reliable source
Replaced material sourced to the Gatestone Institute. Deleting editor appears to disagree politically with the Gatestone Institute's politics. Insufficient reason to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- WP:AGF. I specifically mentioned WP:RSN in my edit comment, and if you search for Gatestone in the archives you will find that Gatestone isn't considered a reliable source per WP standards. I also question using any source connected to the Counterjihad movement as a source for a statement of fact in immigration related topics. It shouldn't be hard to find a reliable source for the statement if it is correct.
- I'm not particularly happy with using British tabloids as sources either, and I'm pretty sure the Daily Mail is considered unreliable, but I don't have time to check WP:RSN right now. Sjö (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sourcing
This article is continuing to use unreliable sources, which I have removed per WP:BLP as they make allegations about living people. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. The Sun is not a reliable source. The Gatestone Institute is not a reliable source. AusLondonder (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not reliable according to whom? Please see Template:unreliable source, best used instead of removing sourced content. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Gatestone institute is not a reliable source per consensuns on WP:RSN. There is no consensus on a blanket ban for the Daily Mail, but there seems to be a general agreement that it shouldn't be used for BLP statements. I'm surprised that you restore a patently unreliable source. AusLondoner's edits followed WP:BLPREMOVE: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: 1.is unsourced or poorly sourced..." (my italics). Sjö (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's still not clear to me where the BLP violation is, inside the source contents? Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with user Spirit Ethanol. It is not clear to me either.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The BLP violation concerns allegations about the company director and the alleged suspects, not sourced reliably in violation of WP:BLP AusLondonder (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Restored some of the sources without allegations assuming this is not in violation of BLP. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- The BLP violation concerns allegations about the company director and the alleged suspects, not sourced reliably in violation of WP:BLP AusLondonder (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with user Spirit Ethanol. It is not clear to me either.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's still not clear to me where the BLP violation is, inside the source contents? Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Gatestone institute is not a reliable source per consensuns on WP:RSN. There is no consensus on a blanket ban for the Daily Mail, but there seems to be a general agreement that it shouldn't be used for BLP statements. I'm surprised that you restore a patently unreliable source. AusLondoner's edits followed WP:BLPREMOVE: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: 1.is unsourced or poorly sourced..." (my italics). Sjö (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment Per the discussion here, The Sun is not a reliable source. Please check WP:RSN archives to confirm the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. AusLondonder (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)