Wikipedia: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 1. Wiki. Visually. I'm a non- participant in ongoing edits/talk.

This looks to me to be a POV noticeboard problem so I have posted at POV noticeboard, but might be worth someone looking at the problem from the RS perspective too. In ictu oculi (talk) 1. October 2. 01. 3 (UTC)Talking Points Memo as RS for documenting a Senator's vote. User: CFredkin claims that Talking Points Memo is not a reliable source for documenting a Senator's vote. The content will be easily sourced from elsewhere, being a US Senator's vote, but I don't like editors attempting to move the Overton Window by making false claims. Please advise. — goethean 1. October 2. 01. 3 (UTC)In my opinion, neither Talking Points Memo or Policymic are reliable sources.

They are both pushing an agenda. A similar argument has been made elsewhere regarding Breitbart. If TPM and Policymic are reliable, then I would argue that Breitbart would be as well. CFredkin (talk) 1. October 2. 01. 3 (UTC). No experience or opinion with TPM/Breitbart ..

I remember, Policy. Mic is not at all a reliable source, it is like examiner. November 2. 01. 3 (UTC)What exactly are you claiming here? You think that Kirk didn't vote the way that these journalists say that he voted? Or are you just using RS as a weapon to remove content that you don't like?

1. High quality leather furniture and footwear are often made from full-grain leather. (the most common type in high-end leather products). leather treatment;.
2. Dementia symptoms, signs. Doctors can determine that a person has dementia with a high level of. there is no cure and no treatment that slows or stops.
3. · · Planet Earth: Amazing nature scenery (1080p HD. If you really like this I suggest you to watch the hole documentary because at the end.
4. NEJM Journal Watch reviews over 250 scientific and medical journals to. Caffeine as a Symptomatic Treatment for. Standard Definition of Vitamin D.
5. See the full definition. Kafkaesque 'A nightmarish quality'. If you ask me, his movies are just high-class pornography.
6. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy — Overview covers definition, risks, results of procedure to increase blood oxygen.

An aerobic treatment system or ATS. Unlike the traditional septic system, the aerobic treatment system produces a high quality secondary effluent.

October 2. 01. 3 (UTC). It's not clear that the vote referenced in the content you're trying to add to the article is significant. Mention of it in a reliable secondary source would indicate whether it is significant. I don't believe the sources mentioned above would be considered reliable. CFredkin (talk) 1. October 2. 01. 3 (UTC). Now you are making a different argument.

Whether the content is appropriate is a different question than whether the source is reliable. Your first argument was that the source is unrelisble. Are you discarding that argument for a new one? October 2. 01. 3 (UTC)Oh, I see, it's a tit- for- tat. Breitbart is an obviously unreliable source, so you are attempting to impeach other sources which you know are reliable. That makes sense.

Welcome to this site! Ten Dead Men Full Movie Part 1. It exists for one reason: to preserve the memory of films that have been forgotten about or under-appreciated throughout the ages.

October 2. 01. 3 (UTC). Breitbart seems very comparable to these 2 sources to me (although obviously from different political perspectives). CFredkin (talk) 1. October 2. 01. 3 (UTC)Talking Points Memo is certainly reliable in this instance. Two kinds of pork (talk) 1. October 2. 01. 3 (UTC)What's your rationale? CFredkin (talk) 1.

October 2. 01. 3 (UTC). While partisan, this is a legitimate news operation with professional editors and reporters, who has credentials that can be verified. I'm not saying this should be used in the manner suggested, but as towards the claim it makes it seems utterly reliable,Two kinds of pork (talk) 2. October 2. 01. 3 (UTC)It seems to me that if Kirk's vote was any more notable than any other vote he's had, it would be commented on in an established WP: RS and not some partisan rag. Weld. Neck (talk) 1. October 2. 01. 3 (UTC)I've never heard of this source before, but they appear to be a professional news organization with editorial oversight.[3][4] In absence of other contradicting information, I would lean towards it being reliable.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 1. November 2. 01. 3 (UTC)TPM is a liberal/progressive opinion source. Much like Newsmax.

They are reliable for their own views, but information from TPM is going to be liberally biased. There opinion about others should take this into consideration. Generally speaking, if something is that notable it will be covered as such by less biased sources than thses.

Additionally, the manner it which it was being used in this instance is clearly pushing a liberal POV, which makes the edit a NPOV. Arzel (talk) 1. 7: 2. November 2. 01. 3 (UTC)The reference in question is not an opinion piece. We should accept it as reliable. Whether or not its usage here is warranted per NPOV is a different question altogether.

Two kinds of pork (talk) 1. November 2. 01. 3 (UTC). Arzel, just because the source is a biased one, does not mean coverage in that source is not reliable. It sounds like folks here are pretty well agreed that TPM in this case counts as a reliable source, and if a reliable source gives something significant coverage, then that something is almost certainly WP: NOTEWORTHY, though not necessarily WP: N enough for a dedicated wikipedia article or anything. There is a separate question, which is how WP: UNDUE applies.. WP: IAR. But usually, wikipedia should mirror the sources, and maintain NPOV tone by *saying* that "avowed liberals[1][2] at TPM said[3] '..' in October 2. HTH. 7. 4. 1. 92.

November 2. 01. 3 (UTC)I agree with AQFK's argument for why it's a reliable source. Showtime Full The Hunchback Of Notre Dame II Online Free. Miles. Money (talk) 1. November 2. 01. 3 (UTC)OK. Then presumably Breitbart would be considered a reliable source as well. CFredkin (talk) 0. November 2. 01. 3 (UTC). Neutrality is not required for a reliable source (although, of course, it's preferred).

However, lack of neutrality can impact negatively upon reliability. This is the case for News.

Max, for example, which routinely gets the facts wrong when they don't suit their political narrative. Miles. Money (talk) 0. November 2. 01. 3 (UTC)The noticeboard has had a discussion about Policymic before here, and it's a self- published thing unreliable for use. Should be removed. TPM is reliable, but Policymic should go. Thargor Orlando (talk) 1.

November 2. 01. 3 (UTC)User: Gamaliel: Can you please weigh in here? Thanks. CFredkin (talk) 0. November 2. 01. 3 (UTC)Honestly, I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here. As I indicated below, I'm just looking for a level playing field. Both TPM and Newsmax are edited and POV. It appears that they should both be reliable, or not. CFredkin (talk) 1.

November 2. 01. 3 (UTC)Over at Wikipedia: Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Acupuncture there is an ongoing discussion concerning the sources used to support claims about the effectiveness of acupuncture. This could really use another set of eyes looking at it. Guy Macon (talk) 1. October 2. 01. 3 (UTC)This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk: Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Acupuncture and TCM - -Guy Macon (talk) 1. November 2. 01. 3 (UTC)After seeing a WP: Edit war between Atotalstranger and North. By. South. Baranof, evidenced by this, this and this, over whether or not Forbes. WP: Reliable source, I decided to bring the matter here.

Notice what North. By. South. Baranof links to in the first diff- link. I always thought that Forbes.