User talk:2meters

Welcome

Hello, 2meters, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced content from article on Right Sector

2meters, in this edit you removed Haaretz's article on Right Sector and article text that it supported, describing anti-semitic activity by the group in the Maidan protests in Ukraine. Removing the material, you explained, "Reference to this journalists' opinion is pay-wall protected and neither context nor evidence for the quoted text is provided." The source you removed was not an opinion piece however, and wikipedia content need not be freely available online. Furthermore, because the source is behind a paywall, I had provided "evidence for the quoted text" in the quote parameter of the citation, which you removed.

Then, in your next edit, you removed a Reuters news article about Right Sector's call for supporters to edit Wikipedia, explaining somewhat incomprehensibly, "Please keep opinions about wikipedia edits out of wikipedia articles. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid."

Lastly, you removed the Haaretz source and material a second time, arguing, "Verifiability disputed: if there are 'reports, from reliable sources,' that Right Sector and Svoboda distributed new copies of Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, then present that evidence." However, that evidence, from Haaretz, is the very material you removed.

If you don't believe that a source is trustworthy, you need to raise your concern about the source at Wikipedia's reliable source noticeboard. -Darouet (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can indeed post at RSN if you have a question about whether the source is reliable in context, 2meters. But it looks like you've got the competence required to (a) evaluate it yourself, (b) present your reasoning, and (c) collaborate.

Here's some general material that could be helpful in evaluating the Pfeffer article:

Associated Press, AP Stylebook (2010) ("Standards and Practices" section)

Anonymous Sources

"The story ... must provide attribution that establishes the source’s credibility; simply quoting 'a source' is not allowed."

WP:RSVETTING

The material

"Is it contentious or [only] contended? Contentious material is material that people might take a position on for ideological reasons... If it's contentious, we ... have to be aware of the possibility of deliberate bias."

The author

"Does the author have an opinion on the matter? On the continuum running from "utterly disinterested investigator or reporter" to "complete polemicist", where does he fit?"

The publication

"Is it ... a magazine or newspaper known to have an effective fact-checking operation?"

"What's its circulation?"

Other

"Does the source have standing to address the material? The Easton Gazette [can be] used to reference a claim that Easton High School opened in 1989... A claim that Hitler died in Brazil ... is probably outside its area of competence."

Pfeffer doesn't provide any information that would establish the credibility of his anonymous "reliable" sources. So I personally think there's no need to go any further. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Darouet and Dervorguilla for your insights into this edit. Also Darouet, I appreciate your restraint and post in my talk page rather than engage in an edit war.

Here is the issue I have with the text I removed :

If the text would have shown this :

(1) "there are reports, from reliable sources, that FOOBAR is true"

then it would have violated the Anonymous Sources guideline you posted above from the AP Stylebook. It also would have violated the Verifiability Wikipedia guidelines, since the source is not attributable.

In this case however, the text shows essentially the following :

(2) "source XYZ says that there are reports, from reliable sources, that FOOBAR is true".

I am not disputing the credibility of the source (XYZ), and thus I understand your point that the Wikipedia guidelines were followed when this sourced quote was inserted. But is there any difference between the Verifiability of the statement FOOBAR changed between (1) and (2) ?

If there are NO "reports, from reliable sources, that FOOBAR is true", then statement (2) is misleading. And if there ARE "reports, from reliable sources, that FOOBAR is true" then these should not be hard to find.

Either way, I argue that neither statement (1) nor statement (2) belong in Wikipedia, since neither presents any evidence regarding FOOBAR, and thus provides no value for the reader.

I am not a frequent editor, so I would like somebody with more experience to help me understand if this reasoning makes sense, and how prior occurrences of such situations were handled on controversial statements.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

There's a difference between a journalist's sources and reliable sources in a Wikipedia context. For example, the journalist could have interviewed eyewitnesses he found credible but whose names he didn't reveal on privacy grounds. In fact, anonymous "reliable sources" are a staple of investigative journalism. So if a reputable newspaper refers to "reliable sources" and no other reliable source contradicts that claim, there's no reason not to include it. Huon (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, Huon, if the journalist provides information to establish the source's credibility. See AP Stylebook, Standards and Practices:

anonymous sources

The story ... must provide attribution that establishes the source’s credibility; simply quoting a source is not allowed. Be as descriptive as possible... Official or similar word will often suffice...

Examples:

A security official ... said...

A senior Foreign Ministry official said...

A political consultant for [a political candidate’s opponent] said...

A man receiving treatment in an AIDS clinic said...

high-ranking military officer...

knowledgeable Defense Department official...

The AP estimates that 1 of every 8 front-page articles published in quality newspapers are based in part on anonymous sources. But not on undescribed anonymous "reliable sources". --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]