User talk:JRathorn

JRathorn, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JRathorn! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Osarius (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome and note about sourcing

Hello JRathorn, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you changed some content on the article on 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, but did not provide a reliable source supporting your changes. Our policy requires the use of reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources) so that readers may verify content. Please take a few moments to read through these policies and guidelines. Neutrality^talk 03:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

What are you referring to? The rifle used was a Saiga AK-74. I sited a new organization that is as good as any other. The one I sited actually had a picture of the actual rifle and was not just a guess like the other new outlets have posted. We all know the news can, and has been wrong in the past. All of the news outlets that have posted that it was an SKS are wrong. So do you want to go with the one that has the picture of the Saiga from the crime scene, or the "major" news outlets that don't know what they're talking about? The link is a picture of the rifle found at the crime scene in Dallas. That's not an SKS. It's an AK-47 type rifle that is changed up by caliber and designated the AK-74 made by Saiga. Saiga is also not allowed to import into the USA anymore..... just a little bit of a fun fact.

No, "sofrep.com" is not a reliable source, particularly when what they are reporting is entirely different from what actual news outlets - citing the police - have reported. If you have doubts, please take them to the talk page (Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers) or Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard). We have to wait for what actual authorities report. Neutrality^talk 04:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither is the New York Times with that detail. Also, Jenkins was not a police officer like the page said he was, I corrected that also. I thought we were supposed to be keeping the public up to date, and not spreading ignorant information around? When it gets confirmed that I was right, I hope you feel bad for being in the wrong and keeping everyone from knowing the truth, and then... you owe me an apology.

Also, I know you just apparently don't care, but try actually going to this site, and reading about what you have no clue about... It's a good description with pictures of an SKS and the gun found at the scene. Stop being a part of the problem whoever you are.

Be civil please. See Wikipedia:Civility.

As to the point: There are conflicting reports in some actual reliable sources which I've just found recently. The Dallas County official says one thing (quoted in the NY Times, while unnamed sources in CNN and the Wall Street Journal say another). Now that I've found actual sources indicating there is a discrepancy, amended the article accordingly. Our job is to report what the reliable sources say, not to try to predict the future or "outsmart" the media. Neutrality^talk 04:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that if the New York Times said that the sky was red, till you had another source, you would believe them? I wasn't trying to "outsmart" the media, even if I, you, or any other half way smart person was trying to, it wouldn't be that hard. In this case, "predicting" wasn't even close to what it was. There was a picture of the firearm found at the scene, and those of us that know what we are talking about knew for a fact that it wasn't an SKS. Just because the media is wrong doesn't mean that we have to be.

Our goal is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. And more to the point, we have no way of telling whether that image and the text in basically your blog source is accurate or not. The website specifically said "The image is from an anonymous source..." Given the choice between this and what the recognized media is reporting from government officials, we should go with the latter every time. Neutrality^talk 04:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That's funny... Because if your "verifiable" source comes back wrong, does that make them a bad source (since they've been wrong so many times before which is why I point that out). When is a source no longer a verified source? I'm sorry, but the major media outlets get the story wrong so many times it's unbelievable. I don't support only going with the majors because they're wrong so much of the time. This story will prove it, and there will be no valid argument for it. I'm not saying that I'm going to be posting every other random article up, but some do have merit as you will see. Also, as a verified source, my source was just fine per the definition of Wikipedia. Under the Wikipedia "What Counts As A Verifiable Source", there is this: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." < If that's the case, we should never use the New York Times for at least two weeks after something happens, the same goes for most of the other media outlets because they just jump all over any story without fact checking first. The source I provided had a picture of the weapon found. That's better than the "source" that the New York Times had apparently. That makes my source better. I've read through the rules, and my source is still a "published" source, and therefor, it was usable. It was also no worse at providing "facts" or "fact checking" than the source you wanted to use. In this case, my source was better. Also, other "reliable sources" per Wikipedia are magazines, journals, newspapers, and magazine blogs. Now if you really want to get into the source debate, the New York Times and a few other mainstream media outlets should be considered "Questionable Sources" as they fall under this category: "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, *or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor,* or personal opinion." Again, we are going to find out how wrong one of the "mainstream" media sources is.

Biased sources

Wanted to clarify a few things I see un your edit summaries. Sources are allowed to be biased (WP:BIASED). What's more important is that they be (WP:RS). Also, be careful of original research which is when editors either add their own opinions/conclusions or try to synthesize material from various sources into a point or idea not explicitly in any of the sources (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). {{Ping}} my if you have questions. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)