User talk:Gomerkyle

Headlines
I very briefly saw an edit summary of yours - we never use titles/headlines of media articles as sources. They are almost always written not by the author but a headline specialist and are there to draw attention, not to accurately reflect content. Doug Weller talk 09:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I understand you say you briefly saw the summary, so I want to make sure it is known that the title of the article was not being used as a source of information. It was referenced when I was asked what I thought the significance of including the quoted text in the Wikipedia article was. I had actually included a reference to the exchange in its entirety, and I believe uploaded to the YouTube channel of the living person in question. The article in question that was referenced includes quotations from both of the commentators involved in the dispute. In order to maintain that neutral point of view—that I am pleased to see has been maintained on a living political commentator’s article—it seems more than relevant to include both sides of the story lest Wikipedia inadvertently becomes the host of political "spin". There is of course a bit more significance in the quote, as that would be the most memorable part of the exchange when in contrast to the quoted text from the other person. If you would prefer, I can include an edit summary which states my case in more detail, as I had used the headline in order to keep it brief and used what I had originally thought was the obvious reason for the inclusion of the words spoken during an emotional exchange on a cable television news network. Gomerkyle (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No problem, I know that some editors assume that a headline is a reliable source. I wasn't that concerned about your edit and I'm not even sure I looked at it carefully! Doug Weller  talk 13:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)