User talk:NomadRepublic

September 2020
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Terrorism in the United States, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

So I understand, Wikipedia now considers opinion pieces by openly partisan media outlets "verifiable fact"?

For example - under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States - shouldn't proclamations (via cite notes 9, 10, and 11) at the very LEAST clarify those findings were based on a single study by an academic think tank, and NOT by any law enforcement or U.S. intelligence agencies?

Would adding said clarifications by community editors be appropriate and deemed constructive?

I'm sure everyone can agree on the seriousness of the subject matter, so shouldn't Wiki pages regarding national security not be so wantonly mischaracterized through the filter of political partisanship?

Hope to hear from you so I understand Wiki's position on "media sourcing", for future reference. Call it a hunch, but I'd imagine broad, sweeping claims citing a random study by Fox News, Breitbart, or The Washington Free Beacon?...would be scrubbed immediately by an endless variety of community editors.

Thanks! NomadRepublic (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

See Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 16:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)