User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2019/May

not even a little bit reliable ?
I think so. --2001:8003:4163:AD00:8458:6601:222:AD68 (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to discuss the issue on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and propose that the site be treated as reliable. You will need to present evidence that it meets guidelines; notably, that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus at Keith Ellison
Can you point me to the consensus you referenced here? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The current talk page thread, in which multiple editors reject your proposed edits, is there for all to see. Against that, your reinstatement of a throwaway SPA's edits is absolutely unacceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wrote the material, not a "throwaway SPA." And there's a difference between a legitimate objection that cites an issue with policy or sources, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So far, I've only seen the latter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you continued the edit-war of a throwaway IP who reverted the material in without consensus. You don't have any special power to unilaterally declare what is and is not a legitimate objection. You're welcome to open an RFC to gain a broader consensus. You're not welcome to declare that you are right and the several people objecting on the talk page are wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are referring to regarding a throw-away IP. I have been involved in the page on this specific issue for over a year. It's ironic that you would lecture me about not having any "special" or "unilateral" power while simultaneously telling me that I'm "not welcome" to tell someone else they're wrong if I think so or argue the view I believe to be the correct one. I'll continue to do both, thanks very much, and agree an RfC may be in order at some point. Small groups of editors seeking to minimize controversies involving popular figures is a widespread problem (we have editors on the original discussion openly calling the accusations and ensuing coverage, which included the NYT, "political mudslinging") and one I have no qualms about confronting. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Reference Citation to Ilhan Omar Statement
I found the edit citing that my reference is cited to 'Daily Caller' online. Please re-examine your edit. My reference was NOT actually, from 'Daily Caller'. Thanks in advance.

Also, if the reference I used ('The Stream' of stream.org) is not satisfactory, the statement was widely reported, in several other online sources, such as 'Free Repulic', 'Reddit', and 'Liberty Headlines'. I am certain there are other sources as well. Again, thanks for participating. בס״ד  Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read your source carefully. This article clearly has large "Daily Caller News Foundation" logos included and says Copyright 2019 Daily Caller News Foundation at the bottom. Your further putative sources are similarly unhelpful — Free Republic and Reddit are Internet forums, while Liberty Headlines is an overtly-partisan right-wing website with no identifiable writers or editors, no published editorial policy and no evidence that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I checked your reference to the "logo" in the article. You were absolutely correct. Still, the statement was widely reported and I've found other references. Apparently all the news on this revolves around an official letter written by the congresswoman on congressional stationary, which makes citing it a simple matter. You found the other references I cited above "unhelpful" so I'd like to ask you if National Review would be a satisfactory source? Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC) בס״ד
 * It's usable as an opinion source, but we'd like to have some mainstream non-partisan sourcing here. Has the issue been covered by mainstream reliable sources? If not, it may not be due weight. I would suggest opening a thread on Talk:Ilhan Omar to find out if there is consensus about this. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is another citation. I found it in an article from NBC News. The reason I am hesitant to do anything with it though is that, it's badly written. It doesn't do a thorough job of contextualizing the quotes, and only goes to the trouble of quoting single words without giving much information as to when and where Omar made the actual statment(s). Would it be possible to combine more than one source, with NBC being one source? Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC) בס״ד

NPR Newsletter No.18


Hello ,

, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
 * Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
 * Reliable Sources for NPP

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
 * Backlog drive coming soon


 * News
 * Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.


 * Discussions of interest
 * A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
 * There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
 * What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Saddam al qaeda and bush
Trying to see the relevance of the sept 21 PDB in respect to claims made to Tony Blair on sept 14. The articles purpose seems to be to portray the administration as fabricating evidence. The two passages together seem to imply that Bush should not have said what he did to Blair because a week later he would be told something else. Can we clean this up or explain what one has to do with the other... because the sept 21 PDB is only relevant to claims made after. Batvette (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to discuss proposed changes on the article talk page - which is something you said you would do, but didn't. You also falsely stated that a section you were removing was unsourced when it was clearly referenced to PBS Frontline, a high-quality reliable source. That makes both edits questionable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Im confused. First you insist we take article edits to their talk page then you want to talk about my edits here. Wouldnt it have been easier to just answer my question?Batvette (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)