User talk:Zaytuna Editor

Zaytuna College
Hello, you seem intent on violating Wikipedia guidelines on the neutrality and verifiability of information. The Zaytuna College page on Wikpedia cannot be reliant on material taken from the College's own website. See WP:SOURCES. I am not critical of the College. My position on the College is that I don't have a position. But I do not want to see it become weak and useless as a neutral and reliable source of information. So I try to ensure it represents a neutral point of view. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines. Yours sincerely, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Third-Party Sources

 * Hello again, This is a section from WP:THIRDPARTY:

Why third-party sources are required Third-party sources are a necessary foundation for any article. Although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why. To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia. Arguably, an independent and reliable third-party is not always objective enough to evaluate a subject. There are many instances of biased coverage by journalists, academics, and critics. Even with peer review and fact-checking, there are instances where otherwise reliable publications report complete falsehoods. But Wikipedia does not allow editors to improve an article with their own criticisms or corrections. Rather, if a generally reliable source makes a false or biased statement, the hope is that another reliable source can be found to refute that statement and restore balance. (In extreme cases, a group of editors will agree to remove the verified but false statement, but without adding any original commentary in its place.) If multiple reliable publications have discussed a topic, let alone debated a topic, then that only improves the topic's probability of being covered in Wikipedia. First, multiple sources that have debated a subject will reliably demonstrate that the subject is worthy of notice. Second, and equally important, these reliable sources will allow editors to verify certain facts about the subject that make it significant, and write an encyclopedic article that meets our policies and guidelines.


 * Best wishes, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)