![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
For this article's purposes, how shall we view the reliability of the New York Times? ClaudeReigns ( talk) 08:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
This is just stupid. The NYT is obviously RS. Ask at WP:RSN if you have doubts. FurrySings ( talk) 13:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
My last edit to this article was on 12 November, and since that time a lot of verified to reliable source content has been removed from the article. That being said it appears that verified to reliable source content has been removed regarding former SEALs Doherty and Woods. Skimming over the edit summaries, I have not seen a good reason to trim the content verified by reliable sources. Dohertry resided in Encinitas, California & Woods resided in Imperial Beach, California ( source). As their articles were merged and redirected to the fatalities section of this article, it can be said that what remains can fall under WikiProject California, WikiProject San Diego, and WikiProject Military history (United States Task force).-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
everything's gone HammerFilmFan ( talk) 23:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
2012 Benghazi attack → 2012 Attack on U.S. Embassy in Benghazi – Seems to be more descriptive but might be a reason its here. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 14:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I suggest we change the archival on this page, now that activity has died down. Since ClueBotIII only supports hours to archival, I think we should use MiszaBot instead which supports days to archival. The current ClueBot archives should be consolidated into new MiszaBot style archives, since we don't need to make an archive per month anymore, there's not enough activity.
-- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 05:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Another editor has altered the lead based on WP:LEAD; in doing so the editor introduced a new reference, which emphasized Democrat Party calls for increased funding and Republican Party attacks on Hillary Clinton. This can be seen as framing the Republican Party in a negative light, a clear violation of WP:NEU. Therefore, per WP:LEAD, using existing references already contained in the article, I have created a new expansion of the lead, which the sections already in the article. No where prior to the edit which initially expanded the lead, did it mention the call for increased funding by the Democratic Party. The most recent version, includes mention of the Republican Party being critical of SecState Clinton, as well as other parts of the aftermath.
Additionally, the initial increase in the lead could be reverted per WP:BRD. Proper summary of the article in the lead is important, that I agree. Using it to frame one political party in a negative light shouldn't occur.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I added a sourced sentence on the topic to the lead ( [1]). My addition was reverted by RightCowLeftCoast ( talk · contribs) because, in his words, the information "could be seen as an attack on the Republican Party". I think that rationale is, frankly, ludicrous, since my edit simply reiterates the content of a reliable source (in this case, the Wall Street Journal, hardly a left-wing propaganda outfit). I could produce other reliable sources attesting to the partisan nature of U.S. reaction, but I'm not sure it's a worthwhile endeavor if reliable sources are simply going to be rejected because one editor views their content as insufficiently deferential to the Republican Party. Does anyone else have other suggested wording to cover this relevant aspect of the subject in the lead? MastCell Talk 03:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is this article listed under Wikiproject California and Wikiproject San Diego? I was tempted to just delete those two templates but I thought I would ask first and see if there's some reason not apparent to me. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME applies, however so does WP:VER. I had added content regarding an alternate name Battle of Benghazi. It was supported by four different references (emphesis mine):
Now that the election is behind us, perhaps we can put politics aside and acknowledge a hard fact: On September 11, 2012, America was defeated by al-Qaeda in the Battle of Benghazi.
Which means the next battle of Benghazi could be even more intense than the last.
This battle of Benghazi was a protracted fight - covering at least six to eight hours (depending on when you start the clock).
When all is said and done, we will likely find that the Battle of Benghazi had more in common with the Battle of Ganjgal than it did with any of the conspiracies.
Yet, although it was verified by multiple sources, it was removed in December with the claim:
removing from lede 4 references that do not support the newly added text, which was micro-information
As we can see above, the content is verified by the references. Now, recently the references were removed from the disambiguation page per WP:DABPAGE. Yet per DABPAGE the MOS reads:
References should not appear on disambiguation pages. Dab pages are not articles; instead, incorporate the references into the target articles.
Therefore the content should be readded to this article.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
For this article's purposes, how shall we view the reliability of the New York Times? ClaudeReigns ( talk) 08:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
This is just stupid. The NYT is obviously RS. Ask at WP:RSN if you have doubts. FurrySings ( talk) 13:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
My last edit to this article was on 12 November, and since that time a lot of verified to reliable source content has been removed from the article. That being said it appears that verified to reliable source content has been removed regarding former SEALs Doherty and Woods. Skimming over the edit summaries, I have not seen a good reason to trim the content verified by reliable sources. Dohertry resided in Encinitas, California & Woods resided in Imperial Beach, California ( source). As their articles were merged and redirected to the fatalities section of this article, it can be said that what remains can fall under WikiProject California, WikiProject San Diego, and WikiProject Military history (United States Task force).-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
everything's gone HammerFilmFan ( talk) 23:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
2012 Benghazi attack → 2012 Attack on U.S. Embassy in Benghazi – Seems to be more descriptive but might be a reason its here. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 14:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I suggest we change the archival on this page, now that activity has died down. Since ClueBotIII only supports hours to archival, I think we should use MiszaBot instead which supports days to archival. The current ClueBot archives should be consolidated into new MiszaBot style archives, since we don't need to make an archive per month anymore, there's not enough activity.
-- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 05:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Another editor has altered the lead based on WP:LEAD; in doing so the editor introduced a new reference, which emphasized Democrat Party calls for increased funding and Republican Party attacks on Hillary Clinton. This can be seen as framing the Republican Party in a negative light, a clear violation of WP:NEU. Therefore, per WP:LEAD, using existing references already contained in the article, I have created a new expansion of the lead, which the sections already in the article. No where prior to the edit which initially expanded the lead, did it mention the call for increased funding by the Democratic Party. The most recent version, includes mention of the Republican Party being critical of SecState Clinton, as well as other parts of the aftermath.
Additionally, the initial increase in the lead could be reverted per WP:BRD. Proper summary of the article in the lead is important, that I agree. Using it to frame one political party in a negative light shouldn't occur.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I added a sourced sentence on the topic to the lead ( [1]). My addition was reverted by RightCowLeftCoast ( talk · contribs) because, in his words, the information "could be seen as an attack on the Republican Party". I think that rationale is, frankly, ludicrous, since my edit simply reiterates the content of a reliable source (in this case, the Wall Street Journal, hardly a left-wing propaganda outfit). I could produce other reliable sources attesting to the partisan nature of U.S. reaction, but I'm not sure it's a worthwhile endeavor if reliable sources are simply going to be rejected because one editor views their content as insufficiently deferential to the Republican Party. Does anyone else have other suggested wording to cover this relevant aspect of the subject in the lead? MastCell Talk 03:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is this article listed under Wikiproject California and Wikiproject San Diego? I was tempted to just delete those two templates but I thought I would ask first and see if there's some reason not apparent to me. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME applies, however so does WP:VER. I had added content regarding an alternate name Battle of Benghazi. It was supported by four different references (emphesis mine):
Now that the election is behind us, perhaps we can put politics aside and acknowledge a hard fact: On September 11, 2012, America was defeated by al-Qaeda in the Battle of Benghazi.
Which means the next battle of Benghazi could be even more intense than the last.
This battle of Benghazi was a protracted fight - covering at least six to eight hours (depending on when you start the clock).
When all is said and done, we will likely find that the Battle of Benghazi had more in common with the Battle of Ganjgal than it did with any of the conspiracies.
Yet, although it was verified by multiple sources, it was removed in December with the claim:
removing from lede 4 references that do not support the newly added text, which was micro-information
As we can see above, the content is verified by the references. Now, recently the references were removed from the disambiguation page per WP:DABPAGE. Yet per DABPAGE the MOS reads:
References should not appear on disambiguation pages. Dab pages are not articles; instead, incorporate the references into the target articles.
Therefore the content should be readded to this article.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)