The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Nearly exclusive hard right-wing 'sources' and references. Clear intended bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1404:8499:ADCE:B009:B087:1085 ( talk) 03:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
If you wish to counter this sourced information with other information you are free to do so, provided you similarly source it.
Repeating that a source is RS does not make it RS. Tucker Carlson has next to nothing to do with this article and does not belong here. A far-left editorial would be equally out of place. This is editorial convention, not personal bias. Nearly every article sourced comes from a clearly-biased website. Tag should be restored; this debate proves, if nothing else, that consensus does not exist. Furthermore, re-adding Tucker Carlson's irrelevant comments (temporally inconsistent with the paragraph in which they are present), despite the fact that they have been called into reasonable debate, demonstrates the clear bias of the author. One should at least make the effort to appear neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1404:8499:9CC5:AE2D:D26:7227 ( talk) 21:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
According to WP:Reliable sources WP:BIASEDSOURCES:
Therefore, Tucker Carlson could be a WP:RS for a viewpoint on Oxiris Barbot, even though he may be non-neutral or biased. For purposes of consensus, I believe that he is. -- Nbauman ( talk) 05:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Nearly exclusive hard right-wing 'sources' and references. Clear intended bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1404:8499:ADCE:B009:B087:1085 ( talk) 03:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
If you wish to counter this sourced information with other information you are free to do so, provided you similarly source it.
Repeating that a source is RS does not make it RS. Tucker Carlson has next to nothing to do with this article and does not belong here. A far-left editorial would be equally out of place. This is editorial convention, not personal bias. Nearly every article sourced comes from a clearly-biased website. Tag should be restored; this debate proves, if nothing else, that consensus does not exist. Furthermore, re-adding Tucker Carlson's irrelevant comments (temporally inconsistent with the paragraph in which they are present), despite the fact that they have been called into reasonable debate, demonstrates the clear bias of the author. One should at least make the effort to appear neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1404:8499:9CC5:AE2D:D26:7227 ( talk) 21:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
According to WP:Reliable sources WP:BIASEDSOURCES:
Therefore, Tucker Carlson could be a WP:RS for a viewpoint on Oxiris Barbot, even though he may be non-neutral or biased. For purposes of consensus, I believe that he is. -- Nbauman ( talk) 05:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)