Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Removal of sourced content: Reply |
Patar knight (talk | contribs) →Survey: National Post: option 1 |
||
Line 1,072:
*'''Option 1'''. Per Red-tailed hawk's arguments and since no examples of unreliable reporting were presented. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 07:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. There doesn't seem to be any indication that there are problems with the accuracy of its reporting, just a complaint over where they put an opinion piece, so I'm not even sure this RFC is warranted. [[User:XeCyranium|XeCyranium]] ([[User talk:XeCyranium|talk]]) 19:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Option 1'''. No issues with factual reporting, even if the opinion columns are bad. Biased, but not to an extent that a formal caution to try and find a breadth of sources, which should be SOP for general editing anyway, would be required. -- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 15:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
====Discussion: ''National Post''====
| |||