| Revision as of 13:42, 3 July 2012 editNishidani (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,541 edits →FMEP← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:47, 3 July 2012 edit undoVanished user lt94ma34le12 (talk | contribs)8,065 edits →FMEPNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| ::I am interested in your view as to why you consider this an RS and have used it to make contentious claims; I ask this as I have similar style sources that I would like to include to provide an interesting perspective.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 13:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | ::I am interested in your view as to why you consider this an RS and have used it to make contentious claims; I ask this as I have similar style sources that I would like to include to provide an interesting perspective.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 13:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::You expressed a personal view on a source praised for its work by ], ], which publishes views by ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and dozens of other top-ranking authorities on US foreign policy and the Middle East. If you can't see at first sight that a Washington think tank/NGO with these interests and credentials and support is not suitable as per WP:RS, either visit an optometrist or refer the question to your new mentor, who will illuminate you. The question you raise is a non-question, since it implies that my use of this source is based on subjective, personal, rather than objective, wiki critieria.] (]) 13:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | :::You expressed a personal view on a source praised for its work by ], ], which publishes views by ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and dozens of other top-ranking authorities on US foreign policy and the Middle East. If you can't see at first sight that a Washington think tank/NGO with these interests and credentials and support is not suitable as per WP:RS, either visit an optometrist or refer the question to your new mentor, who will illuminate you. The question you raise is a non-question, since it implies that my use of this source is based on subjective, personal, rather than objective, wiki critieria.] (]) 13:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Praise by wiki linked people for its work does not meet the standards required for the publications of this partisan NGO to considered an RS. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 17:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:47, 3 July 2012
 | Palestine Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
FMEP
Is not an RS. I am sure Arutz Sheva also has plenty to say on this matter.Ankh.Morpork 12:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for tracking me here. Argue your opinion, don't state obiter dicta, at the appropriate WP:RS forum, and notify me when you do.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am interested in your view as to why you consider this an RS and have used it to make contentious claims; I ask this as I have similar style sources that I would like to include to provide an interesting perspective.Ankh.Morpork 13:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- You expressed a personal view on a source praised for its work by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Admiral William J. Crowe, which publishes views by Geoffrey Aronson, Yuval Diskin, George W. Ball, Philip Klutznick, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Sari Nusseibeh, Helena Cobban and dozens of other top-ranking authorities on US foreign policy and the Middle East. If you can't see at first sight that a Washington think tank/NGO with these interests and credentials and support is not suitable as per WP:RS, either visit an optometrist or refer the question to your new mentor, who will illuminate you. The question you raise is a non-question, since it implies that my use of this source is based on subjective, personal, rather than objective, wiki critieria.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Praise by wiki linked people for its work does not meet the standards required for the publications of this partisan NGO to considered an RS. Ankh.Morpork 17:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- You expressed a personal view on a source praised for its work by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Admiral William J. Crowe, which publishes views by Geoffrey Aronson, Yuval Diskin, George W. Ball, Philip Klutznick, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Sari Nusseibeh, Helena Cobban and dozens of other top-ranking authorities on US foreign policy and the Middle East. If you can't see at first sight that a Washington think tank/NGO with these interests and credentials and support is not suitable as per WP:RS, either visit an optometrist or refer the question to your new mentor, who will illuminate you. The question you raise is a non-question, since it implies that my use of this source is based on subjective, personal, rather than objective, wiki critieria.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am interested in your view as to why you consider this an RS and have used it to make contentious claims; I ask this as I have similar style sources that I would like to include to provide an interesting perspective.Ankh.Morpork 13:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)