Content deleted Content added
Line 686: :::::::::If the statement is too brief to be clear what is meant, that's a strong indication of unreliability.--[[User:Assayer|Assayer]] ([[User talk:Assayer|talk]]) 01:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC) ::::::::::Assayer, actually, per WP:NEWSORG, {{tq|Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact,}} which means this source is good only for the statement about the opinion of that guy, not for the statement of the fact. Therefore, it is relevant only to the article about this person, however, he is hardly notable enough to have his own article. In this article, his opinion has a zero weight. In addition, it is a primary source, so we have an WP:OR issue.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 03:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC) :::::::::::Paul, you don't need to tell me. This will not stop My very vest wishes from scouring the internet for further sources, I presume, regardless how obscure, unreliable and even outright ridicoulus those sources may be.--[[User:Assayer|Assayer]] ([[User talk:Assayer|talk]]) 19:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC) == Moving forward: other uses == | |||