This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles
Lee Edwards is a highly respected historian and his credentials are impeccable.
His article, sourced to The Daily Signal, must be restored.
1. Lee Edwards is a reliable
Lee Edwards is a eminent historian and expert on the US conservative movement. He has published 25 books and his work has been on the NY Times bestseller list. His work is a valuable addition to any article.
Some consider Daily Signal a biased source. The Reliable Sources policy explicitly states that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" and acknowledges that sometimes biased sources are superior to neutral sources.[5] Obviously, this is one of those instances.
Therefore, because of the high quality of the source, and since policy supports this source, it must be restored. –
Lionel(
talk) 07:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
^WP:BIASED: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
There are multiple problems here. First off, the Heritage Foundation... sure it's a prominent conservative think-tank, but it doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. All of the citing sources you list are about one specific story that made the news. Second, Lee Edwards isn't exactly an independent voice. The guy was one of YAF's founding members. So if he said something noteworthy about the Sharon Statement I'd support inclusion with in-text attribution, but that's not how this source was being used. --
Dr. Fleischman (
talk) 08:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
So your position is the source is reliable, as long as there is attribution? Because your editsum says "not a reliable source."–
Lionel(
talk) 08:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
No, my position is that the source is unreliable. --
Dr. Fleischman (
talk) 08:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
You wrote "I'd support inclusion with in-text attribution." Is this the policy on which you base your support:
WP:BIASED: "Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source"
No. I suppose I envisioned the relevant policy would be
WP:ABOUTSELF, but it's just a hypothetical, because like I said, we're not using the source in that way. --
Dr. Fleischman (
talk) 10:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
So there is no policy-based reason to use attribution with Lee Edwards, correct?–
Lionel(
talk) 11:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Incorrect. And it seems you're implying my position is that we can use the source with in-text attribution, which is not what I said. --
Dr. Fleischman (
talk) 11:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply
So, just to be clear, you are still objecting to this
[1]? –
Lionel(
talk) 14:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)reply