Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

*:I counted at least two others that disagreed. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 01:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

*::@[[User:Chess|Chess]]: One vs. three editors doesn't really chanhe my analysis. Consensus is determined by strength of argument. We don't just start RfCs because a few people spuriously disagree with everyone else. Regarding -sche, who you cite below, all they did was suggest an RfC if others thought it necessary. Not sure who your third person is. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 11:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': I don't think this is really needed given the discussion above. My only comment in that discussion was to say that being amongst a country's most widely distributed papers does not speak to its reliability. If it did then Melbourne's [[Herald Sun]] would be reliable and it's not. Beyond that I'm not sufficiently aware of the source to provide any opinion. If this RfC does proceed, I've linked previous discussions below and pinged involved editors. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''^{[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]} 01:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

*'''Option 1''' per {{u|Red-tailed hawk}}. {{u|-sche}} and {{u|Elinruby}} seem to agree the National Post is something other than reliable, based on historical discussions here at [[WP:RSN]]. We should correct the record. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 01:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)