User talk:Ystava
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Editing out two perfectly sourced links is not a fair edit. Both links are of repute and do relate to the topic. To remove them would be to poorly represent the situation- one website is a database, the second has been referenced in many magazines, including the HDR and News@Norman, thus of note. --Ziegfest (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
These links are not neutral external links. Neither link is of repute as you claim. The database is community edited and has very low membership in comparison to Congresspedia (another community edited database). The other site you reference has only been quoted in a letter to the editor, both of which were written by the same person. That does not qualify it as a reliable source. Ystava (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
However, both have enough repute to justify being online. To remove them would be to only tell half the story- and considering the site exists as a sourced location for information, it would actually be a disservice to readers to remove it. Let's put it this way- McHenry's congressional site has plenty of Pro-McHenry stuff, and there's nothing wrong with adding something like Republicans against Patrick McHenry, especially since it's leagues better than previous blogs on there (Pat go Bye Bye comes to mind, which was an attack blog). Consider it the lesser of two evils. --Ziegfest (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Your rationale of accepting "the lesser of two evils" does not follow Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion of the blog to which you keep linking. WP:NPOV WP:VERIFY WP:SOURCES "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Because the article is about a living person, there is this policy to also consider: WP:BLP We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement. --Ystava (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)