Talk:1971 Indian Airlines hijacking
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Community Tech bot in topic A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1971 Indian Airlines hijacking article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
RS
editCan Kautilya explain this revert? Is he saying that the source is not reliable? What is the rationale for that?VR talk 02:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yup, we don't admit random op-eds as reliable sources on Wikipedia. If we did, it would just become a junk yard of opinions. Pinging RegentsPark and Vanamonde93 for their input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Vice Regent: unlike most news stories, Op-Ed pieces even in well-known news sources do not receive editorial oversight: their authors can essentially say what they want. Therefore, they become unreliable sources for anything except the content of that selfsame Op-Ed, and inclusion is only appropriate if you can demonstrate why a particular person's opinion is notable. Vanamonde (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- What Vanamonde93 said. Plus, we need to be cognizant of the fact that by merely including a view on wikipedia, we give it credence and make it notable. That's an awesome responsibility :) and we need to be circumspect. --regentspark (comment) 17:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, but I've seen plenty of op-eds being used to say things like "Pakistan was behind this attack" at Jaish-e-Mohammed, 2016 Uri attack etc. Each time that source is put in by Katuilya as "Analysts say Pakistan...". Why are those op-eds ok, but this one isn't?VR talk 20:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- For example, take a look at this. Fair just wrote an op-ed in the Huffington Post. (The author, btw, has been criticized for making false statements and using sources of low credibility). And this is just one example of an op-ed that has recently been used in India-Pakistan articles to accuse Pakistan of secretly orchestrating terror.VR talk 21:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have been editing both of those articles and I have never seen the statement "Pakistan was behind this attack", much less written it myself! So I am afraid you will have to dig up the exact statement.
- Getting back to the issue, WP:NEWSORG does not rule out op-eds. It says you have to attribute them, and that implicitly assumes that the authors are worth attributing and they are recognised experts. C. Christine Fair (57 citations on Google Scholar) and Bruce Riedel (71 citations) are recognised experts. Their writings are considered reliable even if they are not published. See WP:SPS. And, as for the so-called criticism of Christine Fair, remember that WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- For example, take a look at this. Fair just wrote an op-ed in the Huffington Post. (The author, btw, has been criticized for making false statements and using sources of low credibility). And this is just one example of an op-ed that has recently been used in India-Pakistan articles to accuse Pakistan of secretly orchestrating terror.VR talk 21:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Vice Regent: unlike most news stories, Op-Ed pieces even in well-known news sources do not receive editorial oversight: their authors can essentially say what they want. Therefore, they become unreliable sources for anything except the content of that selfsame Op-Ed, and inclusion is only appropriate if you can demonstrate why a particular person's opinion is notable. Vanamonde (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
