Talk:EU Reporter
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Rwendland in topic WP:V allows non-unduly self-serving info from self-published sources
![]() | The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from https://www.eureporter.co/. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2021113010007761. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en ![]() |
WP:V allows non-unduly self-serving info from self-published sources
editBuidhe, I don't understand the basis of your reverts. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves (aka WP:ABOUTSELF) says in summary "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves ... so long as: 1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; ... 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". The material I added seems entirely within these parameters, so seems perfectly within WP policy. More on this policy (almost identical) is at WP:USINGSPS#For claims by self-published authors about themselves. Could you explain please? Rwendland (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- The issue isn't the SPS issue but that it does not support the claim made. All this supports is "at a specific date in 2004, Eu reporter had a print copy and stated that it distributed copies to EU officials, etc." (t · c) buidhe 16:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, but isn't that effectively what my added text says: "Formerly, a printed edition was distributed free to all Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and EU Council and Commission officials". How is that substantially different? Rwendland (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, at minimum you would need another cite that it does not still have a print edition and continue to distribute free copies to these officials. (t · c) buidhe 17:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- The current website makes no mention of the paper magazine, but it is hard to prove a negative, so have gone for a limited "In the 2000s" formulation which makes no explicit recent claim one way or other. More cites as well. Rwendland (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, at minimum you would need another cite that it does not still have a print edition and continue to distribute free copies to these officials. (t · c) buidhe 17:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, but isn't that effectively what my added text says: "Formerly, a printed edition was distributed free to all Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and EU Council and Commission officials". How is that substantially different? Rwendland (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)