Talk:White House Peace Vigil

Unreliable sources?

Removed unreliable sources tag by Arms & Hearts. The Washington Post and Al Jazeera Documentary Channel are reliable. Nirvana2013 (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That was quick! And indeed they are, and so is The Huffington Post; it's every other source used in the article that I'm concerned about – namely prop1.org, IMDB, and occupypeacehouse.org. (Also, I think in this case Al Jazeera is reliable but not independent.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I will review and amend the citations over the coming days. I am not sure what you mean on Al Jazeera. All mainstream news services are accused of having political agendas. Nirvana2013 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. In the meantime I'm going to restore the tag, so that other editors will be made aware of the problem and hopefully join you in trying to fix it. Sorry for not making myself clear on Al Jazeera – I wasn't referring to its political agenda or lack thereof, but to the fact that it's (in a sense) being used to support information about itself. So, AJ would be an independent source for information about a film made by, say, the BBC; and the BBC would be an independent source for a film made by AJ; but sourcing information about a film made by AJ to an article on AJ is undesirable (but not massively problematic). Wikipedia:Third-party sources and Wikipedia:Independent sources probably explain the relevant aspects of policy better than I could. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The source is meant to be the 2012 film The Oracles of Pennsylvania Avenue by Tim Wilkerson, not the AJ article/editorial page. The film can be watched from the editorial page. Nirvana2013 (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed IMDB citation and info about Peace House, revised AJ citation, and retained unexceptional claims from prop1 (as per WP:SELFSOURCE). Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)