Revision as of 19:30, 11 July 2024 edit Elinruby (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 105,165 edits →‎Discussion: National Post: re ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:34, 11 July 2024 edit undo Elinruby (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 105,165 edits →‎Discussion: National Post: re Next edit →
Line 1,134: :[https://nationalpost.com/opinion/does-trudeau-plan-to-put-the-squeeze-on-older-homeowners Michael Higgins: Does Trudeau plan to put the squeeze on older homeowners?] is an '''opinion piece'''. :{{tq\|the tantrum over civilians killed is for the foreign media. It’s good PR}} does appear in [https://nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/why-hamas-went-rogue-on-october-7 this piece], and that piece indeed is a news piece. But '''you are misrepresenting the quote as if it were in the publication's voice when it is not'''—it appears in quotation marks, and the full paragraph (<small>{{tq\|Still, jihadists believe that the destruction and civilian casualties are the cost necessary to destroy Israel, Kedar said. The Quaran preaches that dying for Islam is praiseworthy, he said, and therefore “the tantrum over civilians killed is for the foreign media. It’s good PR.”}}</small> makes it incredibly clear that they are ''reporting a properly attributed quote'' from Mordechai Kedar. :'''''Of course''''' it's an attributed quote. ''The entire article is an extended quote''. Why are they giving that quote that much oxygen? ~~And~~Of the very few articles about events outside of Canada, that was one of them. {{ping \|Iskander}} says there are additional problems with the article. What makes you think I am representing it as anything but inappropropriate media coverage? I am sorry you are having so much trouble reading what I said -- this is the second time I have had to explain the post to you -- but I did my best to be clear, and I am baffled at the passion and vituperation you are putting into this. Someone started a Request for Comment because they didn't like what I said about the ''National Post'' and here, in the RfC, I commented, with multiple examples of ok and bad coverage, an attempt to cover several problem topics, and academic references even. I don't even care about this publication at the moment. Why do you? I doubt it's your first choice for a reference either. In any even making wild accusations over a nuanced and sources comment in an RfC is inappropriate. [[User:Elinruby\|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby\|talk]]) 19:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC) :I understand that you object to the reliability of their comment (i.e. opinion) pieces. [[WP:RSEDITORIAL\|So does our guideline on reliable sources]]. But that has no bearing on the reliability of the news reporting. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk\|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk\|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 03:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC) ::You understand no such thing, since this is not the case. Well. I do find their polemics tiresome, but apparently I did not make it clear enough that I marked each opinion piece with an asterix () to indicate that once you get to the page it is tagged as an opinion piece (although not before). The more pertinent point is that '''most of their coverage consists of opinion pieces''', which are after all easier and cheaper to produce than fact-based journalism, and that the slant and loaded language is present '''even in what they are calling news'''. This is why I avoid using them in my editing, and replace them as a source where this can be done without going down a rabbit hole. I have zero interest in arguing with people who want to defend the virtue of Conrad Black, and am now going back to what I was doing before my thread was hijacked into this RfC, which I believe is premature. [[User:Elinruby\|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby\|talk]]) 05:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions