Talk:Sharon Statement

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 April 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Connecticut Mid‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism High‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

United States History

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject United States History To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention
Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes
Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs
Other :
- Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess:
  - {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}}
  - {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

Removal of Lee Edwards[edit]

Lee Edwards is a highly respected historian and his credentials are impeccable. His article, sourced to The Daily Signal, must be restored.

1. Lee Edwards is a reliable

Lee Edwards is a eminent historian and expert on the US conservative movement. He has published 25 books and his work has been on the NY Times bestseller list. His work is a valuable addition to any article.

2. The Daily Signal is reliable

The Daily Signal is published by the Heritage Foundation, which is one of if not the most notable right leaning think tanks in the United States. Their reporting is considered reliable enough to be quoted by major news organizations including Fox News,^[1] CBS,^[2] Slate,^[3] and Daily News.^[4]

Some consider Daily Signal a biased source. The Reliable Sources policy explicitly states that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" and acknowledges that sometimes biased sources are superior to neutral sources.^[5] Obviously, this is one of those instances.

Therefore, because of the high quality of the source, and since policy supports this source, it must be restored. – Lionel^(talk) 07:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ Judson Berger (September 14, 2014). "Ex-official claims Clinton allies scrubbed Benghazi documents in secret session". Fox. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
^ Stephanie Condon (September 17, 2014). "Will politics doom the Benghazi committee's investigation?". CBS. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
^ David Weigel (September 15, 2014). "The Benghazi Whistleblower Who Might Have Revealed a Massive Scandal on His Poetry Blog". Slate. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
^ Dan Friedman (September 16, 2014). "Staffers loyal to Hillary Clinton covered up potentially damaging Benghazi documents: former official". The New York Daily News. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
^ WP:BIASED: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

There are multiple problems here. First off, the Heritage Foundation... sure it's a prominent conservative think-tank, but it doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. All of the citing sources you list are about one specific story that made the news. Second, Lee Edwards isn't exactly an independent voice. The guy was one of YAF's founding members. So if he said something noteworthy about the Sharon Statement I'd support inclusion with in-text attribution, but that's not how this source was being used. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So your position is the source is reliable, as long as there is attribution? Because your editsum says "not a reliable source."– Lionel^(talk) 08:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, my position is that the source is unreliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "I'd support inclusion with in-text attribution." Is this the policy on which you base your support:

WP:BIASED: "Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source"

– Lionel^(talk) 09:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. I suppose I envisioned the relevant policy would be WP:ABOUTSELF, but it's just a hypothetical, because like I said, we're not using the source in that way. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no policy-based reason to use attribution with Lee Edwards, correct?– Lionel^(talk) 11:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. And it seems you're implying my position is that we can use the source with in-text attribution, which is not what I said. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to be clear, you are still objecting to this [1]? – Lionel^(talk) 14:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I stand by that edit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory:@Arjayay: Inviting recent contributors to weigh in on Removal of Lee Edwards. – Lionel^(talk) 22:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Berger-1] Judson Berger (September 14, 2014). "Ex-official claims Clinton allies scrubbed Benghazi documents in secret session". Fox. Retrieved 1 December 2014.

[Condon-2] Stephanie Condon (September 17, 2014). "Will politics doom the Benghazi committee's investigation?". CBS. Retrieved 1 December 2014.

[Weigel-3] David Weigel (September 15, 2014). "The Benghazi Whistleblower Who Might Have Revealed a Massive Scandal on His Poetry Blog". Slate. Retrieved 1 December 2014.

[Friedman-4] Dan Friedman (September 16, 2014). "Staffers loyal to Hillary Clinton covered up potentially damaging Benghazi documents: former official". The New York Daily News. Retrieved 1 December 2014.

[5] WP:BIASED: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]