User:AndyGordon
This is Andy Gordon's user page.
I edit Wikipedia because I am passionate about knowledge.
I believe that a free encyclopedia, written from a neutral point of view, contributes to helping us all sort out our differences.
I contribute to Wikipedia in a personal, not professional, capacity.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-d-gordon/
Example of a Table:
[edit]| Header 1 | Header 2 | Header 3 |
|---|---|---|
| fred | shelagh | chas |
Some notes on Wikipedia policies:
[edit]Core principles: WP:NPOV (which starts with WP:WIKIVOICE), WP:NOR, WP:V.
The edit cycle: WP:BRD.
From WP:WIKIVOICE: "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc."
From WP:WIKIVOICE: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested."
The WP:LEAD: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."
From WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated."
From WP:NOCON: "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." For bold edit, see WP:BRD.
Both the Times and Telegraph are listed in WP:RSP as "generally reliable". Please read WP:GREL. It says: "Arguments to exclude such a source entirely must be strong and convincing". Unherd is not listed there. New York Post is WP:GUNREL. No consensus on reliability of Vice Media publications. As per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, Fox News is marginally reliable. Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources.
From WP:COATRACK, "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. Typically, the article has been edited to make a point about something else."
From WP:DUE, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
From: WP:REPUTABLE: "Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement."
From WP:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think that you, in good faith, are misunderstanding what "neutral point of view" means for Wikipedia. Please see this essay: WP:YESBIAS To quote from that essay: "NPOV (Neutral Point of View) is our most sacred policy, yet its use of the word "neutral" is constantly misunderstood by editors and visitors who feel that NPOV occupies some sort of "No Point Of View" middle ground between biased points of view. Points of view and criticisms are by nature not neutral, and all types of biased points of view must be documented, often using biased sources, so the resulting content should not be neutral or free of bias."
If you want to argue against Wikipedia's NPOV policy, you can open a discussion at WT:NPOV and if you want to get the BBC, The Times, The Telegraph, and The Guardian removed as reliable sources, you can open a discussion on WP:RSN. In the meantime, Wikipedia policy on NPOV is as stated, and those news sources are considered reliable. Note that reliable sources can be biased; bias doesn't prevent us from extracting facts.