User talk:Primdena

Welcome!

Hello, Primdena, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXCEPTIONAL

The source says that the report was only seen by Reuters. That is not a strong source especially for an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim which requires multiple high quality sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? Please see the following sources.

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7]

Hope these sources are enough to convince you that is has been reported by multiple reliable sources. Best. Primdena (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are all citing Reuters. It is the only source here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which means they all assert Reuters independent journalism. There's no reason we should doubt their conclusion here when all other international news organizations confirm their findings. Primdena (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primdena, no, that doesnt mean that. It means that there is one source here. See what WP:EXCEPTIONAL says [a]ny exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. I suggest you self-revert.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, on your Linked policy, it says "Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" which dosent fit the criteria here to be removed anyways. Also, the criteria of "multiple reliable sources" fit here since all these sources mentioned it, regardless whether they did their own investigation or not. This clearly does not need to be removed on basis of being a fringe or exceptional claim. Primdena (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters claims is not an exceptional claim, it's been seen as a neutral news and journalistic outlet and republished my all news organizations. Whether you believe them or not, or wanting to see the *real* report yourself here should not be considered. Primdena (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Tourism in Jammu and Kashmir into Jammu and Kashmir (union territory). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/monitors-houthis-saudi-aramco-attacks-report-200109062732396.html

[2] ttps://www.trtworld.com/middle-east/yemen-s-houthis-did-not-hit-the-saudi-oil-facility-un-report-32814

[3] ttps://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/UN-Houthis-Didnt-Launch-Attacks-On-Aramco.html

[4] ttps://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2020/1/9/un-finds-houthis-did-not-carry-out-saudi-attack

[5] ttps://www.middleeasteye.net/news/un-findings-say-houthis-not-responsible-attack-saudi-oil-facilities

[6] ttps://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/01/09/business/09reuters-saudi-aramco-attacks-un-exclusive.html

[7] ttps://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-01-08/exclusive-un-investigators-find-yemens-houthis-did-not-carry-out-saudi-oil-attack

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]