Talk:Oklahoma trooper on leave after altercation with ambulance personnel

Revision 834824 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 834824 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

External links

External links sections are generally avoided on Wikinews. Sources used in the article should be listed instead in the Sources subsection. Cirt (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As for number of sources cited, I generally start articles with 10 or so sources used in the article. Cirt (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I invite you to view this that gives around 1900 suggestions otherwise. --MarkTalk to me 16:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please also see Wikinews:Manual_of_Style#External_links_section. --MarkTalk to me 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Markie, if you read the link you posted you will see that the style guide says: "external links should not be included without good reason." --SVTCobra 17:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would claim the good reason is that they provide information which is referenced to in the article and allow the reader to easily find stuff that we talk about and improve the articles use as a result. As I added them after the bulk of the story had been written they therefore are not sources. I would feel that this is a "good reason" and therefore this is why i re-added them. --MarkTalk to me 19:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not a good reason. Your sources are either needed to back up the work or they should not be there. The videos are okay, as is the petition, they are directly relevant beyond simple provision of facts. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this doesnt make sense to me. You say this isnt a good reason then you say the videos and petition are okay? Are you talking about the point of there being too many sources? Thanks --MarkTalk to me 19:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your comment above I thought you were talking about links to articles or some such. I think it's a simple misunderstanding on my part, sorry. I should've looked at the article history and made sure. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is now moot. I have incorporated all of these external links into usage as sources directly in the article itself, and moved the links into the Sources subsection as they are now used as sources in the article. Cirt (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I may well read ten or more sources when I write an article, but I try to cite as few as possible when actually putting it up for review. As I write the actual text I verify which source backs up my work and only add sources needed to verify my work. Even doing this there is a large overlap between sources that involves people reading a lot to cross-check the Wikinews story with it's sources. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

External links, well, yes, they're generally avoided because there are repeat attempts to use them to advertise or otherwise introduce material with a very tenuous link to the article. I'd say YouTube videos qualify as an external link more than something that should go in a source template. Then you wait for all the complaints when it links to something that's been taken down. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To each writer their own style of how many sources they draw from, I have seen Wikinews editors write articles different ways incorporating varying numbers of sources. I generally like to use ten or so, to get a feel for how a good chunk of different types of sources are covering the issue. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This argument for getting rid of the external links section seems quite ridiculous to me. The two best sources in the article are in the external links section. The other sources just give you brief news snapshots of the video without allowing you to view the whole scenario. By getting rid of this section altogether your robbing the reader of this most vital information. As far as putting these into the external links vs. the sources section I think they clearly should go into the external links. The petition for one isn't a source. It doesn't provide the reader with any additional information and so shouldn't constitute a source other then to tell the reader that there exists such said petition. As for the videos, I don't see how they can be described as sources either since they are the most basic of information available to the reader. One shouldn't avoid using external sources simply because most wikinews articles don't have them. Many don't need them, but I think this one does. I put the external links back; if anyone agrees add it to the stable version. Else get rid of it, but lets at least keep discussing it so overs can give some input too. One day is not enough discussion time.Chhe (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, it isn't as the *writer* that you should be concerned about the ten sources, it's the *reviewer* that you should be concerned about. Remember Floro? Floro's articles were hard to review for many reasons, but one of the big ones was because he never failed to use less than 8 sources, most of which simply repeated the information used from other sources, just in different words.

When reviewing, if I see an article with more than 5 sources, I just don't bother to review it. That's why you should be concerned. The more sources, the longer you'll wait for a review... if you get one at all. When I review I carefully read every source, and I'm not going to read through 10 or 15 multi-page long articles:P. Gopher65_talk 23:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

@Gopher65, well that is most unfortunate, as there truly is benefit from incorporating information from multiple sources. I will take what you have said into account however, and try to use less sources in the future. Cirt (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

These are sources used directly for information in the article itself. Therefore they should not be in an "External links" subsection, but rather in the Sources subsection. Cirt (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be used as a source for background, but that doesn't get dropped in the sources section. Same for biographies on sites like - say - whitehouse.gov.

Anything using the source template should never have a "retrieved" bit stuffed into the date. I have always ensured dates are in a standardised format so they can be used by a bot or some other software agent. Youtube uploads also have no publication date, and nor did the petition.

Lastly, these items stand out more as external links than when buried in the sources section. I also note another Youtube source listed, I'm not checking them all (we've already established many people think there's too many) how does it differ from the other Youtube clip? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error

The spelling error was in the secondary source, sorry I did not catch it when copying the individual's quote. Cirt (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Original reporting

Added tag {{Original reporting}} - article now incorporates material from multiple different primary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A variation of {{broadcast report}} might be appropriate, but you need OR notes of original investigative research beyond watching recordings for OR - and both BR and OR need some notes. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Information and quotes were drawn from the report of the paramedic, as well as the primary source video material. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[1] = Changed to template {{Broadcast report}}. Cirt (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Blog source

To what extent is the carlosmiller.com blog used as a source? From what I can tell the content is entirely redundant to the other sources. --SVTCobra 22:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That source was added by Markie (talk · contribs) in this edit [2]. Cirt (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a blog by someone with an axe to grind, I'd rather see it gone but thought I'd hacked enough already. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That was the source for the fact that the officer picks up his wife. It could/can be got rid of it its referenced in other articles or if someone wants to claim OR/BR on watching the video. --MarkTalk to me 23:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is now gone. --SVTCobra 01:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources used in article inappropriately moved to External links section

[3] = This edit was inappropriate. Sources used directly in the article for material in the article body text should not be moved to an External links subsection. Cirt (talk) 08:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This was not my intent when trying to clarify the appropriate article sections in the style guide. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See above comments by multiple other users that support this position. External links sections are generally discouraged in articles anyways. Instead, sources should be used in the article instead of pointing to other resources, and then sources moved from external links to the Sources section. Cirt (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Who do you think originally wrote that external links sections were discouraged? I did after doing a little archiving. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So because you originally wrote something on Wikinews, this means you get to singlehandedly override community consensus, and unilaterially dictate site policy? Cirt (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No it means I get to disagree based on what I was trying to achieve with the text. It was not meant to be a religious, "thou shalt not use external links" edict. Just a guideline that could be used to stop people spamming links to their pet hobbies. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See above comments by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs). As the links are sources used directly in the article, and not simply external resource links, then they should not be placed in an External links section, but rather in the Sources section. Cirt (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources moved back to Sources section. No reason was given to override current site practices. Dates adjusted to reflect dates given at source pages. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree with this and will now seek further input with a view to clarifying policy. I cannot imagine any petition being a credible or valid source where anyone can start it, anyone can sign it, and they can claim to be anyone. The only newsworthy aspect is that it exists, not any content such as comments - it has no news value or credibility. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"The only newsworthy aspect is that it exists" - exactly, and that is all that is being stated in the article. Cirt (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Which, logically, means as no content is used it is not a source. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a source of direct information used in the article. If it were a resource for further information, such as a government informative page on a topic that was not used for any information in the article itself, then that would be something for an "External links" section. That is not the case here. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the above comment by Cirt. In my opinion, "External links" should only be used as "further reading" that does not back up anything in the article text, while "Sources" are to be used to back up material covered in the prose itself. In this case, the link serves to corroborate some part of the story, so it should be placed in "Sources". Whether a mention of the petition in the article should be made at all is an entirely different question. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Validity of the petition

Are we sure that the number of signatures in the petition mentioned in the article is reliable? As mentioned in the above section by Brianmc, it's not easy to determine the validity of the signatures and they could have been forged, seeing as it's an open petition. Just wondering. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Cirt (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)