Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

 

'''Note''', see previous discussions at RSN: [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_366#The_Dorchester_Review|here]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dorchester_Review,_again|here]]. See previous discussion on an article's talk [[Talk:Kamloops_Indian_Residential_School/Archive_2#The_Dorchester_Review|here]] ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''^{[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]} 14:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

'''No need for RfC''' How often is this source being used? It seems it's being mentioned only in context of the Canadian Indigenous Schools topic. Is the source being used so widely that we need a universal statement? Are we past the point where we can ask "is this source acceptable for this claim"? We really need to limit these general RfCs for cases where we have had many discussions regarding a source (Fox News for example). Since this isn't such a case I would suggest closing this RfC and focusing on specific uses. Note, my view is more procedural vs anything related to the specific use question above. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 15:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)