Talk:American Museum of Natural History removes statue of Theodore Roosevelt

Can anyone add on to this so it doesn't go stale??? If not I tried, sorry. Groggytortoise4121 (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Paywalled sources
undefined Very concerned reviewed & published this article that sources The Washington Post, a paywalled source that therefore violates PAYWALL. Hope someone more experienced than I could help speedily resolve this issue. --JJLiu112
 * Also @JJLiu112, @Xbspiro, the author of the article User:Groggytortoise4121 had just created his/her account on January 21, 2022 which is just 2 days ago. So getting the first article published this fast is a bit strange. 2006nishan178713t@lk 14:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I encourage an administrator dialogue. Regardless of what you think should be the paywall policy going forward, I would seriously consider such a conversation in the context of an article that was published, and is on the main page, which breaks current practice. --JJLiu112 (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, for what it's worth, I totally agree with you.
 * Some other things caught my attention here: the sources aren't organized from newest to oldest; the image credit says "at " instead of linking to the image or simply naming the photographer; the image caption is confusingly worded, and Wikinews always uses MDY dates; the last sentence says "it was announced"-who announced it? Heavy Water (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

A general comment on this topic. WN:PAYWALL has been in effect for over a decade. The gist of the justification for paid-access sources can never be used is "everyone" needs to be able to verify it. Well, what about stuff that is sent to Scoop? I, for one, don't have access to Scoop. I have to trust the reviewer. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me if the reviewer happens to have already paid for access to a site like WP or WSJ, we should trust that they were able to verify the information. Otherwise, we are suggesting either collusion (as in sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry) or just downright sloppy reviewing. My disagreement with the restrictive nature of the policy aside, it is a serious allegation. Cheers, --SVTCobra 08:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Bumping this conversation since @Bddpaux is active these days.


 * It appears that the KALW article contains all of the necessary facts needed for the article except the quote "the statue itself communicates a racial hierarchy..." In the KALW article, it is truncated to "communicates a racial hierarchy..." If the WaPo source is removed, a correction should be issued because of the necessary change in our version of the quote, right?


 * The Yahoo! source link (last in the list) leads to a 404 error now. There is a good, archived link available. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, because we cannot remove any sources after publication; the sources section is intended to be an accurate documentation of what sources were used for the article. Heavy Water (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)