Talk:Israeli President Shimon Peres collapses in Tel Aviv

Review of revision 881208 [Failed]

 * See Wikipedia Shimon Peres. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WP is not a reliable source. You know the date, I know the date, but we need to prove the date. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to be kidding me? How many times have we done this now and suddenly it's an issue? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done what? I've never passed a review using WP as a source. If you want to make policy that we can start a discussion, but I'm against it without FlaggedRevs. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then remove it. But then we may as well faile everything else with a . DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How is a link in any way kin to repeating the information? By that logic we should do away with sources altogether. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. The whole idea of that template is to use it for sources. Hence why we put it in that section and Not in the article. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a source...luckily the Jerusalem Post doesn't charge for old articles. Anyways i still think this is ridiculous. This is exactly the same mentality of WP on how they think of Wikinews. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) "Learn more about Shimon Peres on Wikipedia." Nowehre does that suggest that the template is for sourcing. If we did it would a fraud to our readers, who would at the very least deserve it to be marked as such. Not that long ago I saw Brian use it to replace a long inline link to a related article, no material was sourced there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP isn't a reliable source? Oy. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 21:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I second Sandman. I don't think WP can be considered a reliable source; they don't have any sort of editorial control process, which means that anyone can insert untrue information into articles and we wouldn't even know about it. Also, IIRC the Wikipediapar template is not intended to be used as a source to an article, but provides "further reading" for our readers. Tempodivalse [talk]  22:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)