Talk:Oklahoma trooper on leave after altercation with ambulance personnel

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)
 * = 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 in this edit . 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. --Mark Talk 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
= 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 and . 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)