User talk:Historiantruth123

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including edit summaries. You may not engage in libel or defame anyone. Controversial information must be attributed to reliable sources and the BBC article you posted did not support calling that person a "professional disinformation artist". EvergreenFir (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen, BBC News is not the only publication that has written about Matthew Ricchiazzi's activities writing articles with false information in exchange for money. Buzzfeed also wrote an article about him below: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/matthew-ricchiazzi-buffalo-chronicle-trudeau-claims

Do you seriously think RBG's article should be citing information from this guy? I understand your concern about making "defamatory" comments, but this isn't defamation. It's backed up by evidence. It doesn't make sense to me why Wikipedia is citing information from someone with clear credibility issues.

There is evidence contradicting the claims that are being cited in the RBG article. RBG did an interview with NPR in 2020 where she was asked directly if she had any regrets, and she stated none. This directly contradicts the Spokesman article cited in the RBG article, and that Spokesman article cites the Buffalo Chronicle for it's information. Historiantruth123 (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refrain from any comments about his character but the credibility issues remain. How are we supposed to maintain the integrity of the information on Wikipedia if we aren't allowed to point out that certain citations aren't credibly sourced? What is the process to dispute noncredible sources then? Historiantruth123 (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think he should be cited, but you can't use that kind of language about him. I suggest going to WP:RSN and asking for opinions on Buffalo Chronicle with a neutral explanation about it along with those two sources (BBC and Buzzfeed). I think you can make a straightforward case there that we should not allow Buffalo Chronicle. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will do that. Thank you for the feedback and the link. Historiantruth123 (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]