Content deleted Content added
SiberianCat (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 51:
It’s commentary. It may be reasonable commentary from reliable sources. But being commentary it has no place in Wikipedia. —[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] ([[User talk:Merbabu|talk]]) 21:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
:{{Re|Merbabu}} Can you please prove or explain how the news article by Reuters is commentary? Reuters used to publish [https://www.reuters.com/commentary commentary pieces], but the news article I cited is not a commentary piece. There are other verifiable and reputable news reports also noting the subject's appeal to nostalgia for his father's rule. Do you feel that all such news articles should also be regarded as "commentary"? In my view (and looking at Wikipedia's definition), a commentary can be: an editorial, a periodical column, an op-ed, an opinion piece by an author unaffiliated with the publication, or letters/comments from readers of a publication. The Reuters news article does not match that definition. When I initially proposed amending the content by including the aspect of the appeal to nostalgia, you claimed it "smells a bit of original research". When the content was revised with a reputable and neutral source added, you claimed it is "not reliable source. NPOV issue". Any explanation on how a non-editorial, non-commentary news article from a reliable source can be deemed "commentary" would be appreciated. Do you feel the content should be prefaced by something along the lines of: "Media reports noted the subject's efforts to appeal to nostalgia for his father's rule ..."? Thank you for your time on this. [[User:SiberianCat|SiberianCat]] ([[User talk:SiberianCat|talk]]) 01:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
| |||