Talk:Baby Suicide Bomber

message: Problems:
*1. Article has several quotes as well as references articulating editorial positions and attributed to named newspapers that are not cited. WP:CITE states that: 
It applies to each source. Original sources needs to be dug up. 
*2. Blogs are not allowed per WP:V. The blog/personal homepage used as a cite is created by David Melle and it's located at www.factsofisrael.com (not the University of Minnesota as it has been claimed in edit summary).
*3. Personal homepages are not allowed per WP:V. The personal homepage used as a cite is the one located at the University of Minnesota. It's the personal homepage of Dr. Yaakov Nahmias, who is (AFAIK) employed there, see . Note the disclaimer at the bottom of that page: "The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author.".
I see no problem with properly sourcing this article, all someone (not me) has to do is the work. -- Steve Hart 01:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments. Clearly, Both citations meet the standard of WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. One is not a blog (facts of israel) and is used as a secondary source, which is allowed. The haaretz link is dead, as common, but no reason to doubt it. The University of Minnesota page is filled with photos with no reason to doubt it either. It's not the opinions, it's the photos that  that are in question. If it's a faculty member posting pictures from Life Magazin and AP, do you believe he photo-shopped them ? Show proof if you think they're a foregery (?) . if you have any more issues, you can use citation requests but please do so carefully, no need to use a million tags. One tag suffices, there are even general ones to be used in articles at the top of the page. Amoruso 02:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pay notice: the link's main portion is: factsofisrael.com/blog, that is, ending with blog and dated June 28, 2002, using typical blog formatting. The introduction page states that: "My name is David Melle and I decided to create this site ... ". Blogs are notr allowed. Regarding the Haaretz article: verify, then add. WP:V states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". It's your responsibility to both verify and cite. Finally, personal homepages are not allowed. You can find the same material using AP or Reuters. Do that. -- Steve Hart 02:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Everything is now sourced. The Haaretz is quoted in secondary source (it used to be valid-this is for reading purposes), no problem of it. Explained the Minnesota photos, no problem with it either. I guess that's it. Amoruso 02:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amoruso: Reverting plus adding one ref that was already there in the past is not proper sourcing. You know fully well that quotes must be cited and you know fully well that neither personal homepages or blogs can be used as soures in all but a few cases. As you can see, I have now tracked down the sources and updated the article, even though I would be fully justified in just moving the content here to talk. And as it happens, the blog you kept promoting was actually wrong in citing its source. I hope this teaches you a lesson. I have kept the link to the homepage with the images for now, but only because another editor has joined in on that matter. I expect those too to be properly cited, either by you or by someone else. -- Steve Hart 21:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing, bad citations 

message: As far as I can see, you are the only one who disagrees and everyone else has come to a consensus. The links you have posted are either irrelevant or POV. you should not have undone the revert. Leppi 11:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might wanna see WP:CON. Consensus builds over time. While I agree with the edit, it was premature of Isarig to remove the info, particularly when you yourself had suggested here on Talk to leave it in for a week. -- Steve Hart 12:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: consensus