Talk:Security Check Children

message: ==Untitled==
Yeah, Ok, this is obviously going to be controversial.  Where can a Wikipedia reader go to verify the existence/accuracy/context of the Bulletin or the 'Red Volumes'?  I note the following at WP:V:
:The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed...
:Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources...
:In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves... Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources...
:Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
:Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. ---- Really Spooky 20:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I own an almost-complete collection of the bound Technical Bulletins series myself, you could always come over one night for some Stoli and we'll sit around reading them. Failing that, the Bulletins are available here and here and here, just to name three obvious sources off the top of my head. wikipediatrix 22:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ibid Really Spooky 23:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How does this page meet the verifiability threshold?

message: Yeah, Ok, this is obviously going to be controversial.  Where can a Wikipedia reader go to verify the existence/accuracy/context of the Bulletin or the 'Red Volumes'?  I note the following at WP:V:
:The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed...
:Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources...
:In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves... Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources...
:Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
:Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. ---- Really Spooky 20:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I own an almost-complete collection of the bound Technical Bulletins series myself, you could always come over one night for some Stoli and we'll sit around reading them. Failing that, the Bulletins are available here and here and here, just to name three obvious sources off the top of my head. wikipediatrix 22:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ibid Really Spooky 23:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled