This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, I was wondering if there was a different reference you could use for the sentences you added to the article on NATO. The FAS blog post is more of an opinion piece, and we try to stay away from using those as references. If there isn't any other, I might have to mark that with Template:Better source or even Template:Dubious. Thanks!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 19:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
If you want I could pull all the primary docs they point to and list those. Hcobb (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, primary sources are discouraged too, what's best is an article from a more regular news organization.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 23:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'll dig up NYT level sources that make the three points.
NATO is saying that they are maintaining status quo.
While upgrading the accuracy of their tactical nuclear weapons to strategic bunker buster levels.
And mounting them on stealth aircraft.
Fair enough? Hcobb (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
NYT is good too, as are The Guardian and Der Spiegel. I don't think you need the blog post if you have the published articles.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 14:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
