Talk:Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Overreliance on National Post

We shouldn't be sourcing so much of this article to the National Post. Even its "news" section is known to be POV at best and to outright falsify stories to support an agenda at worst, and some of this is even cited to its "opinion" section, assuming there's a distinction at all. In order to avoid completely gutting the article, I suggest finding reliable sources for the statements present here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• If you believe that the National Post has incorrectly reported any of the information presented in this article, then please provide evidence to support this. Aside from one incorrect article published in 2008 (which the Post acknowledges was an error), there is no evidence that the National Post systematically falsifies information. Your personal views and contumelious rhetoric regarding the National Post's political slant are not sufficient reasons to remove any information from this article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC))

• • I'm glad you worked on finding references to proper sources, eg. the Globe and Mail. I'd recommend that you continue doing this. If something can only be sourced to an opinion piece, or to something that's an opinion piece in all but name - both of which are the case in this article - better sources are required. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Where opinion pieces are used to provide commentary/criticism, please note that the source of the criticism (e.g. the author of the opinion piece) is clearly identified. (e.g. "Lorne Gunter, writing in the National Post, sharply criticized..."). The statements of fact (e.g. "The court ruled that in order to establish that discrimination had occurred...") are sourced from news articles and not opinion pieces or columnists. Please note that WP:RS states that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

• • The more important issue here is your distrust of the National Post. Nobody says that it is perfect; however, WP:RS notes that "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors." Your remarkable statement about that "Even its "news" section is known to be POV at best and to outright falsify stories at worst" is a pretty big claim, and yet you provide no evidence to support it (stating that "[it] is known" isn't very convincing). If you want to promote your claim that the Post deliberately "falsify[s] stories to support an agenda" (What stories were falsified? What is this "agenda" you speak of?) you will have to do a lot better than "[it] is known" before you can justify declaring that one of the largest newspapers in Canada is unreliable for the purposes of Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC))

• • • Actually, a number of statements of fact are sourced to opinion pieces. These could be the next things you replace. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
      • If that is the case, I will take a closer look to see additional references are available.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC))

• • • • • Great - I look forward to seeing the poor sources replaced. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)