Further, the talk section keeps noting the use of "reliable sources". What they aren't saying is that those sources are clearly biased, and that defeats their reliablility under Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View. Given their sources, clearly this article does not meet those criteria, and any Wiki article veteran would be skeptical reading the sources.
Buzzfeed? Really? Does it get more biased? New York Times? Snopes (who are clairvoyant), Miami Herald? List goes on. The article debunks itself trying to debunk.
view the rest of the comments →
sinclair ago
This article is circular sourcing. It is invalid. Also, wikipedia says itself it's not a reliable source.
Wikipedia not reliable
Further, the talk section keeps noting the use of "reliable sources". What they aren't saying is that those sources are clearly biased, and that defeats their reliablility under Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View. Given their sources, clearly this article does not meet those criteria, and any Wiki article veteran would be skeptical reading the sources.
Buzzfeed? Really? Does it get more biased? New York Times? Snopes (who are clairvoyant), Miami Herald? List goes on. The article debunks itself trying to debunk.
Not a reliable source to be found. Need we go on?