Talk:2023 White House cocaine incident

I removed the July 4 section from the timeline, as it was completely unsourced, and it was tagged with a {{cn}} tag. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this section needs to be much longer than "Conservatives/Republicans believe that the cocaine belonged to a member of the Biden family," and a couple sources. Arkadios 200 (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Neutrality: You have deleted some of the locations the cocaine was said to have been found. This was sourced content, and is one of the reason some are questioning the outcome of the investigation. Please explain your removal of this important text. Also, with this edit you removed text, as well as two sources, which you described as "horse manure". Which of the two sources do you believe meets this criteria? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those sources is acceptable or appears to be reliable. There are ample real, reality-based sources available: AP, Reuters, Washington Post, NYTimes etc. Neutrality^talk 22:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Why is this source unacceptable? There is no mention of it at WP:RSP. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Note than it’s the burden of a proponent of a challenged source to prove its reliability. In any case, there’s no evidence that either source has strong editorial standard/control, a reputation for quality, meaningful use by others. Neutrality^talk 00:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You called it "horse manure". Prove your claim.

Wikipedia's reputation has become abysmal. When it appoints people like you as admins, that's no surprise. Your conduct is entirely unbefitting of an administrator. 172.58.109.208 (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard of Shore News Network, which likely means it's just another tiny website operation run by...who knows? so it was likely never even significant enough to come to RSN attention, and sure enough, check it out, it's just a guy with a website and some "reporters." why use a source like that, unless it says something dubious that you personally agree with, when an abundance of major reliable sources are available on this story? soibangla (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

finger prints tell who it was. What happened to that ? 2601:CE:4001:160:F54A:21C3:3A2:9CC7 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

USSS found no forensic evidence. No DNA, no prints. soibangla (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The article has an extensive list of sources from notable news outlets and shows no explicit signs of bias. Almost every sentence is cited by a source, which is a positive. Although this is true, I have noticed that a lot of the sources are news outlets that identify as blue or liberal; which could be a source of potential, unintended bias. Because the sources are almost completely derived from news sources, the credibility could also be compromised. Lastly, in the "reactions" section, there is only a section for "Republicans" and not Democrats, which I think leaves the reactions section one-sided. Overall, given the amount of edits and revisions to this article, I'd say it is sufficiently well-written. Evelyn4712 (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Evelyn4712: Thanks for your hard work. The cocaine seemed to have had quite the White House tour, first being found in the library, them moving from place to place. More details were found here, but the edit was deleted and I haven't had time to revert. Odd indeed that the Dems didn't have much to say. If you can find something please add it. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)