Talk:Secret Army Organization

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The source/presentation issue[edit]

So the current issue is essentially whether certain sources are reliable and whether statements from them should be presented as allegations or as verified things that happened. I don't want an annoying edit war creating trouble so I wanted to make my position clear here and get some feedback.

As regards sources I'm saying shouldn't be put on the article:

1. Two are articles from political parties' newspapers being used as a source of fact(the Ann Arbor Sun article, and the LA Free Press Article).

2. One is a political paper from a political activist, Noam Chomsky, which would be fine if it was relevant, but it's used as a source for presenting things as fact rather than allegation. It cites an ACLU report, yes, but that ACLU report is cited itself in the article, as are reliable source(the New York Times and Washington Post) that cite it, so I don't see why it should be here when it's neither reliable nor necessary for the claims it's used as a source for.

3. One is just a picture put into a PDF and said to be taken from the Washington Post, but I can't find it online("Newspaper Says FBI Funded Terror Unit"). We already have a Washington Post article as a source and this specific source doesn't add anything that that source doesn't, plus again the only trace I can find of this article existing is the picture on this page, so I don't think it's necessary, but I don't have an issue with keeping it if someone else insists on it.

4. One is an explicitly ideological manifesto(Democracy versus the National Security State), again being used as a source of fact rather than just for the views of the author/movement

5. One is just a blog

My main issue with these is that aside from 3(which is just strange) they're explicitly ideological sources but their claims are being presented as fact. The claims haven't been verified, and all allegations(including those from the reliable sources that I kept) derive from the same ultimate source(an ACLU report). This also goes to the heart of the whole matter: allegations from that ACLU report are being presented as fact, rather than allegations. I don't think these sources offer anything useful for Wikipedia, but even if they were, the article if it includes them should not be presenting the claims as facts. I think my version that states that they're allegations works best.

Ranger Aragorn B) (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this was deleted? Have restored this, may seek outside help for resolving this situation.

Ranger Aragorn B) (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]