On 5/31/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, jayjg wrote:
WR doesn't qualify for citation under [[WP:V]] or [[WP:RS]].
Links to attack sites have been removed from talk pages. [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] do not apply to talk pages.
Since nothing in WR could be added to an article (as it doesn't qualify under [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]), and since Talk: pages is to describe article content, then there's no benefit to Wikipedia in linking to it on Talk: pages.
That is utterly ridiculous. Things may be quoted and said on talk pages that are not acceptable for inclusion in an article themselves. Linking to non-verifiable material, even though an article shouldn't contain non-verifiable material, is no different from mentioning the results of a Google search even though no article may contain the results of your Google search.
I can see the benefit of a discussing the results of a Google search. I haven't yet seen the value of linking to WR on an article Talk: page, given that none of the information posted there is trustworthy.