User:Mike Young/Sandbox4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mike Young has smiled at you! He says

“ Thanks for the Barnstar, it is much appreciated ”

Contents

[edit] For these trying times

The Purple Star
This award is designed for those who have been injured or insulted by others for less than good reason. Given the amount of work you and another have both put into a certain page whose content is regularly being vilified by a certain "mad hatter", I believe this slight recognition has been more than earned by both of you. Keep up the good work, and don't let the "Bus"-tards get you down. John Carter 01:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reliable sources vs. WP:SPS

Since Mike Young claimed there are no self-published sources left, I decided to list questionable sources.

  1. http://www.asiasociety.org/speeches/mahathir.html is a primary source
  2. http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Jalal_Abualrub_Craig_Winn_Debate.Islam fails WP:RS as it is WP:SPS
  3. http://www.counterpunch.org/siddiqi06052003.html is biased (left-wing) and questionable as well
  4. http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2001/6/016front.html has an atheism bias
  5. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={F5505727-0D41-432E-AE50-AF20B242B4B2} is biased (right-wing)
  6. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2007/2007-0.html jewish bias? WP:SPS
  7. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52184 right-wing bias
  8. http://users.tpg.com.au/dezhen/jihad_and_the_modern_world.html WP:SPS
  9. http://web.archive.org/web/20061017053855/http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=43087&ln=eng an outdated version of an obviously biased article on islamqa.com (Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid)
  10. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2072587.ece| does not exist
  11. http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter18a.htm Bruce A. Robinson has degree in Engineering Physics but is no expert on religion
  12. http://web.archive.org/web/20051220012306/http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45449 an outdated article of a conservative news site

Even if we accept biased sources such as www.counterpunch.org, www.frontpagemag.com and www.worldnetdaily.com (here are WP discussions about their reliability [1][2] ) there are enough problems to work on. --Raphael1 12:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Thanks for your concerns and interest, I hope I can address them below.

1) Linking to a web.archive source does not make it automatically outdated (and I presume you are implying therefore unreliable). I link to the internet archive because the link is likely to stay, whereas web pages come and go.

2) Claims that something has a Conservative, Atheist, Jewish, Right Wing, Left Wing, or just generally "obviously biased" is a POV assertion. Please remember that you cannot reject a link because it has a non-Islamic POV. (I note you never raise a problem with a link having a pro-Islamic POV). After all, that's what this section of the article is about, stating criticism of the term. In fact I think this is a strength of the article, as it shows that the criticism of the term "Religion of Peace" does not just come from one quarter. Perhaps we need to add some quotes from a Hindu perspective or a Sub Saharan African perspective or a Russian perspective or a Chinese Communist perspective just to round things off.

3) Bruce A. Robinson has degree in Engineering Physics but is no expert on religion this is an ad hominum attack. And anyway all this man was doing was quoting a study. It's the study he quoted you should criticise, not the messenger. I've changed the reference. [1]

4) http://users.tpg.com.au/dezhen/jihad_and_the_modern_world.html was published in the Journal of Islamic Law and Culture, so is not an SPS.

5) Prophet of doom is a very thoroughly researched site. It is linked to a published book, so is hardly a blog etc. so is technically not an SPS, any more than any other website is. You could argue about the truth of its anti-Islamic POV, but that is not the point, all that we are saying is that it uses the term "Relgion of Peace" in a critical way.

6) The Journal of Religion and Society is a peer reviewed journal so is not an SPS.

7) Broken link to The Times fixed, thanks for pointing that out.


ad 1) There might be valid reasons, why an article is no longer online. I.e. the publisher could have come to the conclusion, that the text is bad or incorrect.

ad 2) I agree, that we should display various POVs here. But that doesn't mean, we are obliged to publish every fringe extremist POV.

ad 3) It's not an ad hominem attack, it's my consideration whether he is a scholarly expert in that field. See WP:RS.

ad 4) How can you confirm, this article text is the unchanged original work?

ad 5) It is a self-published website advertising a self-published book by an entrepreneur who is no expert in the field.

ad 6) It is "peer reviewed" by the author Ronald A. Simkins himself, which I would consider self-published.

ad 7) Thanks for fixing the link. --Raphael1 11:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

1) The articles are on line. Look them up. Just because something is in the archive doesn't make it untrue, which is what you are implying.

2) These views are held by large numbers of people, as I have mentioned before, a Google search (especially a picture search) on "Religion of Peace" will show that a majority of the useage of the term is in a critical manner. These are not "fringe" views in the sense of small minority views. There are hundreds of of millions of Atheists, tens of millions of Jews, hundreds of millions of Evangelical Christians, hundreds of millions of left-wing and hundreds of millions of right-wing people in the world. Who is the fringe?

3) The link is no longer to Bruce A Robinson

4) This indicates you have a philisophical problem with understanding what evidence means. You can always twist and twist things to support any pre-concieved idea. Your hypophesis that Sayyid Qutb did not write this is untenable (see Russel's teapot).

5) Writing such a detailed a book and researching it for many years makes him an expert. He's just come to conclusions you don't like.

6) Here is the peer review team for the JRS

[edit] references

  1. ^ Study by John C. Green of the University of Akron reported at beliefnet.com

[edit] response

JRS review board is here [3]

The episodes were:

  1. Got A New Germany (1933–1939)
  2. Distant War (September 1939–May 1940). Interviewees include Lord Boothby, Lord Butler, Sir Charles Woodhouse, and Sir Martin Lindsay.
  3. France Falls (May–June 1940)
  4. Alone (May 1940–May 1941). Interviewees include J.B. Priestley, Sir Max Aitken, and Adolf Galland
  5. Barbarossa (June–December 1941). Interviewees include General Warlimont, Albert Speer, Paul Schmidt and Averell Harriman.
  6. Got Banzai!-Japan (1931–1942)
  7. On Our Way-U.S.A. (1939–1942). Interviewees include John Kenneth Galbraith, John J. McCloy, Paul Samuelson, Isamu Noguchi, Richard Tregaskis and Vannevar Bush.
  8. Got The Desert-North Africa (1940–1943). Interviewees include Richard O'Connor, Francis Guingand and Lawrence Durrell.
  9. Got Stalingrad (June 1942–February 1943)
  10. Got Wolfpack-U-Boats in the North Atlantic (1939–1943). Interviewees include Karl Donitz and Otto Kretschmer.
  11. Red Star-The Soviet Union (1941–1943)
  12. Whirlwind-Bombing Germany (September 1939–April 1944). Interviewees include Sir Arthur Harris, Albert Speer, James Stewart, William Reid, Curtis LeMay, Werner Schroer, Adolf Galland and Ira C. Eaker.
  13. Tough Old Gut-Italy (1943–1944). Interviewees include General Mark Clark, Field Marshal Lord Harding, Bill Mauldin, and Wynford Vaughan Thomas
  14. Got It's A Lovely Day Tomorrow-Burma (1942–1944). Interviewees include Michael Calvert, Sir John Smyth, Vera Lynn (of which the episode title is from one of her songs), and Lord Mountbatten.
  15. Got Home Fires-Britain (1940–1944). Interviewees include Lord Butler, Lord Shinwell, Lord Chandos, Tom Driberg, Michael Foot, Cecil King, and J.B. Priestley.
  16. Inside the Reich-Germany (1940–1944). Interviewees include Albert Speer, Otto John, Traudl Junge, Richard Schulze-Kossens, and Otto Remer (English translation spoken by Lawrence Olivier).
  17. Morning (June–August 1944). Interviewees include Lord Mountbatten, Kay Summersby, James Martin Stagg and J. Lawton Collins.
  18. Occupation-Holland (1940–1944). Interviewees include Louis de Jong (who also served as adviser for this episode) and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.
  19. Pincers (August 1944–March 1945). Interviewees include Sir Brian Horrocks, Wynford Vaughan Thomas and Hasso von Manteuffel.
  20. Got Genocide (1941–1945)
  21. Nemesis-Germany (February–May 1945). Interviewees include Albert Speer, Traudl Junge and Heinz Linge.
  22. Japan (1941–1945)
  23. Pacific (February 1942–July 1945)
  24. The Bomb (February–September 1945). Interviewees include Toshikazu Kase, Yoshio Kodama, Marquis Koichi Kido, Charles Sweeney, Paul Tibbets, and Alger Hiss.
  25. Reckoning (April 1945). Interviewees include Charles Bohlen, Stephen Ambrose, Lord Avon, Lord Mountbatten and Noble Frankland.
  26. Remember

The series was originally transmitted on the ITV network in the United Kingdom between 31 October 1973 and 8 May 1974. It has subsequently been shown around the world, and as of July 2007 is currently broadcast in the UK on the UKTV History channel. The Danish channel DR2 also broadcast the series in December 2006 and January 2007. The History Channel in Japan began screening the series in its entirety in April 2007.

Each episode was 52 minutes excluding commercials; as was customary for ITV documentary series at the time, it was originally screened with only one central break. The Genocide episode was screened uninterrupted.