|
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. | ||||||
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability. | ||||||
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board. | ||||||
|
Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
Search this noticeboard & archives |
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168 |
Contents
- 1 Current large scale clean-up efforts
- 2 Partisan group self published source Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia
- 3 partisan base self published source
- 4 Dispute as to who Sheb Wooleys Children
- 5 Is the Glottolog website a reliable source on Meroitic or Rilly's assessment of Meroitic?
- 6 Tributary Relations in East Asia
- 7 Lawfareblog
- 8 Burma Army's death toll in Kachin conflict
- 9 Origin of the word "Easter"
- 10 Self-published source
- 11 William Muir on "Life of Mahomet"
- 12 What's up with www.publicpolicypolling.com?
- 13 Is this a reliable source?
- 14 UK births database search.findmypast.co.uk
- 15 The Conversation
- 16 Several articles heavily referenced by same author
- 17 Domesday Reloaded
- 18 Mariah Carey Album Sales
- 19 Multi-referenced scholarly viewpoint and persistent vandalism
- 20 Is Noam Chomsky an expert on terrorism?
- 21 Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
Current large scale clean-up efforts
Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com
Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org
Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com
Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org
Partisan group self published source Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia
The article [1] has a lot of citations from a single partisan self published source which reflects only a fringe standpoint of history. Many of the names of the graves mentioned are not even verified , here is the source:
http://www.al-islam.org/history-shrines/history-cemetery-jannat-al-baqi
It looks more like a blog presenting personal opinions on a matter and that too by a fringe group which accuses a Jewish conspiracy in the destruction.
Hence proof of the graves from reliable independent, non sectarian sources should be added. Relevant tag: WP:BIASED,WP:FTN (fringe theory).
partisan base self published source
[1]in article Mufaddal Saifuddin
However, Muffadal Saifuddin's succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, who claimed the title of the 53rd Dai of the Dawoodi Bohras Himself.[10] Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private, just before he was publically appointed as Mazoon, second-in-command in Bohras hierarchy.[11] After the death of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin he claims that the succession was not done in London as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a full stroke at the age of 100, that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move.[1] Khuzaima Qutbuddin explains that he never claimed to be the rightfull successor, as per Mohammed Burhanuddin's instruction to keep it secret.[12][13] It is further claimed that former CJI upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.
Dispute as to who Sheb Wooleys Children
Sheb Wooleys Wikipedia says that he had two daughters ; when in fact he had ONE LEGALLY ADOPTED daughter Christi Lynn Wooley who was his ONLY CHILD and a step daughter ( never legally adopted) Shauna Dotson . Wikipedia states that Sheb had two daughters ; when in fact he had one legal daughter and one step daughter
Is the Glottolog website a reliable source on Meroitic or Rilly's assessment of Meroitic?
1- Source: http://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/mero1237 2- Article: Meroitic language 3- Content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meroitic_language&diff=601316645&oldid=597844831
It has come to my attention that one editor added the glottolog website opinion on Rilly's assessment of Meroitic. But glottolog is not a reliable source on Meroitic or on Riley's assesment of Meroitic. I tried to reverse the edit made by kwami but my edit was undone by kwami. When I tried to ask for proof and reference demonstrating the glottolog website is a reliable source on Meroitic, I was responsed with "sure it is" and "the rest of us disagree" without such proof and references ever demonstrated.
Let's recall the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS guideline stating "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.". There's no doubt in my mind that the glottolog website can't be considered a reliable source on Meroitic or on Riley's assesment of Meroitic as it is referenced by no other source beside Wikipedia.
I read some academic works on Meroitic and none of them mention the glottolog website. I did a google book search on glottolog and didn't see any works using glottolog as content source at all in general, much less about Meroitic and Rilly's assessment of Meroitic. In fact, I never heard of glottolog before kwami created a wikipedia article about it on the 17 of Mars 2014 and proceed to link (almost plugging) the glottolog website in many Wikipedia articles.
My main contentious is that the glottolog website is not used as a reference on Meroitic or Rily's assesment of Meroitic by any source beside Wikipedia. So the glottolog's website point of view on Meroitic shouldn't be added to the Wikipedia page. It's not a reliable source on Meroitic or on Rily's assessment of Meroitic. DrLewisphd (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Glottolog is a 2ary/3ary source, and so is not likely to be ref'd in specialized lit. But as others have pointed out to you, it's run by a prestigious university and edited by a panel of well-respected linguists. For obscure topics like this, it's hard to find published evaluations of claims, and we use the principal editor of Glottolog, Hammarström, for evaluations of many classifications of obscure languages across WP. In this case, what I've heard by p.c. is that Rilly contains such methodological flaws that his conclusions are not supported, but the only published evaluation I'd been able to find up to now was by the author of a competing classification. That leaves open the question of COI. It's significant that someone with no stake in the issue has come to the same conclusion that she did (that Rilly translates words based on what's needed for his classification, and then bases his classification on those translations). — kwami (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- For the record, no "others" have pointed out to me before how "prestigious" the glottlog website is. You're the one doing it right now. You're the one who created the glottolog article on the 17 of Mars 2014 and you're the one plugging it in many wikipedia articles. I've never seen the glottolog website mentioned in any academic work related to Meroitic. We can't consider your personal communication as reliable source. In fact, even on a google book search, the glottolog website is rarely mentioned and never used as a reference as content source for anything, much less on Meroitic or Rilly's assessment of Meroitic. The glottolog website is not a reliable source on Meroitic and constitute original research never referenced by any other sources beside Wikipedia. DrLewisphd (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- To add to Kwami's statement, the assessment of Rilly's work on Meroitic by Glottolog is recent. Glottolog was first announced in March 2012 [2]! Of course, there will be no mention of Glottolog in academic articles concerning Meroitic before March 2012. Claude Rilly has been the most prolific publisher concerning Meroitic throughout the 2000's until now. Kirsty Rowan has published 4 articles (all before 2012, the latest in 2011). Three articles are freely available to the public and 1 (2011) is available through a journal subscription/ order (the whole 393 page journal [Lingua Aegyptica_19]...cannot get just one article). Her doctoral thesis (2006), which according to Google Books is 778 pages, is not yet available. Rilly, by comparison, has numerous published articles and one book in English (2012). Again, there will be no mention of Glottolog's assessment of Meroitic for obvious reasons in all academic articles before March 2012. Glottolog is a reliable source, that is unquestionable. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- Is the issue now resolved??? Can we now go forward with a compromise? No comment from either of you, kwami or DrLewisphd. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
- No, because I was asking if we may begin the process towards a suitable compromise. About primary sources and secondary sources...well, in the case of works on Meroitic, not many are available to the public, but many are mentioned in a secondary sources with quotes. That can be highly useful to a primary source if the information sought is not available from the primary sources. In this case, there are not many primary sources to quote directly as access to many of them is quite limited, so one would resort to reliable secondary sources. Glottolog 2.2 IS a secondary source since they reviewed Rilly's work - if they were to publish their review work with NEW/ original content in addition to their critique of Rilly as E. Lipinski did in his review, technically, that would make them primary. We do not know if the editors of Glottolog 2.2, one or more of them, have plans to publish their review with such content beyond Glottolog. Also, if you have a personal communication...you should ask for permission to use it publically or a portion of it, if the answer is no...then that is that. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the glottolog website is a valid source in this context (or much context at all frankly), so I don't think it should be used at all on the Meroitic article in any way. DrLewisphd (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, because I was asking if we may begin the process towards a suitable compromise. About primary sources and secondary sources...well, in the case of works on Meroitic, not many are available to the public, but many are mentioned in a secondary sources with quotes. That can be highly useful to a primary source if the information sought is not available from the primary sources. In this case, there are not many primary sources to quote directly as access to many of them is quite limited, so one would resort to reliable secondary sources. Glottolog 2.2 IS a secondary source since they reviewed Rilly's work - if they were to publish their review work with NEW/ original content in addition to their critique of Rilly as E. Lipinski did in his review, technically, that would make them primary. We do not know if the editors of Glottolog 2.2, one or more of them, have plans to publish their review with such content beyond Glottolog. Also, if you have a personal communication...you should ask for permission to use it publically or a portion of it, if the answer is no...then that is that. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- DrLewisphd, it is now your turn to present your case for why Glottolog is not reliable. You cannot just make claims and then do not substantiate them...prove why Glottolog should be rejected as a source of information on the topic. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I already did it at the beginning of this section and the argumentation was never addressed. Basically, the glottolog website is not used a source on Meroitic (or much else) by any source beside Wikipedia. So it's not a valid source on Meroitic and constitute WP:NOR DrLewisphd (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- DrLewisphd, it is now your turn to present your case for why Glottolog is not reliable. You cannot just make claims and then do not substantiate them...prove why Glottolog should be rejected as a source of information on the topic. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- DrLewisphd, You were answered. See above in Kwami's statements and mine..."To add to Kwami's statement, the assessment of Rilly's work on Meroitic by Glottolog is recent. Glottolog was first announced in March 2012 [3]!" Of course, there will be no mention of Glottolog in academic articles concerning Meroitic before March 2012. Again, your argument is invalid on the grounds of Glottolog being only 2 years old. Nearly all Meroitic articles in press and otherwise have, at this point, been before 2012. Rilly's book (2012) was only published a few months after Glottolog was first announced. Again, expect no mention of Glottolog's assessment before March 26th of 2012. The editors of Glottolog are mostly well-known in linguistic circles...several have articles in press. Glottolog is maintained at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, a very reputable institution with many high-quality scholars. You will need to find a different argument (your current one is not valid), or you will need to compromise, or drop this altogether. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- You admit the glottolog website is not a valid source and constitute original research. You can't use the glottolog website as a valid source on Meroitic or on Rilly's assessment of Meroitic because it's only 2 year old despite being a bad source and original research. That way any bad source and original research could be included. That's not part of any guideline. The glottolog website IS not a valid source on Meroitic and NEVER WAS. YOU and Kwami need to prove the glottolog website is a valid source on Meroitic, not that it's a new so everything goes, you just prove my point by saying this. At the moment, only Wikipedia use the glottolog website as a valid source on Meroitic. DrLewisphd (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- DrLewisphd, You were answered. See above in Kwami's statements and mine..."To add to Kwami's statement, the assessment of Rilly's work on Meroitic by Glottolog is recent. Glottolog was first announced in March 2012 [3]!" Of course, there will be no mention of Glottolog in academic articles concerning Meroitic before March 2012. Again, your argument is invalid on the grounds of Glottolog being only 2 years old. Nearly all Meroitic articles in press and otherwise have, at this point, been before 2012. Rilly's book (2012) was only published a few months after Glottolog was first announced. Again, expect no mention of Glottolog's assessment before March 26th of 2012. The editors of Glottolog are mostly well-known in linguistic circles...several have articles in press. Glottolog is maintained at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, a very reputable institution with many high-quality scholars. You will need to find a different argument (your current one is not valid), or you will need to compromise, or drop this altogether. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Could any 'administrator' jump in this discussion because I don't know what else to do. Is the glottolog website a valid source or not on Meroitic (or on Rilly's assesment of Merotic)? DrLewisphd (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- DrLewisphd, as was said, you need to first of all discredit the PROFESSIONAL linguist editors of the Glottolog website maintained at the MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY in Leipzig. You need to present evidence that they are not qualified for reviewing Rilly's work. You will need to also prove that the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig is not a reputable institution of higher learning. Once you do this, then it may be possible to say that they are not reliable. A simple Google search of their names would show you that they are rather legitimate and reliable sources. The recentness of the website IS OF NO CONCERN HERE. The concern is the credentials of the PROFESSIONAL linguist editors of Glottolog and the reputation of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig. By your logic, nearly any source on any topic would be invalid! NEAR EVERY ACADEMIC SOURCE CITED ON WIKIPEDIA CAN BE CONSIDERED ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND A BAD SOURCE according to your logic. This is getting to be a pain and rather frankly I believe the issue should be dropped because you have no evidence to support anything you claim. What you do have is very flimsy and very easily falsifiable. Prove the professional linguist editors of Glottolog are not reliable sources and that they are not qualified for reviewing Rilly's Meroitic work and prove that the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig is not a reputable institution, if you cannot...this is done, there is no point in this going any further. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Tributary Relations in East Asia
There are a few historical articles about dynasties in East Asia titled as "tributary states." In addition to being mentioned largely in the article, is it necessary and accurate to mention that on the description bars? Or is this misleading? Camouflaging the states as political reliant/tributary states. Academics and historical literatures, however, have described these states politically independent and the tributary relations as a form of diplomacy.
What do you guys think?
- I could not help but to chime in. I do not think so because it is mentioned in the article. I would think that both things ("Academics and historical literatures" and the comments about the tributary status) should be mentioned in he article and the correct sources cited. I think that should do. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Lawfareblog
Source: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/03/russia-in-ukraine-a-reader-responds/ Lawfare is Published by The Lawfare Institute in Cooperation With http://www.brookings.edu/
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yatsenyuk_Government
Ascertaining the legitimacy of the interim government in Kiev is quite tricky. According to Article 111 of the Ukrainian constitution, the President can only be impeached from office by parliament through “no less than three-quarters of its constitutional composition.” On February 22, 2014 the Ukrainian parliament voted 328-0 to impeach President Yanukovych who fled to Russia the night prior. However for an effective impeachment under constitutional rules the 449-seated parliament would have needed 337 votes to remove Yanukovych from office. Thus under the current constitution, Yanukovych is still the incumbent and legitimate President of the Ukraine. This constitutional oversight puts the interim government in legal limbo as the bills that are currently being signed into law by acting President Turchynov are not carrying any constitutional authorization. This problem of legitimacy also undermines Kiev’s dealings with foreign governments, as the government appointed by Turchynov does not represent the de jure official government of the Ukraine. As such, foreign governments who are willfully recognizing and thereby trying to confer international legitimacy upon the interim government in Kiev, are indeed breaking international law by violating (1) the sovereignty of the Ukraine and the law of the land (constitution), (2) the principle of non-interference, (3) and the practice of non-government recognition.
Other sources supporting the argument:
http://www.rferl.org/content/was-yanukovychs-ouster-constitutional/25274346.html
However, it is not clear that the hasty February 22 vote upholds constitutional guidelines, which call for a review of the case by Ukraine's Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by the Verkhovna Rada -- i.e., 338 lawmakers.
However the user Львівське sees the source as unreliable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yatsenyuk_Government#Government_lacks_legitimacy --Wrant (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- Could somebody give me an input, thank you! --Wrant (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is the online magazine of a non-profit published in conjuntion and partnership with Brookings. You can't get much more establishment mainstream than Brookings. Looking deeper, their masthead shows a larger and robust editorial staff and contributors. I don't know what the question is. It seems profoundly boring and academic, a reliable source as far as I can see. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Could somebody give me an input, thank you! --Wrant (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- I concur. It's hard to argue with the reliability of this source for statements about law, for reasons well articulated by Capitalismojo.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
-
Burma Army's death toll in Kachin conflict
In The Irrawaddy article [4], the magazine stated that "The UK publication(IHS Jane’s Defence), which specializes in military and defense industry issues, also cited blogs that claimed the Burma Army suffered a staggering death toll of 5,000 casualties during the conflict". In this case, I don't want to discuss the reliability of The Irrawaddy and Jane's Intelligence Review and I just want know if it is reliable of death toll because the Irrawaddy and Jane cited unnamed blogs.
Another thing I want to know is Kachin News [5] and Shan Herald [6] can be considered as reliable sources in the article Kachin conflict because Kachin News don't have contact address and printed newspapers, and because of the objectives and activities of Shan Herald. [7] Laurence Watcher (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- You'd need to go back to the article in Jane's to see how they present those figures. Jane's may have endorsed the figures as being accurate, presented them as estimates from probably-reliable blogs (most likely, I suspect), or been sceptical. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Origin of the word "Easter"
I have proposed three English-language publications as reliable sources for the statement that derivation of the word "Easter" from the name of a supposed Germanic goddess of dawn is not the only theory held by scholars:
- a statement in Encyclopaedia Britannica article;
- a statement in J. Gordon Melton, Religious Celebrations: An Encyclopedia of Holidays, Festivals, Solemn Observances, and Spiritual Commemorations (ABC-CLIO 2011 ISBN 978-1-59884205-0);
- a statement in Michael Kunzler, The Church's Liturgy (LIT Verlag, Münster 2002 ISBN 978-38-2584854-5), p. 397 (the English version of a book that has been translated into other languages also).
On the grounds that "you need linguists discussing language. These scholars do not have the required background", User:Bloodofox has deleted the statement based on these sources that there is also a view among scholars that the word "Easter" came from an Old High German (mis)interpretation of the description of Easter Week as in albis. Bloodofox has qualified as "particularly bad and unreliable" the Encyclopaedia Britannica article.
There are also German-language sources that explicitly reject the goddess theory and mention the in albis theory and indeed a third theory that links the word "Easter" with a North Germanic word referring to baptism. Take Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, Volume 6, p. 523; Die Anfänge von Weihnachten und Epiphanias, p. 47 (footnote); Ostern: Geschichte Eines Wortes (which opts for the third of the proposed theories); Brockhaus Enzyklopädie in zwanzig Bänden, Volume 14, p. 15; Das Kirchenjahr: Feste, Gedenk- und Feiertage in Geschichte und Gegenwart, p. 90; cf. the French-language study in Orbis, vol. 9, p. 434, summarizing a more detailed work in German. Bloodofox has objected to citations of German-language sources in the English-language Wikipedia and I accept that, if English-language sources are available, these should be used instead. So my question is: Do any of the three English-language sources that I cited count as reliable sources for the existence among scholars of the in albis theory of the origin of the word "Easter"?
By the way, the German-language sources support the statement by the first two of the English-language sources that I have cited that the goddess theory is no longer the majority view among scholars. Out of deference to Bloodofox I chose to be silent about this matter. Esoglou (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Encyclopedia Brittanica article author is Hans Hillerbrand ([8]), the Religious Celebrations author is J. Gordon Melton, and The Church's Liturgy is by Michael Kunzler. None of these English-language sources are appropriate because none of the English scholars you've highlighted appear to have a historical linguistics background; they're primarily theologians or "religious scholars" with a strong focus on Christianity. None of them discuss their methodology for their conclusions. Academic publications by philologists are what we've been and must be using; one can't comment on historical linguistics without a background in it. It's a complicated and difficult topic. Sure, with due weight, the in albis theory should be mentioned as it sees some currency in "theological" circles that have a particular problem with the idea of a Christian holiday employing a heathen name (probably in response to Hislopian The Two Babylons-like criticism of elements of Christianity) but it's basically a fringe theory at this point that goes to complicated extremes to get around Bede's quite explicit statements, the comparative evidence, and the archaeological record, and saddles Bede with a motive that we don't have. The Dawn Goddess evidence is pretty strong and it's widely recognized in Indo-European studies; I can produce hills worth of papers discussing it. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- I will not imitate by saddling the goddess theorists with motives. It would be off-topic to discuss their theory, in spite of the fact that, out of the three linguistically based theories, it alone is propounded in the article we are discussing, Names of Easter, together with arguments in its support and no mention of the contrary arguments given in the Ēostre article, and with a recently enlarged picture of the putative goddess. I am only asking whether the English-language sources, which do not pretend to be primary research papers, are reliable sources for the existence among scholars of yet another theory. Esoglou (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Bloodoffox may certainly produce sources to the contrary, and those contrary criticisms should be included in any discussion of the "in albis" theory but suppression of reliably sourced argument violates WP:NPOV. If other scholars are criticizing the english sources based on their credentials as linguists then we can say so - but for us to do so on our own is WP:OR. There is no requirement that sources be in English Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources, and certainly the non english sources can be used to buttress the english sources above. Regarding "the majority view among scholars" WP:RS/AC requires us to have sources specifically making a meta-analysis like that. For something like this, where basically all of the theories are conjecture (although some more reliable conjecture than others) it is probably safest just to iterate over all the theories, and the arguments for/against. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- I take this comment, which I think may have been composed before I posted my preceding comment, as saying that the three cited sources in English are reliable sources for the existence of the in albis theory at a scholarly level. I have, of course, no objection to inclusion of contrary reliably sourced arguments, if Bloodofox or anyone else wishes to add them to the (future) mention of the in albis theory. And reliably sourced arguments against the goddess theory can be added too. Later, I may add a mention of the "baptism" theory based on one or two German sources, since I have not come across reliable English sources for that quite recent theory. Esoglou (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Should we be quoting fruit farmers as authorities in articles about space travel? We're discussing an etymology here. As a result, non-linguist sources are simply not appropriate. J. P. Mallory and Calvin Watkins are leaders in their field—the sources cited are currently general audience works by historical linguists. Everyone from whatever discipline who chimes in about an etymology isn't a valid source. Linguists are who you need to be looking for, not non-linguists making judgment calls in fields in which they have no background in. Seriously, I can dump probably hundreds and hundreds of sources on the Indo-European dawn goddess reflexes that include mention of Ēostre since the Victorian era. To respond with some non-linguists who are "theologians" dismissing this is inappropriate and misleading to the reader. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- The Oxford English Dictionary says that the Eostre connection is "alternative" and "less likely" than the given etymology, and says that the goddess explanation "is not confirmed by any other source" but Bede. "Easter, n.1". OED Online. March 2014. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/59097?rskey=cgi4HY&result=1 (accessed April 21, 2014). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- Atethnekos, I'm afraid that you've completely misread the entry. It goes directly to the Indo-European dawn cognates and doesn't even mention the in albis business or any further alternatives, dismissing them as "less likely alternatives" to be dug up in a list of cited sources "below" (i.e. "D. H. Green Lang. & Hist. Early Germanic World (1998) 351–3, J. Udolph & K. Schäferdieck in J. Hoops's Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde (ed. 2, 2003) XXII. 331–8"), and then explicitly defends Bede's identification ("it seems unlikely that Bede would invent a fictitious pagan festival in order to account for a Christian one"). Here it is:
- Etymology: Cognate with Old Dutch ōster- (in ōstermānōth April, lit. ‘Easter-month’), Old Saxon ōstar- (in ōstarfrisking paschal lamb; Middle Low German ōsteren , ōstern , plural), Old High German ōstara (usually in plural ōstarūn ; Middle High German ōster (usually in plural ōstern ), German Ostern , singular and (now chiefly regional) plural), probably < the same Germanic base as east adv. (and hence ultimately cognate with Sanskrit uṣas , Avestan ušah- , ancient Greek (Ionic and Epic) ἠώς , (Attic) ἕως , classical Latin aurōra , all in sense ‘dawn’). For alternative (and less likely) etymologies see the references cited below. It is noteworthy that among the Germanic languages the word (as the name for Easter) is restricted to English and German; in other Germanic languages, as indeed in most European languages, the usual word for Easter is derived from the corresponding word for the Jewish Passover; compare pasch n.
- Bede ( De Temporum Ratione 15. 9: see quot. below) derives the word < Eostre (a Northumbrian spelling; also Eastre in a variant reading), according to him, the name of a goddess whose festival was celebrated by the pagan Anglo-Saxons around the time of the vernal equinox (presumably in origin a goddess of the dawn, as the name is to be derived from the same Germanic base as east adv.: see above). This explanation is not confirmed by any other source, and the goddess has been suspected by some scholars to be an invention of Bede's. However, it seems unlikely that Bede would have invented a fictitious pagan festival in order to account for a Christian one. For further discussion and alternative derivations see D. H. Green Lang. & Hist. Early Germanic World (1998) 351–3, J. Udolph & K. Schäferdieck in J. Hoops's Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde (ed. 2, 2003) XXII. 331–8, and for a parallel development compare yule n. Bede's etymology comes in a passage explaining the origin of the Old English names of the months:
- a735 Bede De Temporum Ratione xv, Eostur-monath, qui nunc paschalis mensis interpretatur, quondam a dea illorum quae Eostre vocabatur, et cui in illo festa celebrabant, nomen habuit, a cujus nomine nunc paschale tempus cognominant, consueto antiquae observationis vocabulo gaudia novae solemnitatis vocantes.
- Compare Old English Ēastermōnað April, cognate with or formed similarly to Old Dutch ōstermānōth (in a translation from German), Old High German ōstarmānōd (Middle High German ōstermānōt , German Ostermonat , now archaic) < the Germanic base of Easter n.1 + the Germanic base of month n.1
-
- And there you have it—just about exactly what I've been saying. Where it differed is that the entry does not make any mention of the unearthed matronae Austriahenea, personal names, and toponyms that seem to further support Bede's theonym (see Shaw's recent work on the topic). In addition, Bede wasn't some sort of early linguist, either. It would be an incredible coincidence for him to have produced a cognate form of this goddess name and then just put it in there, etc. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- There is no explicit defense or even implicit defense of Bede's identification. The line, "However, it seems unlikely that Bede would have invented a fictitious pagan festival in order to account for a Christian one" of course only says exactly what it says, no more. It is a response to the other view: "the goddess has been suspected by some scholars to be an invention of Bede's". The fact that the entry questions the hypothesis that Bede made up the goddess, does not mean that the entry accepts Bede's etymology. That would be a fallacy called an inverse error (e.g., if Bede invented the goddess, then his etymology is wrong; Bede didn't invent the goddess, therefore his etymology is not wrong). Bede's etymology of < Eostre "dawn goddess" is not included in the accepted etymology. The Eostre "dawn goddess" etymology of Bede is mentioned along with the other "alternative" etymologies which are "less likely". I didn't anything about the other etymologies. How have I misread the entry? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Both the endorsement of Bede's statement as the most accepted etymology and the derivation from the I-E dawn goddess are in the opening paragraph: "Cognate with–..., probably < the same Germanic base as east adv. (and hence ultimately cognate with Sanskrit uṣas , Avestan ušah- , ancient Greek (Ionic and Epic) ἠώς , (Attic) ἕως , classical Latin aurōra , all in sense ‘dawn’). For alternative (and less likely) etymologies see the references cited below." Note the explicit statement that the alternative etymologies are "less likely". Yngvadottir (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- It says that aurora, ἕως etc. are cognates. That's fine. Not every cognate is an etymon. Unless it is specifically described as an etymon, then there's no reason to suppose that the editor is calling a cognate an etymon. The etymology for Easter, n.1 given by the OED is this: All of the α and β forms < the same Germanic base as east adv. That's the complete derivation that they give as "probably". Eostre does not occur as a form at all in that derivation, nor does any mention of a word with the sense 'dawn goddess'. They do go on to consider Bede's derivation from Eostre in the sense of 'dawn goddess'. That's fine too. They don't include that derivation as part of their derivation given above, which ended with derivation from that "Germanic base". At the relevant "east" entry the OED describes this Germanic base: "The Germanic base ultimately shows a suffixed form of an Indo-European base with the probable meaning ‘to become light (in the morning)’" They there too mention that it is cognate with the Latin and the Greek 'dawn's etc. So the word is assuredly cognate with names for dawn goddesses. Being cognate with does not mean being derived from. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Atethenekos, you're still misreading this etymological entry; please take a step back and re-read it. The only etymology provided is the 'dawn goddess'/'dawn' etymology; read the first paragraph again. See that discussion about Aurora, Eos, and Ushas, the cognate Indo-European dawn goddesses in the first paragraph? This is regarding Ēostre as cognate and why she is considered to be a reflex of the commonly attested Proto-Indo-European Dawn Goddess. Of course, Indo-European studies not having existed at the time, Bede doesn't say this, he just provides her name and her association with the time period (spring). Bede wasn't some sort of enigmatic medieval linguist. All other attempted etymologies, which would include the in albis etymology, are thereafter referred to as "unlikely". The entry also reports that there have been some doubts in the past (not uncommon), but then argues in favor of Bede's identification: "However, it seems unlikely that Bede would have invented a fictitious pagan festival in order to account for a Christian one". Bede does not provide any etymology; he just says Ēostre was once recognized with feasts during a month named after her but that these observations had died out in his time (albeit portions of Anglo-Saxon England were still heathen during the time, but that's another thread). :bloodofox: (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Both the endorsement of Bede's statement as the most accepted etymology and the derivation from the I-E dawn goddess are in the opening paragraph: "Cognate with–..., probably < the same Germanic base as east adv. (and hence ultimately cognate with Sanskrit uṣas , Avestan ušah- , ancient Greek (Ionic and Epic) ἠώς , (Attic) ἕως , classical Latin aurōra , all in sense ‘dawn’). For alternative (and less likely) etymologies see the references cited below." Note the explicit statement that the alternative etymologies are "less likely". Yngvadottir (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- There is no explicit defense or even implicit defense of Bede's identification. The line, "However, it seems unlikely that Bede would have invented a fictitious pagan festival in order to account for a Christian one" of course only says exactly what it says, no more. It is a response to the other view: "the goddess has been suspected by some scholars to be an invention of Bede's". The fact that the entry questions the hypothesis that Bede made up the goddess, does not mean that the entry accepts Bede's etymology. That would be a fallacy called an inverse error (e.g., if Bede invented the goddess, then his etymology is wrong; Bede didn't invent the goddess, therefore his etymology is not wrong). Bede's etymology of < Eostre "dawn goddess" is not included in the accepted etymology. The Eostre "dawn goddess" etymology of Bede is mentioned along with the other "alternative" etymologies which are "less likely". I didn't anything about the other etymologies. How have I misread the entry? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- You say "Bede does not provide any etymology". The OED explicitly disagrees with you: "Bede (De Temporum Ratione 15. 9: see quot. below) derives the word < Eostre (a Northumbrian spelling; also Eastre in a variant reading), according to him, the name of a goddess". That is explicitly an etymology, the OED only uses "<" in such a way when they are reporting an etymology. The accepted etymology by the OED is what is listed above with all of α and β forms "< the same Germanic base as east adv." In that etymology, there is no mention of any god or goddess, not even with the cognates. The fact that there are non-etymon cognates which were also words for goddesses, does not make goddesses part of the etymology, because cognates which aren't etymons aren't etymons. Again, the fact that the OED editors agree that Bede did not make up the goddess, does not mean that they agree with Bede's etymology. That's just a run-of-the-mill inverse error. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- No offense, but you seriously need to sit back and absorb that entry. It's exactly what I've been saying. Read the etymology they provide again. I don't mean to offend you, but look: "presumably in origin a goddess of the dawn, as the name is to be derived from the same Germanic base as east adv.: see above"; Auora, Eos, Ushas, etc, are also dawn goddesses. This is implicit. No, Bede doesn't attempt even a folk etymology; questionable as the placement of the bracket is, no one said he did. He just says she was a goddess, there were feasts, and the month was named after her. That's it (see entry quote; Wallis translation of the Latin: "Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance"). :bloodofox: (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a bracket; OED editors call it a "from sign" (OED editors type it in their markup language with "&from."), but it displays as a less-than sign to readers. In this usage it always indicates an etymology. To derive a word < another word in an OED entry is to give an etymology. They say "Bede derives the word < Eostre". That's the OED's statement, not mine. If you feel that that is not indicating an etymology in this case, I would love to hear how you parse the sentence. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Bracket, greater-than-or-less-than symbol, from sign, or simply > <; whatever. Call it what you will—I spend my days using them. I'm aware, thanks. Anyway, find a derivation in that quote and get back to me, meanwhile you're wasting your time and mine with pointlessly discussing why ever they put it there. Obviously Bede didn't provide any kind of etymology, and discussing a phantom etymology by Bede over the placement of < is fruitless. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- The symbol has a specific meaning within the OED, to understand the symbol as something other than a "from" sign would be to misunderstand what the OED is saying. You can deny that that's what the symbol means by premising that the OED "obviously" could not mean that, but that's just original research. The OED would not be the first to say that Bede provided just such an etymology: "Bede derives the name of Easter from the Goddess Eostre" and "Spelman approves of Bede's etymology, from the goddess Eostre" (Hampson, Medii ævi Kalendarium pp. 104 & 105 [9]). I would invite you to explain what the sign means if not "from". If indeed you feel that the sign is a bracket, you must be saying that the entry has a typo because there is no closing bracket. Was the bracket the typo, or where was the closing bracket supposed to be placed, do you think? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, of course this is common linguistic markup but, and I certainly mean no offense, a thread about what OED means here is plainly pointless. Sure, it's not original research to ask "wtf is OED on about here", but it's irrelevant to the question. We're supposed to be using our brains to sort out sometimes contradictory sources to build articles while, of course, not producing theories of our own. Is it a typo? It has to either be a typo or some kind of mistake; as we see, Bede provides no etymology and it's as simple as that, as plain as the sky is blue. What's important to us here is the etymology OED provides and I appreciate you bringing the entry up in the discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the OED says: "Bede's etymology comes in a passage explaining the origin of the Old English names of the months:" and then gives the relevant quote from De Temporum Ratione xv. The OED clearly believes that Bede gave an etymology. And they are not the first to have this interpretation. Also, reading that Latin myself, I see no great problem with their interpretation: It's perfectly possible that Bede is saying that the month's named was derived from Eostre, 'the goddess'. That's clearly how the OED has interpreted the Latin, anyway.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, of course this is common linguistic markup but, and I certainly mean no offense, a thread about what OED means here is plainly pointless. Sure, it's not original research to ask "wtf is OED on about here", but it's irrelevant to the question. We're supposed to be using our brains to sort out sometimes contradictory sources to build articles while, of course, not producing theories of our own. Is it a typo? It has to either be a typo or some kind of mistake; as we see, Bede provides no etymology and it's as simple as that, as plain as the sky is blue. What's important to us here is the etymology OED provides and I appreciate you bringing the entry up in the discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- The symbol has a specific meaning within the OED, to understand the symbol as something other than a "from" sign would be to misunderstand what the OED is saying. You can deny that that's what the symbol means by premising that the OED "obviously" could not mean that, but that's just original research. The OED would not be the first to say that Bede provided just such an etymology: "Bede derives the name of Easter from the Goddess Eostre" and "Spelman approves of Bede's etymology, from the goddess Eostre" (Hampson, Medii ævi Kalendarium pp. 104 & 105 [9]). I would invite you to explain what the sign means if not "from". If indeed you feel that the sign is a bracket, you must be saying that the entry has a typo because there is no closing bracket. Was the bracket the typo, or where was the closing bracket supposed to be placed, do you think? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Bracket, greater-than-or-less-than symbol, from sign, or simply > <; whatever. Call it what you will—I spend my days using them. I'm aware, thanks. Anyway, find a derivation in that quote and get back to me, meanwhile you're wasting your time and mine with pointlessly discussing why ever they put it there. Obviously Bede didn't provide any kind of etymology, and discussing a phantom etymology by Bede over the placement of < is fruitless. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
-
The discussion has gone off track. The question asked was not about OED. The question was about the reliability for the existence of the in albis theory of the origin of the word "Easter" of the articles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and another encyclopedia and in Kunzler's book in English. Gaijin42 says they are reliable for that statement and that suppressing them is a violation of WP:NPOV. Of course Bloodofox disagrees (as I agree). But nobody else has, so far, disagreed with Gaijin42. Esoglou (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would guess that they're probably not reliable. Why not cite the Green source which mentions it (or thereabouts, anyway). I can give you scans of the Green source, but you might be able to read it on Google Books: [10]. It's just pp. 351–353. When you read that, you can see that OED's "probably" derivation and other considerations pretty much just follows Green's argument, but without giving the root reconstruction that Green gives. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- This again may be going off topic. On page 353 (I don't have access to page 352) Green seems to reject the Knobloch theory (the in albis theory), the one that, according not only to the two cited English encyclopedias but also German sources such as the Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, is the majority view among scholars: "Knoblochs Vorschlag hat bisher die meiste Zustimmung erfahren" (Knobloch's proposal has so far enjoyed most support). But we are not discussing which of the existing theories is the one and only correct one. That is not for us Wikipedia editors to decide. If any of us attempts to do so, that editor is, as Gaijin42 said, indulging in original research. We can only report what reliable sources say. Green is indeed one of many who say that the in albis theory does exist among scholars. Green can therefore be added to any others who are cited for the existence of that theory. Perhaps Bloodofox can cite some source that says the in albis theory does not exist at scholarly level. Until now he has only given his own personal opinion (original research). And that is no basis for suppressing mention of it. Indeed, he has only given his own personal opinion on the value of the theory, not on its existence among scholars.
- Would you on further reflection come down on one side or other of the question about the reliability of the three cited sources for the existence among scholars of the in albis theory? Your "guess that they're probably not" is not a declaration for or against. If even certain newspaper articles can be reliable sources for the existence of a scientific theory (whatever about the validity of the theory), surely these are reliable sources for the existence of the in albis theory. If you decide they are reliable sources for this purpose, there will be unanimity (I exclude Bloodofox and myself) in favour. If you decide against them, then there will be one view for them (Gaijin42) and one against (Atethnekos). At present there is only one for and none against. If they are reliable, other sources too can be added to them. If they are not, we must cite other sources, whether in English or in other languages, for what to me seems obvious, namely, that there are serious scholars who hold the in albis theory. Esoglou (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- As I said earlier, we don't cite fruit farmers as authorities on space travel. We cite authorities in their fields; none of the three English language sources presented (Hans Hillerbrand, J. Gordon Melton, and Michael Kunzler) have any apparent background in historical linguistics. By far the majority of modern go-to entries written by historical linguists' do not pay any attention to the in albis theory at all, as has been repeatedly illustrated here, and this includes general audience works such as the Oxford English Dictionary cited above, Barnhart's Concise Dictionary of Etymology, Watkins's Indo-European Roots, and various works by some of the most highly regarded Indo-Europeanists such as J. P. Mallory (editor of The Journal of Indo-European Studies). I can provides hundreds of more sources that ignore the in albis business and go straight to what is clearly most common; the dawn goddess reflex etymology. Again, we can mention it, but this stuff about it being "most common" is total nonsense from inappropriate sources. It's not original research to observe academic consensus among scholars in the actual field that we're discussing. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- There is absolutely no justification for us to remove mention of minority theories just because we can not find them in English. The publications mentioned in German are strong linguistic authorities, and it would be wrong to ignore them. That is very clear in WP policies, and that should resolve the question as I understand it. Mind you, the fact that we can and should mention secondary theories leaves open the question of what weight to give them, but that is not the question at issue as I understand it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- I've repeatedly said that the in albis theory needs to be covered in context (keeping in mind WP:UNDUE), just by linguistic authorities, and not by non-linguists making dubious claims. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you really are prepared to allow the existence of the in albis theory to be mentioned, what would you (sourcedly) change in the text that you deleted totally: "A different view of the origin of the word is given in the latest edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. Qualifying as dubious the presumption underlying the goddess theory of the origin of the word "Easter", namely, that Christians appropriated pagan names for their highest festivals, it supports the view that Old High German eostarum, from which the English and German names of the feast came, "derives from the Christian designation of Easter week as in albis, a Latin phrase that was understood as the plural of alba ('dawn')." This is the view also of J. Gordon Melton, who sees as parallel the development of the English word "Lent" from that which denoted spring. The same view is expressed by Michael Kunzler." To that we can add: "and is noted by D.H. Green".
- Don't forget that you cannot just impose your own idea of what is "undue". If you are not satisfied with qualifying the in albis theory as "a different view" (as in the text you deleted) and want to present it as "a fringe view" or "a minority view" or whatever else you desire, you must support that proposed presentation by something other than your own personal judgement. There are several sources that say that the in albis theory is the majority view among scholars. You must find similar sources that say that, of the existing theories, it is the goddess view that has most support. Esoglou (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Again, the problem is source quality, as we're discussing above; Melton, Kunzler, and Hillerbrand are non-linguists discussing historical linguistics—they are not scholars in the appropriate field. Once again, we do not cite fruit farmers on the topic of space travel. It's obviously not widely supported among linguists handling this material, as repeatedly illustrated; major figures in the field producing entries for both academic and general audience works that totally ignore this theory should make this clear enough. For what it's worth, general encyclopedias are frequently poor sources for what they represent; imagine if we attempted to source Norse mythology with some of the nonsense found in, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- That "it's obviously not widely supported among linguists handling this material" and that nobody else is capable of forming a judgement is your personal view, supported, so far, by no cited source. Only by original research synthesis can one say an exposition of one explanation of a phenomenon is necessarily a denial of the existence of other explanations or a dismissal of them. Don't forget the sourced statements that "Knobloch's proposal has so far enjoyed most support". Those statements cannot be ignored at a Wikipedia editor's convenience. And perhaps I should add that you don't have to be a linguist to tell what is the majority view. Esoglou (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Again, the problem is source quality, as we're discussing above; Melton, Kunzler, and Hillerbrand are non-linguists discussing historical linguistics—they are not scholars in the appropriate field. Once again, we do not cite fruit farmers on the topic of space travel. It's obviously not widely supported among linguists handling this material, as repeatedly illustrated; major figures in the field producing entries for both academic and general audience works that totally ignore this theory should make this clear enough. For what it's worth, general encyclopedias are frequently poor sources for what they represent; imagine if we attempted to source Norse mythology with some of the nonsense found in, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've repeatedly said that the in albis theory needs to be covered in context (keeping in mind WP:UNDUE), just by linguistic authorities, and not by non-linguists making dubious claims. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- You seem to be getting a bit aggressive about this and there's no need for that, so please step back. Again, you're deferring to non-linguistics on a matter of historical linguistics, a major problem that you don't seem to want to address. I'm citing historical linguists here, in fact some of the biggest names in the field, and they frequently outright just ignore this supposedly "dominant" in albis theory that you're treating as authoritative by way of the methodology-free opinions of three non-linguists:
- J. Gordon Melton, a "religious studies scholar"/ordained minister (no apparent linguistics background)
- Michael Kunzler "liturgical studies" scholar/deacon (no apparent linguistics background)
- Hans Hillerbrand ("religious studies", contributor to websites such as christiancentury.org [11]—also no apparent linguistics background)
- These individuals are by no means reliable sources on the topic of historical linguistics. Outside of their lack of appropriate expertise, they may also harbor a vested interest in a "heathen-free" etymology for reasons I've discussed about (reaction to Alexander Hislop?, etc.); whatever the case, they've clearly all got a particularly explicit pro-Christian approach to this material and are out of step with sources cited throughout this discussion, such as the Oxford English Dictionary entry. When we build articles, we don't just take for granted the first thing that comes along; frequently our sources may disagree and there are plenty of junk sources out there. These aren't reliable for the topic. Stick to linguists when handling linguistics, please. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if asking what is the majority view sounds aggressive. But I will repeat it: What is the majority view on this question? Esoglou (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, the majority on what question? I don't follow. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- What is the majority view on the origin of the words "Easter" and "Ostern"? Esoglou (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Most historical linguistics sources and authorities refer directly to the 'dawn'/'dawn goddess' etymology and make no mention of alternatives. It's exceedingly common, as I've shown. Here is, for example, a quote from Jean Haudry's "A Cosmic Religion of the Indo-Europeans"; “A great deal of ingenuity has been employed to dispose of the decisive evidence of Bede …nevertheless, our former observations prove that the concept of a ‘dawn of the year’ is sound" [12]. Like I said, there are no shortage of sources such as these, probably thousands reaching back to the Victorian era. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia we must keep to what reliable sources say, not build up our own arguments.
- You are aware, aren't you, that the dawn etymology (but not a supposed goddess) is an essential part of the in albis theory? Esoglou (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's should be clear as, well, the dawn (see what I did there), that Melton, Kunzler, and Hillerbrand are inappropriate/unrealiable sources that have no place in this discussion. If you want to get into detail about the in albis idea, we should do it elsewhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- As clear as day, not just as the dawn, is the explicit statement by several sources that the majority view is that the word "Easter" originated in a confusion of in albis with the dawn, as a result of which a Germanic word for the dawn was attached to the feast. This clear statement needs no argumentative synthesis such as is needed by claims that the majority view is something else. Esoglou (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm excusing myself from this particular thread. I won't be acknowledging these three as authorities or reliable sources on this topic. As I've stated several times, none of them appear to have a linguistics background and all three may have some vested interest in this conclusion. Find some reliable sources and we can talk about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- That won't do as an excuse. What I quoted to you and told you not to forget, "Knobloch's proposal has so far enjoyed most support", doesn't come from what you call "these three". Besides, you don't have to be a historical linguist to know how to count. The Knobloch or in albis theory is stated to be the majority view, without any need for argumentative synthesis about linguistic backgrounds. Esoglou (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- What quote are you talking about? All you keep referring to are those three terrible sources before. Please stop bogging this conversation down with poor sources and stick to the linguists. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- [Here it is again. It is not from "those three terrible sources". Esoglou (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is a much better source than the others and is far more valuable than the other useless three. However, it's also from 2004, in German (post-war German philological circles on this matter can be quite different than their Anglosphere counterparts), and since then Shaw's Pagan Goddesses in the Early Germanic World: Eostre, Hreda and the Cult of Matrons has been published (2011). Shaw has a whole section on this topic, as a recall, although he bizarrely doesn't get much into the Indo-European material that dominates much of the discussion on this topic (a lot of these entries are in fact incorrect/out of date because they don't mention toponyms, personal names, and the matronae Austriahenea, as I recall Shaw points out). It would be useful to go through this; while I don't know how much his final conclusion has gained in terms of support (Shaw comes to a unique, in my opinion odd, conclusion), we need more coverage of it on the Eostre article. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you think you can find some source that says the majority view in 2014 is different? Or are we still left with argumentative synthesis? Esoglou (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- An obscure German source that flies in the face of what we're seeing in the English sources just means that we have to reconcile what we have. It's part of article building; we don't synthesize, but we do report, and it doesn't always add up cleanly or simply. It's a big issue that the in albis theory is utterly ignored or rejected in what we're actually seeing here, from Watkins, to Mallory, to the OED entry, and to the several others we've seen here. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you think you can find some source that says the majority view in 2014 is different? Or are we still left with argumentative synthesis? Esoglou (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is a much better source than the others and is far more valuable than the other useless three. However, it's also from 2004, in German (post-war German philological circles on this matter can be quite different than their Anglosphere counterparts), and since then Shaw's Pagan Goddesses in the Early Germanic World: Eostre, Hreda and the Cult of Matrons has been published (2011). Shaw has a whole section on this topic, as a recall, although he bizarrely doesn't get much into the Indo-European material that dominates much of the discussion on this topic (a lot of these entries are in fact incorrect/out of date because they don't mention toponyms, personal names, and the matronae Austriahenea, as I recall Shaw points out). It would be useful to go through this; while I don't know how much his final conclusion has gained in terms of support (Shaw comes to a unique, in my opinion odd, conclusion), we need more coverage of it on the Eostre article. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- That won't do as an excuse. What I quoted to you and told you not to forget, "Knobloch's proposal has so far enjoyed most support", doesn't come from what you call "these three". Besides, you don't have to be a historical linguist to know how to count. The Knobloch or in albis theory is stated to be the majority view, without any need for argumentative synthesis about linguistic backgrounds. Esoglou (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm excusing myself from this particular thread. I won't be acknowledging these three as authorities or reliable sources on this topic. As I've stated several times, none of them appear to have a linguistics background and all three may have some vested interest in this conclusion. Find some reliable sources and we can talk about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- As clear as day, not just as the dawn, is the explicit statement by several sources that the majority view is that the word "Easter" originated in a confusion of in albis with the dawn, as a result of which a Germanic word for the dawn was attached to the feast. This clear statement needs no argumentative synthesis such as is needed by claims that the majority view is something else. Esoglou (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's should be clear as, well, the dawn (see what I did there), that Melton, Kunzler, and Hillerbrand are inappropriate/unrealiable sources that have no place in this discussion. If you want to get into detail about the in albis idea, we should do it elsewhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Most historical linguistics sources and authorities refer directly to the 'dawn'/'dawn goddess' etymology and make no mention of alternatives. It's exceedingly common, as I've shown. Here is, for example, a quote from Jean Haudry's "A Cosmic Religion of the Indo-Europeans"; “A great deal of ingenuity has been employed to dispose of the decisive evidence of Bede …nevertheless, our former observations prove that the concept of a ‘dawn of the year’ is sound" [12]. Like I said, there are no shortage of sources such as these, probably thousands reaching back to the Victorian era. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- What is the majority view on the origin of the words "Easter" and "Ostern"? Esoglou (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, the majority on what question? I don't follow. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if asking what is the majority view sounds aggressive. But I will repeat it: What is the majority view on this question? Esoglou (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to be getting a bit aggressive about this and there's no need for that, so please step back. Again, you're deferring to non-linguistics on a matter of historical linguistics, a major problem that you don't seem to want to address. I'm citing historical linguists here, in fact some of the biggest names in the field, and they frequently outright just ignore this supposedly "dominant" in albis theory that you're treating as authoritative by way of the methodology-free opinions of three non-linguists:
-
-
-
-
@Bloodofox, can I ask you to please confirm your position more clearly? In all your responses about the sources being non-linguists you are only talking about the English publications, but is this because of your opposition to German language sources, or are you saying these are also not strong sources for historical linguistics? Also, what is your concern about using Green? Surely that is a very good English source for historical linguistics? Please keep in mind that we do not need a source to agree with a theory in order to be sure that a theory is at least notable and discussed as a possibility in the specialist literature.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- While English language sources are preferable (and easily obtainable ones at that), I don't have a problem with using non-English sources (I frequently do). The German material I haven't much looked at, to be honest. I've said a few times here that we should mention the in albis notion, but the major issue is the idea of using Melton, Kunzler, and Hillerbrand as sources for anything to do with linguistics at all. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Got a link to the green article, btw? I can't seem to find it in this wall of text. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- [13]. Esoglou (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm missing a page in the preview of Green's review, but Green appears to defend Bede's identification fairly strongly. So is the question whether we should be citing the in albis theory with Green? :bloodofox: (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- [13]. Esoglou (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Got a link to the green article, btw? I can't seem to find it in this wall of text. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, if I've got this straight, essentially everyone agrees that the etymology of Easter most likely goes back to the Indo-European word for 'dawn' (and the dawn goddess) as reflected in Vedic, Greek and Latin. Knobloch's theory relies on this for his 'in albis' idea to go through. So, let's not frame Knobloch's idea as some sort of goddess-free theory, since there is still a connection with Aurora, Eos and Ushas. Plenty of goddesses for everyone. Haukur (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- You may make a goddess connection with the dawn etymology in the in albis hypothesis. As far as I understand, Knobloch didn't. The view that the word "Easter" originated in a confusion of in albis with the dawn, as a result of which a Germanic word for the dawn was attached to the feast, does not require putting a goddess into the mix. Esoglou (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Green traces it back to PI *ausrō, but he does not give a sense for this. The OED does not give a reconstruction to the ultimate PI but they give it a sense ‘to become light (in the morning)’. They don't give a sense for it with '...goddess...'. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I still don't see how you've come to the conclusion that the OED is ignoring the fact that all three cognates are personified as goddesses. One can't discuss Aurora, Eos, or Ushas without noting their personification as goddesses, especially in relation to Ēostre, and the OED doesn't attempt to; the entry says—"presumably in origin a goddess of the dawn, as the name is to be derived from the same Germanic base as east adv.: see above"; the connection to cognate dawn goddesses is explicitly invoked and cannot be ignored in the provided etymology. Green appears to also defend Bede's ID, but I can't get a full preview. What's so important about Green, anyway? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that they're ignoring that. All three cognates are personified as goddesses, and Eostre too 'presumably'. Great for those cognates. Unless the OED further states that the etymon for the cognates also has that sense, then that is just reading into what they are saying. Maybe there is a whole consensus of linguists who agree that since each of those cognates has that sense, then so does their etymon. Great—so then the judgement of those scholars would be just that. But that's their judgement, not the OED's.
- Depends what you means by Bede's ID. Green puts the question of the goddess to the side: "Whether or not we accept this as evidence for a pagan goddess, Bede's testimony can be extended to Germany on the assumption that at least a pre-Christian festival was known by this name in those parts where the OE word was adopted." (p. 352). And that's the only thing Green says about the goddess. So Green agrees with Bede insofar as Bede says that Easter (in form Eostur in compound) was originally the name for a pagan festival, but he does not weigh in on the further claim that the festival was named after a goddess. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't; no judgement from Green on that further question. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I still don't see how you've come to the conclusion that the OED is ignoring the fact that all three cognates are personified as goddesses. One can't discuss Aurora, Eos, or Ushas without noting their personification as goddesses, especially in relation to Ēostre, and the OED doesn't attempt to; the entry says—"presumably in origin a goddess of the dawn, as the name is to be derived from the same Germanic base as east adv.: see above"; the connection to cognate dawn goddesses is explicitly invoked and cannot be ignored in the provided etymology. Green appears to also defend Bede's ID, but I can't get a full preview. What's so important about Green, anyway? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion seems to have ceased. I think this section can be closed. Leaving aside Bloodofox and myself, only one editor has declared that the three cited works in English are reliable for the statements for which they were cited, and none has declared that they are not reliable. Not a very decisive result. But there is agreement that sources in languages other than English can be used. (In practice, that means works in German, since the question is one about English and German.) There is agreement also that more than one view may be presented. I am therefore adding to the article Names of Easter some information, which I trust will not be deleted out of hand, on theories that have emerged only in the last few decades, long after the Victorian era. I hope that some of the editors who joined the discussion here will be good enough to view what I have written and improve it. Esoglou (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think that's a little soon: a handful of hours without discussion doesn't necessarily mean the discussion has ceased. It's still morning in the US. Applying the unreliable sources will be reverted; again, I ask you to stick to linguists when dealing with linguistics. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, if you want to and if others have the stomach for it, go ahead. I won't even dispute your to me strange idea that you have to be a linguist to see which theory is most prevalent. Esoglou (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I picked up this one which Shaw was responding to: Page, R.I. "Anglo-Saxon paganism: the evidence of Bede" in Hofstra, Houwen & MacDonald (eds.), Pagans and Christians (Gronigen: Egbert Forsten, 1995).
- Page says, "Over the years several of Bede's etymologies for the month names have been queried, so there is nothing very challenging about the way I shall look at them." For April, Page reports Bede's etymology as "April, eosturmonath called after the goddess Eostre whose feast they celebrated at the time". Page says: "Eostre too has long been shrewdly called into question. Again there is no confirmation of it as the name of a pagan goddess." He cites Knobloch's 1959 and says: "Thus, I suppose, he thinks the month-name eosturmonath derived from the feast-name, Easter. A goddess has no place in this naming; and Eostre is an etymological fancy on Bede's part. Whether you accept these detailed arguments or not, they do show we must be cautious about accepting Bede's Anglo-Saxon pagan goddess Eostre." (pp. 124–125). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- We've still got a ton of entries on the topic from linguist that totally ignore Knobloch's etymology and go directly to the 'dawn goddess' etymology without even mentioning alternatives—and this quite a lot—plus quite a few criticisms of it. Further, it's unclear that Knobloch was aware of the 1958 discovery Shadow mentions before putting together his in albis theory was published in 1959); these are matronae (probably glossing some form of idisi—Germanic goddesses) with names apparently containing the same root as Ēostre. As if the comparative material wasn't strong enough (the dawn goddess is probably the single best attested deity of PIE religion), this is another huge problem for the in albis theory. Shaw notes that most of the discussion regarding this was pre-discovery of these inscriptions doesn't take this evidence into consideration. However, Shaw comes to a curious conclusion by the end where he theorizes that Ēostre was some sort of local goddess, as I recall. I need to go get the book again. Audrey Meaney's Bede and Anglo-Saxon Paganism ([14]) also contains a full-on defense. One thing I am noting here is the discrepancy between medievalists and Indo-Europeanists on the topic. Indo-Europeanists seem to just see it as another reflex, whereas medievalists seem to be mainly focused on the internal record. I'll need to look at more entries. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Self-published source
This is obviously a self-published source. So why is it reliable? 69.183.117.146 (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- A good question - the same source seems to be cited in multiple articles. [15] I'll look into this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Interestingly, we once had an article on the poll - which was deleted at AfD [16]. If there has been a discussion regarding the suitability of the poll website as a source, I've not been able to find it. I'll ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks to see if anyone knows more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
William Muir on "Life of Mahomet"
I was surprised to see a 19th century historian's book approved in RSN as a reliable source here. I am checking to see if this was a mistake or not as it is currently being used in this article. Kindly, please advise.--Kazemita1 (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not a reliable source. It's badly out of date, and that in an area where we have massive amounts of good modern scholarship available. May possibly be used as a primary source to illustrate a significant opinion back in Victorian times, but certainly not as a source for facts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
What's up with www.publicpolicypolling.com?
I tried visiting www.publicpolicypolling.com to verify some refs, and I get an 'unknown domain' error. Because of that, I can't even check to see if there are archives. The problem is that without the margin of error, which was not copied to WP, the polling results we have mean little, so I've been removing some of our claims pending verification. — kwami (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Their old website[17] is still up, saying they've moved. Can't find anything in the news about them going out of business. What's up? — kwami (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Works for me. They tweeted yesterday that their site was down due to problems with Typepad, which I think should be fixed now. (This also probably isn't quite the right noticeboard for this question, though no obvious better location comes to mind.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source?
Is this a reliable source? It's being used to source the assertion that a school "is a full k-12 school, including a high school level, and cooperates with other schools for college admissions". 71.139.142.132 (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
UK births database search.findmypast.co.uk
An IP editor has used the source [18] as a reference for the date of birth of actress Gwendoline Christie. It seems to be a database of some sort, but I can't tell how reliable it is (official records?). Opinions? Sandstein 10:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Seems to be published by DC Thomson, which is a reputable publisher. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! Sandstein 04:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- It may be a reliable source, but its use involves original research and synthesis. That's because there may be any number of people named Gwendoline Tracey. To conclude that this one is the same person as Gwendoline Christie requires further research in other records and a synthesis of the findings from them. Ergo, this source should not be used. 70.235.84.89 (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! Sandstein 04:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The Conversation
http://theconversation.com/discus-farce-prompts-points-pow-wow-at-paralympics-9284
Not sure if this is a reliable source; it seems to use scholars, but it still has traits of a user-generated content farm. Could we go over this just to be sure? On the page itself, it was used in conjunction with more definitively reliable sources. ViperSnake151 Talk 05:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's a RS: the author is a university professor writing within his field of expertise. Most authors published by The Conversation are academic experts or experienced journalists, and all content is professionally edited. Some contributors are students and other non-experts, but their submissions are also professionally edited before being accepted or published and can be assumed to be accurate (though probably not great sources for Wikipedia articles). Calling the site a "user-generated content farm" is completely wrong. Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Several articles heavily referenced by same author
The report here lists several articles which were created by the same editor. Each of these articles contains references from the user in the reference list, by the author "P. Mills" or "Peter Mills" or "Petey Mills". There are maybe two - five papers (one published via IEEE and one in Cryosphere today). The extend of peer-review is not entirely clear to me. All the additions are highly technical and often not easy to determine if correct. Though, besides the potential issue of COI with the heavy self referencing i need input from experts about the relevance, and importance of these additions. If you need more exact cites or info, please ask away. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- A list of the papers concerned would be a good starting point. I looked at one from IEEE and it looked perfectly scholarly, but pretty minor, so I suspect what's happening is that someone who is doing relevant scientific work is also overusing it on Wikipedia. You say you want input from experts. Here you'll find people interested in sourcing, and while I hope you get useful input, it might also be useful to tag articles for expert attention and/or post at relevant WikiProjects. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- The same source is also used in the article about Wu Qing (athlete), the athlete mistakenly presented with the silver medal, then given the gold. Uncertainty and protest over the Women's F35/F36 discus medals continued for several days. The Conversation article is the only one I've found that reports the whole situation reasonably clearly from start to finish. Sportygeek (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Study papers, which require assessment:
- Following the Vapour Trail: a Study of Chaotic Mixing of Water Vapour in the Upper Troposphere 2004
- Sea ice emissivity modelling at L-band and application to Pol-Ice 2007 campaign field data 2007
- L-Band Radiometry for Sea-Ice Applications 2009 (no page given)
- "Retrieving sea ice concentration from SMOS 2010
- Efficient statistical classification of satellite measurements 2011
- Principal component proxy tracer analysis 2012
- Principal component analysis of satellite passive microwave data over sea ice 2012
- Microwave emissivity of freshwater ice, Part II: Modelling the Great Bear and Great Slave Lakes 2012
My impression is, that these papers are either not really the best references and all content appears to be written in a highly technical jargon, which makes it even harder to assess. Often theses papers are cited to state math functions, or explaining methods or algorithms, but without stating that the data are proposals or from thesis. So it is unclear how relevant these papers really are. prokaryotes (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Master's thesis, definitely not reliable. The two Arxiv papers also not reliable. The others do seem like normal peer-reviewed scientific papers; one is by independent authors. Reliable, but only in the very specialised areas they actually cover, and also should be read alongside other research. The hosting of the full text of two of these papers at the sourceforge.net site may also be a breach of copyright. Full academic references should be given. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Domesday Reloaded
Finding sources about villages and small settlements can be a challenge. I've just discovered the above project, but am unsure how to regard it. Is it purely primary? Can it be used in any way as a starting point for information? The BBC state that the project was undertaken by schools and community groups etc, but I can't find mention of any quality assessment or screening of the information provided. Here is an example of an entry, which tantalisingly mentions a "smugglers route" and a "secret passage", but I can't help thinking that some information could well have been invented. Comments welcome. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi PaleCloudedWhite. The BBC Domesday Project was great fun and useful, but my wife and I were involved and we know of no evidence of fact checking - it's possible that there were some random checks but I doubt it. I wouldn't use it - it is basically user generated data. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. My gut feeling was not to regard it as reliable - but the involvement of the BBC muddied the waters a bit. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Mariah Carey Album Sales
Butterfly, Rainbow, and Glitter.... Till now the worldwide sales pending until I found this [19] Thanks very much fidelovkurt 19:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Multi-referenced scholarly viewpoint and persistent vandalism
An anonymous user seems to have a problem with a multi-referenced scholarly viewpoint due to his own contradictory viewpoint. Please have a short look. Do we need page protection? - Hirabutor (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why do you want to use Sarostin as a source for what Hubey says? Itsmejudith (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- l have just looked the ip's reverts. S/he explained the reasons for reverting. And it has nothing to do with "vandalism". As far as l see, the words "vandal" or "vandalism" are using as a kind of "ad hominem" in wikipedia. Lamedumal (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- ln addition, in order to solve the problem you should search for sources from Hubey instead of writing here.Lamedumal (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- l am not sure that your new sources are reliable. For instance, Biro and Jozsef. Both of them are Hungarians and as far as l remember, Jozsef claims that Sumerians also Hungarians. lt seems to me ethnocentric. And also who are they? Professor, archeoligist, etc? l did not find anything about them on the net. On the other hand, David Christian is a reliable source but i did not see anything about Subartus in the source. And another problematic is the source 4. The source says that Dhorme mentioned various names for Subartu such as Sabiroi. But you taked it as "Dhorme found/proposed a connection between Sabirs-a native Siberian people- and Subartu". lt is just your interpretation and not in the source. You can find better sources. Use libgen.info or something. Otherwise your additions might be deleted. That's my suggestion. Lamedumal (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Is Noam Chomsky an expert on terrorism?
In addition to being used as source for the main text in State terrorism, several of the famous linguist's books are recommended for "Further Reading", which looks a lot like one-sided political spam to me (especially because there is already an entire article dedicated to the United States and state terrorism). When I challenged Chomsky's credentials on terrorism, User:Vanamonde93 responded by noting that Chomsky's political opinions have been published and widely read, while another user chimed in to say that he liked Chomsky. Do Chomsky's academic credentials give him prestige even in this area?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Chomsky's more a political theorist than he is a linguist. — kwami (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- However, Chomsky's field of expertise is in linguistics, not political theory. He's not an expert in terrorism, and I have to agree with the OP that loading up a bunch of Chomsky links in the "further reading" section is not an NPOV presentation. Whether one likes Chomsky or not is not relevant to the issue. Horologium (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- His published books clearly qualify as reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines. His work in the field of politics has been published by numerous publishers, including university press, so I would say he pretty solidly qualifies as an expert there. The specific publisher that seems to be under question here, South End Press, is partnered with two universities. This seems more like a WP:NPOV matter than a real question of reliability as far as WP:V is concerned. Siawase (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Fair point.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Chomsky does tend at times to clearly present opinion which is not generally accepted by experts in the field of terrorism. Safe course, as always, is to cite opinion as opinion in the article. Where other expert opinions appear to have greater weight in the field, the positions with greater weight should be noted. That said, using such a source in "further reading" is likely not the best use of such a category, especially if undue weight is thus given to his opinions. Either cite him in the article, or avoid it altogether. Collect (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Note to passers-by: There has been a discussion at Talk:State_terrorism#Chomsky_and_South_End_Press regarding Chomsky. That said, this seems to be a mountain/mole-hill – due/undue question and not a RSN issue. At present the main text cite gives his definition, and Chomsky is RS in that regard. There is no further expansion of his views in the text. One further reading item is clearly on the subject and the other is less related. (So my suggestion regard the FR items is to select one.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
Can I use this media watchdog organization as a source in the "response" section of this page? Thanks.--The Best There Is 'Snikt!' (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)