Content deleted Content added
→Use of Peer Reviewed Sources: new section |
|||
Line 332:
::::If he's not POV-pushing, then it's an potential [[WP:Competence]] issue (and not just on the part of Scalhotrod, but on the part of the authors of the Nazi material), as this is clearly not the way to write a neutral Wikipedia article on gun control. "Let's find sources that connect the topic to my pet issue!" Instead, we need to find good, general, neutral, authoritative sources on the topic of the article (i.e. Gun control), and summarize them fairly. If they don't mention your pet issue at all, then that's a great big clue that your pet issue should not be mentioned in the article. This is ''extremely'' basic and frankly ''weird'' that it needs to be explained. — [[User:Goethean|goethean]] 19:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
::::::I think a search for suitable sources (and thus also reflecting on whether or not they exist) is a very Wikipedian way to try to address the question at hand. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 20:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
== Use of Peer Reviewed Sources ==
Some editors here don't want to accept WP:RS from reputable journals that are peer reviewed. That's plainly unacceptable. They're labeling some of those authors as "ideologue." We have to be very careful what to decide there. Some people label scientists like Professor Michael Mann as an ideologue over on the Climate change articles but if he's published in Nature or some other reputable journal, his work is accepted into the Wiki. I don't understand why we're trying to establish a double standard or why one editor without any backing comes on and starts labeling articles from reputable journals as not meeting the standard. They do clearly meet the standard. He doesn't like it, so he's POV pushing. That's also unacceptable. I'm opening this up in the hopes of avoiding yet another edit war on the talk page. Can we all agree that Peer Reviewed, Reputable journals are fine as WP:RS even if the author might been by opponents as biased? Or should I go tell the esteemed editors over at Global Warming that their pro AGW sources are iealogues --- I'm sure they're going to come out swinging too!-[[User:Justanonymous|Justanonymous]] ([[User talk:Justanonymous|talk]]) 17:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
| |||