User:Mike Young/Sandbox4

Mike Young has smiled at you! He says “ Great to meet an Assyrian! Although I have supported a family, I have never actually talked to one! You can email me (see my user page), and tell me a bit more about myself ”

)

|}

reliable sources vs. WP:SPS

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

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 http://web.archive.org/web/20061017053855/http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=43087&ln=eng an outdated version of an obviously biased article on islamqa.com (Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid)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 http://web.archive.org/web/20051220012306/http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45449 an outdated article of a conservative news site

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

Response

OK,

1) Iinking to a web.archive source does not make it automatically outdated (and I presume you are implying therefore unreliable).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

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

3) A. Robinson has degree in Engineering Physics but is no expert on religion this is an ad hominum attack. And anyway all this man was doing was quoting a study. It's the study he quoted you should ciriticise, not the messenger. I've found the study itself and put a direct link in.

3) Link to the times fixed, thanks for pointing that out.