Content deleted Content added
Line 90:
Points of dispute:
# The [http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/political-fix/2007/08/updated-adam-smith-group-launching-radio-ads-against-judges/ source] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Smith_Foundation&action=historysubmit&diff=346313630&oldid=346307374 used] to support the claim that Adam Smith Foundation is conservative is a blog entry by Jo Mannies in the blog of ''[[St. Louis Post-Dispatch]]''. There is no doubt ''St. Louis Post-Dispatch'' is a reliable source, but it is the blog of ''St. Louis Post-Dispatch'' used in the article. The label used in this blog entry is the personal opinion of the blogger, thus if used in the article, it should be used as an ''opinion'', not as a ''fact''.
# Per [[Wikipedia:Attribution]], ''"the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses"''. Since the source is not among the best reliable source, it should be [[Wikipedia:Attribution|attributed]].
# Per [[Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_label]], labels like the one used, should be attributed to reliable sources, "replace the label with information; or use a more neutral term". This would be a lot more relevant if we were discussing a substantive analysis. But the whole point I'm making is that we're discussing an uninformative label. And there is policy which at least discourages such labelling, [[Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_label]].
| |||