Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 35: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 6 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. |
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. |
||
Line 522:
is [[FindArticles]] a reliable source? [[User:Showtime2009|Showtime2009]] ([[User talk:Showtime2009|talk]]) 15:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:It depends. It is almost certainly a reliable source on which article appeared where and when, and I would also accept the articles they point to as faithful to the original work. But if a publication found via FindArticles is a reliable source is a separate question - the [[Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine]] or [[21st Century Science and Technology]] do not become more reliable if they are accessed indirectly. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 15:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
== Secondary sources contradicted by primary document ==
A number of secondary sources assert that the encyclical [[Mit brennender Sorge]] described Hitler as "an insane and arrogant prophet' but the official English translation [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html ''Mit brennender Sorge'' in English on Vatican.va] contains nothing like this. I deleted it (as another editor did previously) but another editor has restored it, citing [[WP:RS]]. How should a situation like this be handled?[[User:John Quiggin|JQ]] ([[User talk:John Quiggin|talk]]) 10:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:Well, the original German text of the encyclica has a corresponding passage (''Wer in sakrilegischer Verkennung der zwischen Gott und Geschöpf, zwischen dem Gottmenschen und den Menschenkindern klaffenden Wesensunterschiede irgend einen Sterblichen, und wäre er der Größte aller Zeiten, neben Christus zu stellen wagt, oder gar über Ihn und gegen Ihn, der muß sich sagen lassen, daß er ein Wahnprophet ist, auf den das Schriftwort erschütternde Anwendung findet: „Der im Himmel wohnt, lachet ihrer“''). The English translation is rendered as ''Should any man dare, in sacrilegious disregard of the essential differences between God and His creature, between the God-man and the children of man, to place a mortal, were he the greatest of all times, by the side of, or over, or against, Christ, he would deserve to be called prophet of nothingness, to whom the terrifying words of Scripture would be applicable: "He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them" (Psalms ii. 3).'' Unfortunately, not even the numbering of paragraphs is consistent - it 20 in the German version, 17 in the English one. "Wahnprophet", translated as "prophet of nothingness", can be more literally translated as "insane prohpet" or "delusional prophet". So the conflict is not really there. In general, I would say that for the interpretation of a lengthy document written in a ritualistic and stilted style, competent secondary sources should trump interpretations of editors. If there are obvious problems, we should, as always, qualify the statements with an "according to" clause. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 11:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
::The primary document does not contradict the secondary sources... but there is a discrepancy in translation. The best, most NPOV way to deal with this is to mention this discrepancy in translation, and discuss who translates it which way. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 12:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
<s>How can you prove that the original text contains that ? I think on wiki en We should consider any source available in english your translation of the passage can be termed as original research --[[User:Notedgrant|Notedgrant]] ([[User talk:Notedgrant|talk]]) 12:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)</s>
:You're free to use a dictionary or learn German if you doubt my translation of that one phrase. Try [http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed§Hdr=on&spellToler=on&chinese=both&pinyin=diacritic&search=Wahn&relink=on] and [http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed§Hdr=on&spellToler=on&chinese=both&pinyin=diacritic&search=prophet&relink=on] (and know that German has compound nouns). The encyclica was originally published in German and is available in the original language directly from the Vatican. I would assume that the authors of the reliable sources also worked off the original version. There is more original research in the interpretation of the English translation than in the confirmation of what reliable sources say about the original version. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 12:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
::This is just a suggestion, but if the translation is in dispute, you can try asking for confirmation at [[WP:RD/L]]. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 13:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
::Your translation is correct I used google translator and got the same result
::You can use the following link to source your argument [http://translate.google.com/translate_t#de|en|Wer%20in%20sakrilegischer%20Verkennung%20der%20zwischen%20Gott%20und%20Gesch%C3%B6pf%2C%20zwischen%20dem%20Gottmenschen%20und%20den%20Menschenkindern%20klaffenden%20Wesensunterschiede%20irgend%20einen%20Sterblichen%2C%20und%20w%C3%A4re%20er%20der%20Gr%C3%B6%C3%9Fte%20aller%20Zeiten%2C%20neben%20Christus%20zu%20stellen%20wagt%2C%20oder%20gar%20%C3%BCber%20Ihn%20und%20gegen%20Ihn%2C%20der%20mu%C3%9F%20sich%20sagen%20lassen%2C%20da%C3%9F%20er%20ein%20Wahnprophet%20ist%2C%20auf%20den%20das%20Schriftwort%20ersch%C3%BCtternde%20Anwendung%20findet%3A%20%E2%80%9EDer%20im%20Himmel%20wohnt%2C%20lachet%20ihrer]
::--[[User:Notedgrant|Notedgrant]] ([[User talk:Notedgrant|talk]]) 14:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I would trust scholars more than Google translator. If several reliable sources are translating it as "an insane and arrogant prophet" I think we can accept their scholarly opinion. If different ''scholars'' disagree, then we should mention that disagreement. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 16:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Schulz, that for "interpretation of a lengthy document written in a ritualistic and stilted style, competent secondary sources should trump interpretations of editors" ... or ''even literal translations of primary documents''. Note that the primary document does not even mention Hitler by name, and we need to rely on secondary sources to even say that the extract refers to him. Of course, if reliable secondary sources disagree, we can mention that (keeping [[WP:WEIGHT]] in mind). Finally, Google translations (and translations by Schulz :) ) are useful for talk-page discussions, but should not be used in the article itself. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 16:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:I think we agree very much. I'm not offering my translation as the one and only correct one - I just wanted to point out that the perceived conflict between the primary source and the secondary sources is not stringent. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 18:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
::::: <small> Stephan, We do agree! Your translation on this noticeboard was perfectly appropriate and very useful for non-German speakers like me. I know that you were not proposing its inclusion in any article, and I was only trying to make the broader point ''in case'' someone else thought that google/wikipedian translations of such texts was considered [[WP:RS|reliable]]. I tried to indicate that with the smiley ":)"; sorry, if I was not clear enough. Cheers. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 18:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)</small>
::::(ec)Also, translations are not static over time. The word as used in German should be translated as it would have been translated at the time it was written, IMHO, which makes Google translations a bit useless. The Vatican translation, which was done at the same time as the wrk was released, is likely the best available translation (not least because the Vatican is known for diplomatic skill in word usage). [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 16:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for this, everybody. I changed the text to read "It include criticism of "an insane and arrogant prophet" ("Wahnprophet"), taken by some scholars to be a reference to Hitler", with citations to Botenkotter following. My impression is that, while no one has explicitly disagreed with Botenkotter, and some subsequent writers (general church histories rather than specialists) have followed him, the absence of anything like this in other writers and the differences with the Vatican translation suggest that this is a rather tendentious and polemical interpretation. I think the phrasing covers this, and avoids OR.[[User:John Quiggin|JQ]] ([[User talk:John Quiggin|talk]]) 22:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
===Clarification should be made in WP policy===
First of all, Stephan's translation of ''Wahnprophet'' as "delusional prophet" instead of "insane and arrogant prophet" is an improvement, no question about that. However, I have not researched whether it would be appropriate to use it instead of, or in addition to, the Vatican's translation.<br />As it happens, I was involved in a dispute about Primary Source vs. Secondary Source only recently at [[Richard Williamson (bishop)]]. An IP made an edit which initially I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Williamson_%28bishop%29&diff=288773002&oldid=288770964 reverted as vandalism]. The IP editor then edit warred with myself and a number of editors on that point. (Click on the "History" tab of the article). However, I then examined the primary source – the interview with Swedish television conducted in English and available on a variety of websites including [[youtube]] – and found that the subject of this [[WP:BLP]] article had been misquoted in some of the media articles reporting on the interview.<br />Next I explained my change of mind on the [[Talk:Richard_Williamson_(bishop)#Six_million_Jews|Talk page]] and tried to gain consensus for implementing a change in the article to better reflect the evident truth and stay clear of WP:BLP [[Libel]] violations.<br />The discussion, mostly between myself and two editors, went on and on and despite my best efforts seemed to make no headway. They kept quoting policy at me in a robotic manner ("verifiability not truth") and refused to acknowledge that once the misquote had been pointed out to us (by the IP editor on May 9) we were obligated to stop republishing it as fact.<br />I believe that, as a minimum, changes should be made in the appropriate places in WP's Policy pages to make it clear that Wikipedia does not republish demonstrably false claims about living persons. Editors more conversant in the policy pages of WP than I are hereby requested to make these changes. More generally, I believe the mantra "verifiability before truth" should be modified to accommodate ''all'' cases in which the truth – the facts as evidenced by a Primary Source – require no translation or interpretation and are clear as daylight, as in the case of the TV interview with Williamson.--[[User:Goodmorningworld|Goodmorningworld]] ([[User talk:Goodmorningworld|talk]]) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:In addition to [[WP:GREATWRONGS]], there should be a guideline like [[WP:MINORNONSENSE]], stating that assertions from a single [[WP:RS]] sources must be attributed to the source if there are [[WP:RS]] sources that contradict the statement. <s>For example, if Reliable Source 1 say "A is always B." and Reliable Sources 2, 3 and 4 provide examples that some As are not B, the statement from source 1 should be either left out or be attributed to the source. It should not be necessary to find another reliable source that explicitly says "A is ''not'' always B."</s> <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">[[User talk:Cs32en|<font style="color:#000085;"> '''Cs32en''' </font>]]</span> 15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC) <small>[I withdraw the second sentence of my comment as it might be misunderstood as referring to the particular discussion that is going on on the talk page of the [[Richard Williamson (bishop)]] article. I didn't read the (rather long) discussion there before posting the comment. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">[[User talk:Cs32en|<font style="color:#000085;"> '''Cs32en''' </font>]]</span> 17:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)]</small>
::Interesting but I do not see the connection to my posting above. --[[User:Goodmorningworld|Goodmorningworld]] ([[User talk:Goodmorningworld|talk]]) 16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
: Interesting. I admit I have not read the discussions at [[Talk:Richard_Williamson]], but it seems to me that in such a case, editors must use common sense and not republish claims they know to be inaccurate, but, due to our [[WP:NOR|no original research]] policy, neither can they use Wikipedia to 'correct the record'. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:Agree with Dlabtot. If you know for certain that the information is inaccurate, do not include it. ''Verifiability not truth'' is good and well, but we don't intentionally publish false information about living people just because the sources that disprove it are not considered reliable by our standards. If there's no RS correcting the error, then just don't include the information at all. [[User:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting;color:#9B30FF">'''ل'''enna</span>]][[User talk:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting;color:#63B8FF">vecia</span>]] 12:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
== Symantec KB Article ==
Is this a reliable article? [http://symantec.atgnow.com/consumer/resultDisplay.do?gotoLink=4679&docType=1000&contextId=8558%3A4679.4740&clusterName=SymantecConsumer&contentId=27342c84-4b64-4874-ab9f-00b961f5436b&responseId=ffd24a40d45c7c49%3A1b1fbf4%3A10aeea95b03%3A241e&groupId=4&answerGroup=1&score=622&page=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fservice1.symantec.com%2Fsupport%2Fsharedtech.nsf%2Fpfdocs%2F2004070814513713&result=0&excerpt=Symantec+Security+Alert+states+that+%26quot%3BYour+computer+is+at+risk&resultType=5000] [[Special:Contributions/68.218.165.238|68.218.165.238]] ([[User talk:68.218.165.238|talk]]) 16:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:The link didn't work for me. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 16:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
::Didn't work for me, and an editor tries to use it as a reference, claiming it was repeatedly moved. The editor never converted the external link to the cite web format when it supposedly did work. Valid as a reference? [[Special:Contributions/68.218.165.238|68.218.165.238]] ([[User talk:68.218.165.238|talk]]) 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
::If we can't veiw the link, I would have to say it can't be used to back any claims up as we do not even know what is on that page.--[[User:Gordonrox24|gordonrox24]] ([[User talk:Gordonrox24|talk]]) 11:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
| |||