Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Malachi Martin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Catholicism|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Catholicism|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Ireland|class=B|importance=Mid|attention= |peer-review= |old-peer-review= |image-needed=no |needs-infobox=no |listas=Martin, Malachi}}
{{WikiProject Ireland|classC|importance=Mid|attention= |peer-review= |old-peer-review= |image-needed=no |needs-infobox=no |listas=Martin, Malachi}}
{{WPBiography|living=no|class=B|priority=Low|listas=Martin, Malachi|auto=yes}}
{{WPBiography|living=no|class=C|priority=Low|listas=Martin, Malachi|auto=yes}}
{{WikiProject University of Oxford|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject University of Oxford|class=C|importance=Low}}
}}
}}
{{OTRS-talk|issue=regarding [[WP:BLPNAME]] of a related person|otrs=2011061710011522|discuss=no}}
{{OTRS-talk|issue=regarding [[WP:BLPNAME]] of a related person|otrs=2011061710011522|discuss=no}}

Revision as of 05:10, 30 December 2011

Archive:

Sources

With all the scholarly material supposedly in this article, why are over 20 refs pointing to an audio tape made by a true believer that is not available to the general public? Surely we can do better, can we not?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody can buy/rent/copy the sourced material that is given in reference. The fact that a person does not do it, does not make the reference invalid. All the texts of Martin are available, some easy, some after intensive research or purchase. But non are not available. To imply otherwise and to come up with 'weasel'words as 'true believer' are in itself an indication of a non neutral point of view. --Stijn Calle (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. The tape is not available, it is out of print. Secondly, what makes it reliable? Anyone can produce a tape and it sounds like an extended eulogy/obituary; which is a shame because a lot of great things have been published by reliable sources about Martin.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page entries should be archived

This discussion page is full of comments that are years old. And just recently there are responses to comments that are a few years old. Unless there is an objection, I intend to archive most or all of what's on the page currently. MasterPainter (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has been done.--Stijn Calle (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source does not offer support for the information cited

According to the article, "He [M. Scott Peck] later fell out with Martin." This is sourced via footnote [21], which leads here: http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005b/042905/042905m.htm. Nothing in that link, however, suggests that Peck had a falling out with Martin; rather, the article (a book review of Peck's "Glimpses of the Devil") is critical of Peck for relying on Martin too heavily as a source. I'm not comfortable changing the primary article since it is possible that the link has changed, but in the absence of support, someone may want to change the citation or, at minimum, take it with some salt. Smontg2 (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment above, I removed this from the main page: "He later fell out with Martin.[1]" Again, the article does not support the statement; rather, it is a criticism of Peck for relying too heavily on Martin.Smontg2 (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why has this statement been returned to the article? --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of an answer to the above, I removed it again. This is what I removed: "He later fell out with Martin.[2]" Again, I removed it because that article simply criticizes Peck for relying on Martin. There are zero indications from THAT source that Peck repudiated Martin. If Peck indeed did so, find a source! Smontg2 (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have (not for the first time I see) removed this reference on the basis that the statement "He later fell out with Martin" is completely unsubstantiated. Indeed, if anything, the very opposite is implied. I have no strong opinions either way, only discovering Martin today whilst researching a project, but it worries me when wikipedia contributors do not write in context. I think Woods article, though interesting, reads as incredibly subjective and would garner more credibility with some references of its own. This would help it earn its place in wikiedia references. If it is to be cited, please place it in context. --Responsiballot (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]