Jump to content

Talk:Conviction rate: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 15: Line 15:
Woah! You can't just strike out the previous sourced statistic of 97 % conviction rate and change it with some podcast, were some lawyer says it is 67, can you? Maybe at least leave both sources for observation? [[Special:Contributions/185.65.134.169|185.65.134.169]] ([[User talk:185.65.134.169|talk]]) 10:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Woah! You can't just strike out the previous sourced statistic of 97 % conviction rate and change it with some podcast, were some lawyer says it is 67, can you? Maybe at least leave both sources for observation? [[Special:Contributions/185.65.134.169|185.65.134.169]] ([[User talk:185.65.134.169|talk]]) 10:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
:Yes I can. The podcast includes explanations from an expert on exactly what the other source got wrong. Do you think a source gets less reliable just because it's not written word on a page? [[User:Amaurea|Amaurea]] ([[User talk:Amaurea|talk]]) 04:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:Yes I can. The podcast includes explanations from an expert on exactly what the other source got wrong. Do you think a source gets less reliable just because it's not written word on a page? [[User:Amaurea|Amaurea]] ([[User talk:Amaurea|talk]]) 04:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:: An "expert" on a BBC podcast, that will be available on a BBC website only for a year is not a statistic source. Something like "law.ca" or "official-statistics.ca" would have been a proper source, otherwise you just swapped one dubious source with another one. I'd rather cross out the whole section of Canada from the page if there is no official statistics available, rather than write an "expert" opinion. [[Special:Contributions/213.30.233.195|213.30.233.195]] ([[User talk:213.30.233.195|talk]])

Revision as of 15:57, 29 January 2020

Reference 4 is completely inappropriate, as it does NOT present conviction rates at all.

Canada

Woah! You can't just strike out the previous sourced statistic of 97 % conviction rate and change it with some podcast, were some lawyer says it is 67, can you? Maybe at least leave both sources for observation? 185.65.134.169 (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can. The podcast includes explanations from an expert on exactly what the other source got wrong. Do you think a source gets less reliable just because it's not written word on a page? Amaurea (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An "expert" on a BBC podcast, that will be available on a BBC website only for a year is not a statistic source. Something like "law.ca" or "official-statistics.ca" would have been a proper source, otherwise you just swapped one dubious source with another one. I'd rather cross out the whole section of Canada from the page if there is no official statistics available, rather than write an "expert" opinion. 213.30.233.195 (talk)