| Revision as of 21:57, 13 April 2007 editIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 edits →Sources← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:59, 13 April 2007 edit undoIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 edits →SourcesNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| Scholarly sources includes peer-reviewed journals, books published by academic publishers or by the unversity presses. If, however, the author who is otherwise established in academia publishes the article in a normally non-academic source (web-site or politica tygodnyk), this would also be acceptable. What is non-acceptable is non-academic publications authored by people with no confirmed credentials. Thank you. --] 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | Scholarly sources includes peer-reviewed journals, books published by academic publishers or by the unversity presses. If, however, the author who is otherwise established in academia publishes the article in a normally non-academic source (web-site or politica tygodnyk), this would also be acceptable. What is non-acceptable is non-academic publications authored by people with no confirmed credentials. Thank you. --] 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Name== | |||
| Additionally, I request some way to confirm that the current title is the established name of this event in the English-language scholarship. If the other name is established, the other name should be used. If the event has no established name, it has to use a neutral descriptive name rather than the term strongest possible, the naming convention favored by some editors. --] 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:59, 13 April 2007
Sources
Respectfully, I couldn't see any sources in support of such blatant original research.Vlad fedorov 08:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- You've provided no justification for your claims of OR. I'm changing the tag to "unreferenced". Appleseed (Talk) 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sources provided. //Halibutt 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is mostly referenced to some web-site as well as articles in the non-scholarly papers. I would like to see it either resourced to the scholarly sources or the scholarly credentials of the authors of whatever the current sources are to be confirmed.
Scholarly sources includes peer-reviewed journals, books published by academic publishers or by the unversity presses. If, however, the author who is otherwise established in academia publishes the article in a normally non-academic source (web-site or politica tygodnyk), this would also be acceptable. What is non-acceptable is non-academic publications authored by people with no confirmed credentials. Thank you. --Irpen 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Name
Additionally, I request some way to confirm that the current title is the established name of this event in the English-language scholarship. If the other name is established, the other name should be used. If the event has no established name, it has to use a neutral descriptive name rather than the term strongest possible, the naming convention favored by some editors. --Irpen 21:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)