| Revision as of 22:11, 13 April 2007 editIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 edits →Sources← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:49, 14 April 2007 edit undoPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,922 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 political 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 political 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) | ||
| :As had been explained to you at ], per ], ] and ], the given sources are appopriate - reliable journalists in reliable mainstream publications. Unless you can show that there are others who dispute their views, the article is considered reliable and NPOV.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 01:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Name== | ==Name== | ||
Revision as of 01:49, 14 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 newspapers. I would like to see it either re-sourced 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 political 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)
- As had been explained to you at Talk:Polish legislative election, 1957, per WP:V, WP:ATT and WP:RS, the given sources are appopriate - reliable journalists in reliable mainstream publications. Unless you can show that there are others who dispute their views, the article is considered reliable and NPOV.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:49, 14 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)