| Revision as of 21:12, 29 December 2006 editProabivouac (talk | contribs)10,467 edits →Your edit to []← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:42, 29 December 2006 edit undoTruthpedia (talk | contribs)275 edits 1) no personal attack is allowed 2) It was CaliforniaAliBaba, so change your glassesNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| :How about the BBC? Isn't it a reliable source? --] 00:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | :How about the BBC? Isn't it a reliable source? --] 00:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :: In general, I'd say a news article is less reliable than a scholarly work or a governmental census, especially where they don't give a source for their estimates. It's partially a result of how news articles get put together --- with a very short deadline in mind, on the order of days --- meaning the fact-checking process can't be as thorough. Cheers, ] 01:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | :: In general, I'd say a news article is less reliable than a scholarly work or a governmental census, especially where they don't give a source for their estimates. It's partially a result of how news articles get put together --- with a very short deadline in mind, on the order of days --- meaning the fact-checking process can't be as thorough. Cheers, ] 01:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==Your edit summary== | |||
| Regarding your recent edit summary, "rv to CaliforniaAliBaba", you were surely well-aware that you'd reverted to your own version, which cab had contested. Do not lie in edit summaries.] 21:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:42, 29 December 2006
Unprotect
 | It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected redirect at User:Truthpedia. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
The policy says: "If the accuser hasn't requested CheckUser for ten days, you are allowed to remove the notice from your page."
Your edit to Islam in China
Hi, I've reverted your edit to Islam in China again. We can admit only reliable sources, such as Dru Gladney (a well-respected scholar of Muslim populations in China), Ferm's "Encyclopedia of Religion", and the official Chinese census, or other scholarly references in print. Compared to sources of this stature, any random website or news article will generally not be considered reliable. Specifically, this website :
- At present, according to official statistics there are 28 million Muslim in China but in1936 it was estimated that the Muslim population was 48 million. By this time total population has increased 3-4 fold. So we can conclude that the total Muslim population has increased minimum by that same proportion. Therefore, now the total Muslim population is at least 150 million.
is just unsourced speculation; we will only use those figures which have appeared in print in scholarly journals or books, as those offer a guarantee of having been peer-reviewed and/or fact checked. Also, the Hui are NOT 9% of the Chinese population, as is very clear to anyone travelling or living in China. Thanks. cab 23:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- How about the BBC? Isn't it a reliable source? --Truthpedia 00:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- In general, I'd say a news article is less reliable than a scholarly work or a governmental census, especially where they don't give a source for their estimates. It's partially a result of how news articles get put together --- with a very short deadline in mind, on the order of days --- meaning the fact-checking process can't be as thorough. Cheers, cab 01:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)