This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Irpen (talk | contribs) at 22:11, 13 April 2007 (→Sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:11, 13 April 2007 by Irpen (talk | contribs) (→Sources)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
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)