Talk:Siege of Mosul (1743)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siege of Mosul (1743) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article
The article is a direct translation of the following article in French, which is linked in the introduction: http://www.academia.edu/13154137/Moshtagh_Khorasani_Manouchehr_2015_._Milit%C3%A4rstrategie_und_Feldz%C3%BCge_des_Nader_Shah_Afshar_1688-1747_._Karfunkel_Combat_Nr._11_pp._42-51
According to the wikipedia article on identifying reliable sources "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." So let us examine his credentials; http://independent.academia.edu/ManouchehrMoshtaghKhorasani and his work has been included in various outlets, example: http://www.teheran.ir/spip.php?article1970#gsc.tab=0 The last link being the one that the translation is from.
Also I do not "think" the sources in the article are reliable but know them to be reliable. I am shocked that someone who clearly knows nothing of the historiography of the period could question those sources in his ignorance and then go on to say I might "think" they are reliable, but..... Parsa1993 (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC
- The "article" you are referring to is a blog. Blogs are not acceptable to be used as a source in a wikipedia article. Please see WP:RS. Making assumptions about what other editors may know or not know is not acceptable. Please act civilly and do not edit war over this article. You @Parsa1993 have edit warred at 4 reversions by re-inserting disputed materials after making three hard reversions. Let us please discuss the validity of using blogs as resources in this particular article. Working in a collaborative manner with other editors is the best thing for this article and for wikipedia. Zpeopleheart (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is abundantly clear that you have not read my comments above where I use WP:RS in conjunction with links to various sources to demonstrate the validity of my argument. Parsa1993 (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)