This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in China may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Could the user who keeps deleting this explain his case here? I can't understand why this is either lacking RS or that is OR and I'd like an explanation. The former means there isn't a reliable source for it, which isn't true and the latter means that it is not verifiable in a reliable source, which is also false. I think it serves as a good example of what the paragraph mentions in terms of how history is treated in China. Reesorville ( talk) 22:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The explanation of Roland Boer's personal interpretation of historical nihilism is of questionable relevance (see: WP:RELEVANCE and undue weight for this article. As it is written, Boer is not analyzing the CCP's usage of historical nihilism and how that usage has evolved over time in any way. It's simply his personal interpretation/definition/opinion (see: WP:NOTOPINION). It is the equivalent of WP:FANCRUFT and we can do better than that. Amigao ( talk) 17:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
That’s a shame to see you say that, as wp:fancruft is sometimes viewed as uncivil.
That’s not “cruft” or “opinion.” It’s scholarly analysis from an academic text and is certainly relevant.
This is article is not limited only to the CPC’s view of historical nihilism. This is the “Historical Nihilism” page. The cited material clearly deals with this topic.
If you want to fold it into academic analysis, I think that would be good. But when we disagreed previously, you put it into its own section.
And obviously, you should feel free to add other RS on the topic. But every article has to start somewhere. JArthur1984 ( talk) 19:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
It is an identification and categorization of historically nihilistic genres and works.
You critique “how it currently reads” but you significantly re-worded this. Let’s go back to how I worded it, then. I think that was clearer. JArthur1984 ( talk) 20:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in China may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Could the user who keeps deleting this explain his case here? I can't understand why this is either lacking RS or that is OR and I'd like an explanation. The former means there isn't a reliable source for it, which isn't true and the latter means that it is not verifiable in a reliable source, which is also false. I think it serves as a good example of what the paragraph mentions in terms of how history is treated in China. Reesorville ( talk) 22:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The explanation of Roland Boer's personal interpretation of historical nihilism is of questionable relevance (see: WP:RELEVANCE and undue weight for this article. As it is written, Boer is not analyzing the CCP's usage of historical nihilism and how that usage has evolved over time in any way. It's simply his personal interpretation/definition/opinion (see: WP:NOTOPINION). It is the equivalent of WP:FANCRUFT and we can do better than that. Amigao ( talk) 17:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
That’s a shame to see you say that, as wp:fancruft is sometimes viewed as uncivil.
That’s not “cruft” or “opinion.” It’s scholarly analysis from an academic text and is certainly relevant.
This is article is not limited only to the CPC’s view of historical nihilism. This is the “Historical Nihilism” page. The cited material clearly deals with this topic.
If you want to fold it into academic analysis, I think that would be good. But when we disagreed previously, you put it into its own section.
And obviously, you should feel free to add other RS on the topic. But every article has to start somewhere. JArthur1984 ( talk) 19:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
It is an identification and categorization of historically nihilistic genres and works.
You critique “how it currently reads” but you significantly re-worded this. Let’s go back to how I worded it, then. I think that was clearer. JArthur1984 ( talk) 20:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)