This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Jayen, I've created an article about the very notable Timothy Brook (historian) and five articles about books for which I can find ample sources.
As for the rest of his books, for each I've only been able to track down 1 review 2 reviews in academic journals and no other RS in google web search. Most of these others hardly show up in google web/scholar, but one The Chinese State in Ming Society is
well cited (and mentioned on .edu and .ac.uk web sites). Is there any merit in creating an article about this book?
I'm aware that notability for academic works is a bit different to general book notability (though I'm not sure of how to prove citations: provide a google scholar search, or list some of the citing works, or (where possible) use text from these works?)
Update: Well, I managed to squeeze a stub out of it. Ah, I see ... some journal reviews (eg for his book "Collaboration ...") are mentioned at the publisher but aren't showing up in google.
Many thanks, eric. Esowteric+ Talk 14:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
would you please take a look at this? It's relatively short. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 19:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hiya, and happy New Year!
would you mind having a look at Akmal Shaikh, which I have nominated for WP:GAN? There are some WP:NPOV issues which may need sorting out. Any input would be much appreciated. Cheers, Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi J,
If a person (a psychiatrist) is "born in Aberdeen, Scotland, and brought up in Yorkshire, England" but his career has been mostly based in London, should I just categorize him as "British psychiatrist (etc)", as I have done so far, or Scottish, or English? My feeling is that he is only nominally Scottish, yet not strictly English and definitely British :)
Many thanks, eric. Esowteric+ Talk 11:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I placed it on the ACR list. It will eventually get some reviews. :) Auntieruth55 ( talk) 01:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, and edits, on Battle of Winterthur (1799). It passed yesterday, although the bot hasn't run yet. Siege is at ACR, and Sturm raised a question about a word we both translated as "foreyard"....I don't remember where it was, but what would that have been in German? It needs a better translation. Could it have been forecourt? Foreyard is a nautical term. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 20:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I have put the GA Review on hold for seven days to allow time for the issues detailed on Talk:Akmal Shaikh/GA1 to be addressed. Any questions please get in touch. SilkTork * YES! 12:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jayen, hope you had a great Christmas. Can you help me clear something up? An article I have been looking at seems to be rather stalled in a pretty turgid state because the editors have nominated somebody to be the "lead editor" and this person has become the final authority on what changes get made. They insist that this is Wikipedia policy, but I have certainly never heard of it. It seems to contradict OWN at least. Have you heard of anything like this? Rumiton ( talk) 14:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It's still got ambiguities and awkwardness. May I? Auntieruth55 ( talk) 21:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The Scientology in Germany occupies a precarious legal, social, and cultural position. German courts cannot decide its legal standing; the German government views Scientology as a business, and most Germans favour banning it altogether. German authorities estimate that there are 5,000–6,000 active Scientologists in Germany today; the Church of Scientology gives a membership figure of around 30,000.
The German government views Scientology as an abusive business masquerading as a religion, and which pursues political goals that conflict with the values enshrined in German Basic Law. Scientology has an ambiguous legal status. German courts cannot decide if it is a dangerous sect, or a religious or worldview community, and different courts have reached contradictory conclusions,<ref name="BundestagRFRW"/> which places the Church of Scientology on precarious legal grounds. German domestic intelligence services have monitored the organization's activities.
Scientologists in Germany face specific political and economic restrictions. They are barred from membership in major political parties and employers use so-called "sect filters" to expose a job applicant's association with the organization. Germany's stance towards Scientology has been criticized widely criticized, most notably by the U.S. government, which recognizes Scientology as a religion and has repeatedly raised concerns over discriminatory practices directed at individual Scientologists.<ref>[[#Barber|Barber, Tony (1997-01-30)]]</ref><ref name=KentFGA/><ref name="USS1999"/>
in this RSN discussion, as you commented in the past on one of the sources. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
All I'm interested in is a better and more objective article. There are a couple of very forceful Falun Gong hotheads stirring things up, and I feel they want to force a showdown; I don't want any more of a confrontation than there is now. A third opinion wouldn't go amiss. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I've drafted a proposal for a new clause, which you can see on a sub-page accessed from my user page. All comments very gratefully received. Jimi 66 ( talk) 20:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
And thanks for the feedback. I've now added the proposal to the Oversight talk page - do you recommend I publicise it in any way apart from simply placing it there? Jimi 66 ( talk) 22:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
many thanks Jimi 66 ( talk) 08:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
While editing various articles relating to Islamic subjects, I have picked up the notion that titles such as Imam, Qazi, Hazrat are not to be used (just like honorifics such as PBUH or R.A.). I cannot find any Wikipedia style/policy document which discusses this. ( WP:MOSISLAM discusses only honorifics, and not titles of this sort.)
Will appreciate it very much if you can point me in the right direction.
If there isn't any Wikipedia style document per se which addresses this, do you think it's fair to say that generally avoiding titles such as Imam, Qazi, Hazrat as part of names is the convention Wikipedia seems to use in practice, even if it isn't written down anywhere?
Thanks very much! -- Sarabseth ( talk) 12:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
JN, once again, I sincerely apologize for missing that text; it wasn't where I expected to find it, I didn't expect to find it grouped with South of the Border, and I just missed it. It's also very hard to keep up with the tandem reverting across so many articles of Off2riorob, Rd232 and the Brazilian IP, so I just missed it. Although the ANI thread was closed, and Durova knows it tics me off when threads are closed right after the main participant announces s/he won't be available for a bit, I went ahead and posted a link to my apology there, as it should be cleared up to the broader audience. Sorry again! Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
For trying to make two of our best editors work together, instead of against each other. GRuban ( talk) 04:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you. Let's hope it works out and Wikipedia ends up the winner. -- JN 466 11:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Auntieruth55 ( talk) 15:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Was CESNUR ever Deemed a Reliable source? i find a lot of talk about it but i am unsure? Secondly i seem to remember a rule like: since conference paper are peer reviewed before a conference they are a RS. I could be mistaken about this rule but if it is correct could you point me to it? If Cesnur was deemed a RS i would like to use text of a Conference paper for a source for a An article. thanx Weaponbb7 ( talk) 20:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
Thank you so much! Weaponbb7 ( talk) 15:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
Should we (or you or I) just go ahead and nom this for FA? Neither of us has a lot of time, and getting Potthoff's chapter may prove difficult. I think the article is in really good shape as is, so perhaps we could just go with it? Auntieruth55 ( talk) 22:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining
WikiProject Venezuela? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the
list of participants. Please see our
list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The Helping Hand Barnstar | ||
Thank you for helping me format my first article, rescuing it from deletion, and writing a genius hook for its DYK nomination. And for generally being a most excellent ♥ husband ♥. DracoEssentialis ( talk) 22:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Jayen, I've created an article about the very notable Timothy Brook (historian) and five articles about books for which I can find ample sources.
As for the rest of his books, for each I've only been able to track down 1 review 2 reviews in academic journals and no other RS in google web search. Most of these others hardly show up in google web/scholar, but one The Chinese State in Ming Society is
well cited (and mentioned on .edu and .ac.uk web sites). Is there any merit in creating an article about this book?
I'm aware that notability for academic works is a bit different to general book notability (though I'm not sure of how to prove citations: provide a google scholar search, or list some of the citing works, or (where possible) use text from these works?)
Update: Well, I managed to squeeze a stub out of it. Ah, I see ... some journal reviews (eg for his book "Collaboration ...") are mentioned at the publisher but aren't showing up in google.
Many thanks, eric. Esowteric+ Talk 14:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
would you please take a look at this? It's relatively short. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 19:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hiya, and happy New Year!
would you mind having a look at Akmal Shaikh, which I have nominated for WP:GAN? There are some WP:NPOV issues which may need sorting out. Any input would be much appreciated. Cheers, Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi J,
If a person (a psychiatrist) is "born in Aberdeen, Scotland, and brought up in Yorkshire, England" but his career has been mostly based in London, should I just categorize him as "British psychiatrist (etc)", as I have done so far, or Scottish, or English? My feeling is that he is only nominally Scottish, yet not strictly English and definitely British :)
Many thanks, eric. Esowteric+ Talk 11:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I placed it on the ACR list. It will eventually get some reviews. :) Auntieruth55 ( talk) 01:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, and edits, on Battle of Winterthur (1799). It passed yesterday, although the bot hasn't run yet. Siege is at ACR, and Sturm raised a question about a word we both translated as "foreyard"....I don't remember where it was, but what would that have been in German? It needs a better translation. Could it have been forecourt? Foreyard is a nautical term. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 20:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I have put the GA Review on hold for seven days to allow time for the issues detailed on Talk:Akmal Shaikh/GA1 to be addressed. Any questions please get in touch. SilkTork * YES! 12:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jayen, hope you had a great Christmas. Can you help me clear something up? An article I have been looking at seems to be rather stalled in a pretty turgid state because the editors have nominated somebody to be the "lead editor" and this person has become the final authority on what changes get made. They insist that this is Wikipedia policy, but I have certainly never heard of it. It seems to contradict OWN at least. Have you heard of anything like this? Rumiton ( talk) 14:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It's still got ambiguities and awkwardness. May I? Auntieruth55 ( talk) 21:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The Scientology in Germany occupies a precarious legal, social, and cultural position. German courts cannot decide its legal standing; the German government views Scientology as a business, and most Germans favour banning it altogether. German authorities estimate that there are 5,000–6,000 active Scientologists in Germany today; the Church of Scientology gives a membership figure of around 30,000.
The German government views Scientology as an abusive business masquerading as a religion, and which pursues political goals that conflict with the values enshrined in German Basic Law. Scientology has an ambiguous legal status. German courts cannot decide if it is a dangerous sect, or a religious or worldview community, and different courts have reached contradictory conclusions,<ref name="BundestagRFRW"/> which places the Church of Scientology on precarious legal grounds. German domestic intelligence services have monitored the organization's activities.
Scientologists in Germany face specific political and economic restrictions. They are barred from membership in major political parties and employers use so-called "sect filters" to expose a job applicant's association with the organization. Germany's stance towards Scientology has been criticized widely criticized, most notably by the U.S. government, which recognizes Scientology as a religion and has repeatedly raised concerns over discriminatory practices directed at individual Scientologists.<ref>[[#Barber|Barber, Tony (1997-01-30)]]</ref><ref name=KentFGA/><ref name="USS1999"/>
in this RSN discussion, as you commented in the past on one of the sources. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
All I'm interested in is a better and more objective article. There are a couple of very forceful Falun Gong hotheads stirring things up, and I feel they want to force a showdown; I don't want any more of a confrontation than there is now. A third opinion wouldn't go amiss. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I've drafted a proposal for a new clause, which you can see on a sub-page accessed from my user page. All comments very gratefully received. Jimi 66 ( talk) 20:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
And thanks for the feedback. I've now added the proposal to the Oversight talk page - do you recommend I publicise it in any way apart from simply placing it there? Jimi 66 ( talk) 22:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
many thanks Jimi 66 ( talk) 08:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
While editing various articles relating to Islamic subjects, I have picked up the notion that titles such as Imam, Qazi, Hazrat are not to be used (just like honorifics such as PBUH or R.A.). I cannot find any Wikipedia style/policy document which discusses this. ( WP:MOSISLAM discusses only honorifics, and not titles of this sort.)
Will appreciate it very much if you can point me in the right direction.
If there isn't any Wikipedia style document per se which addresses this, do you think it's fair to say that generally avoiding titles such as Imam, Qazi, Hazrat as part of names is the convention Wikipedia seems to use in practice, even if it isn't written down anywhere?
Thanks very much! -- Sarabseth ( talk) 12:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
JN, once again, I sincerely apologize for missing that text; it wasn't where I expected to find it, I didn't expect to find it grouped with South of the Border, and I just missed it. It's also very hard to keep up with the tandem reverting across so many articles of Off2riorob, Rd232 and the Brazilian IP, so I just missed it. Although the ANI thread was closed, and Durova knows it tics me off when threads are closed right after the main participant announces s/he won't be available for a bit, I went ahead and posted a link to my apology there, as it should be cleared up to the broader audience. Sorry again! Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
For trying to make two of our best editors work together, instead of against each other. GRuban ( talk) 04:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you. Let's hope it works out and Wikipedia ends up the winner. -- JN 466 11:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Auntieruth55 ( talk) 15:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Was CESNUR ever Deemed a Reliable source? i find a lot of talk about it but i am unsure? Secondly i seem to remember a rule like: since conference paper are peer reviewed before a conference they are a RS. I could be mistaken about this rule but if it is correct could you point me to it? If Cesnur was deemed a RS i would like to use text of a Conference paper for a source for a An article. thanx Weaponbb7 ( talk) 20:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
Thank you so much! Weaponbb7 ( talk) 15:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
Should we (or you or I) just go ahead and nom this for FA? Neither of us has a lot of time, and getting Potthoff's chapter may prove difficult. I think the article is in really good shape as is, so perhaps we could just go with it? Auntieruth55 ( talk) 22:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining
WikiProject Venezuela? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's Venezuela-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the
list of participants. Please see our
list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The Helping Hand Barnstar | ||
Thank you for helping me format my first article, rescuing it from deletion, and writing a genius hook for its DYK nomination. And for generally being a most excellent ♥ husband ♥. DracoEssentialis ( talk) 22:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |