Jump to content

Talk:The Saffron Swastika

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge

[edit]

this book, like most of those by Dr. Elst, does not meet wikipedia's standards of notability on books. Unless the person who started the article has some good points to make, I will merge the useful content from this page onto the main Koenraad Elst page and redirect. Hornplease 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden was on you, you did nothing for over three years, I'm deleting the tag. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:20649.jpg

[edit]

Image:20649.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPS

[edit]

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so" Please note the bolded part. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The part you bolded talks about "information" as in some fact. For example, an expert's statement "that Taj Mahal is made in white marble", a fact and information, should be sourced to non-SPS. A review and thereby a view of that expert is not a information of fact that needs non-SPS. For example, Shekhar Kapur can very well call some film "rubbish" in his blog/tweet and his "view", not information, can very be written in our article with sourcing from that SPS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You think a review is not information? How peculiar. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think a review by an expert of a said subject should have been published by someone else? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because if his views were noteworthy they would have been carried by an RS. The fact that they were not means his review carries no weight at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thats wrong. We have his article on wikipedia only because his views on the subject are noteworthy. Not having been published elsewhere is no reason for not be notable. Just like how we have red links allowed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have that assbackwards, just because he has an article does not mean his self published views matter at all. Like I said, if his views on the book actually were of note, then those views would have been mentioned in an RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again wrong! Then why do you think we have his article on wikipedia? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should not, he fails WP:PROF. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and get it deleted. Unless done so, he is notable and so are his views on the subject. Reinstating the statement as you have failed to prove how it is not suitable for inclusion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Saffron Swastika. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Saffron_Swastika&oldid=1173705865"