User talk:Anonimski/Archives/2014/February

Obraz

Re your series of moves for Obraz: i don't see what you accomplished with it, except that you broke a number of links pointing to the far-right organization. Obraz (disambiguation) does not disambiguate anything: there is only one article -- that of the far-right organization -- which can plausibly used as its target. From WP:DAB: Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. An English reader would hardly look for "honor" using search term "obraz". In any case, please use WP:RM for potentially controversial moves. No such user (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, but the technical realization was suboptimal. If you want an article about the anthropological concept, you should have written it first. Besides, two-item disambiguation pages are generally a bad thing: in that way, nobody arrives at the right place. WP:HATNOTE (e.g. {{about}}) would have solved the problem in a more elegant way. No such user (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Regarding the recent revert

I had a look at your edits at the WWII persecution article and it seems like you added what amounts to editorializing... we should either use the information from that source as reliable, or omit it completely. If this mistake can be verified in other, secondary sources, the EotH article should be removed as unreliable.

The general issue with unreliable sources should be self-evident if you browse the entire list: there's a lot of raw witness testimonies, the official post-war commission record (primary source from a government whose various sourcing irregularities are actually noted in the same article), plus the assortment of random websites and books of unclear credibility. You really can't claim warning about these issues has anything to do with Holocaust denial. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

And it's not being used as a badge of shame in this case. It's telling readers not that we have a "shameful" article, but one with a lot of unreliable sources, which is accurate and worthy of mention, because we should really fix that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)