Talk:Rhodogune of Parthia: Difference between revisions
Anachronist (talk | contribs) →Adding alternate points of view: why you're being reverted |
|||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
:Please show where the cited source says this; "However, it is possible that this story is legendary because the earliest source for this story is Polyaenus who wrote centuries after the event took place and he does not cite contemporary sources for this event." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhodogune_of_Parthia&diff=prev&oldid=1182496009] It's more or less the same as diff where you added your own personal opinion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhodogune_of_Parthia&diff=prev&oldid=1182471918] [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 19:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC) |
:Please show where the cited source says this; "However, it is possible that this story is legendary because the earliest source for this story is Polyaenus who wrote centuries after the event took place and he does not cite contemporary sources for this event." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhodogune_of_Parthia&diff=prev&oldid=1182496009] It's more or less the same as diff where you added your own personal opinion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhodogune_of_Parthia&diff=prev&oldid=1182471918] [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 19:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
::{{reply|Div426}} You seem to be resistant to reviewing the rules to which the community has agreed to. I recommend you read them: |
|||
::* [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] - these are required for any statement you make in an article, especially if you are challenged. |
|||
::* [[Wikipedia:No original research]] - you are prohibited from adding your own opinions, personal commentary, or personal interpretations of sources. The prohibition also extends to [[WP:SYNTHESIS|synthesizing a conclusion from multiple sources]] that isn't stated in any of those sources. |
|||
::* [[Wikipedia:Undue weight]] - even if you find a reliable source that provides an alternative point of view, it may not be appropriate to include, especially if it's a fringe view or something published by someone not known for having knowledge in the field. A Nobel prizewinner may be a reliable source for the discipline in which the prize was won, but that doesn't mean we would publish that person's views about politics in Africa, for example. |
|||
::Reading those should make it clear to you why you are being reverted. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 19:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:25, 29 October 2023
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Uninteligoble
I started to wikify this but who was related to whom (and how) escaped me. Avalon 12:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikification
I have wikified the article as best i can, but lack of referenced information hampered things somewhat. The article appears to be a makeshift conglomerate assembled by consecutive authors of various levels of academic rigor.
I am removing the "Wikify" tag, as it is now in a layout as close to wikipedia standards as the level of information (or lack thereof) can allow.
I have been unable to find a tag asking for the addition of further information to the article. If one such tag is known by somebody reading this, could you kindly attach it?
Merci
Exemplar sententia 12:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've added the 'expand' tag, which is probably the most appropriate that I know of. I agree with Avalon in that I found this article difficult to understand; I'm pleased with the work that has been done to it. Good job! *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 12:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Adding alternate points of view
I would like to have my edit of Rhodogune kept. Right now, it shows the story of Rhodogune going off to fight rebels as factual without a countering point of view. Currently our only certified source is Polyaenus who wrote his work hundreds of years after the event and has very few details. Other scholarship has shown that questions have been raised about some of these female stratagems. I don’t think it’s too much to ask that we put the question forward on how true this story (and some of his others) are. Dlv426 (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Please show where the cited source says this; "However, it is possible that this story is legendary because the earliest source for this story is Polyaenus who wrote centuries after the event took place and he does not cite contemporary sources for this event." [1] It's more or less the same as diff where you added your own personal opinion [2] HistoryofIran (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Div426: You seem to be resistant to reviewing the rules to which the community has agreed to. I recommend you read them:
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources - these are required for any statement you make in an article, especially if you are challenged.
- Wikipedia:No original research - you are prohibited from adding your own opinions, personal commentary, or personal interpretations of sources. The prohibition also extends to synthesizing a conclusion from multiple sources that isn't stated in any of those sources.
- Wikipedia:Undue weight - even if you find a reliable source that provides an alternative point of view, it may not be appropriate to include, especially if it's a fringe view or something published by someone not known for having knowledge in the field. A Nobel prizewinner may be a reliable source for the discipline in which the prize was won, but that doesn't mean we would publish that person's views about politics in Africa, for example.
- Reading those should make it clear to you why you are being reverted. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Div426: You seem to be resistant to reviewing the rules to which the community has agreed to. I recommend you read them:
- Stub-Class biography articles
- Stub-Class biography (military) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- Stub-Class biography (royalty) articles
- Low-importance biography (royalty) articles
- Royalty work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class biography (military) articles
- Start-Class Classical warfare articles
- Classical warfare task force articles
- Stub-Class Women's History articles
- Low-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- Stub-Class Iran articles
- Low-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles
- Start-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
- Low-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
- All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages