Talk:Countervalue: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 07:55, 5 November 2010

Military history: Technology Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Theory:

Absolutely incomprehensible...

Bombing

It seems there may be some relation to the distinction between Terror bombing/Strategic bombing and Tactical bombing --Rumping (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"World War II" section source fails to meet the terms of Wikipedia:Verifiability

The source used to label the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "countervalue" is an academic paper without editorial oversight, and as such fails to meet the criteria for "Reliable sources" under the Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. As per Wikipedia:Be_Bold, I am reverting Pburka's edit of 16:27, 19 September 2010 to Pburka's edit of 16:19, 19 September 2010, and substituting a source from Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Choice_of_targets. 76.102.27.151 (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you've provided is a primary source, making this section perilously close to WP:Original research. I'm tempted to remove the entire section, as the reference your removed was one of the only sources I could find which used the terms countervalue or counterforce in relation to the bombing of Japan. Pburka (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you went ahead and deleted the section, but I don't understand exactly what you meant by "perilously close to WP:Original research." Did you mean that you felt the section tried to extrapolate too much from just the primary source? I would disagree on that point -- though we could always try a rewrite -- but I'm just as happy to leave it out. And I appreciate how hard it is to find sources that use "counterforce" or "countervalue" in relation to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but unfortunately that academic paper just doesn't meet Wikipedia sourcing standards. 76.102.27.151 (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 The source used to label the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "countervalue" is an academic paper without editorial oversight, and as such fails to meet the criteria for "Reliable sources" under the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:Notability]] guidelines.  As per [[Wikipedia:Be_Bold]], I am reverting Pburka's edit of 16:27, 19 September 2010 to Pburka's edit of 16:19, 19 September 2010, and substituting a source from [[Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Choice_of_targets]].  [[Special:Contributions/76.102.27.151|76.102.27.151]] ([[User talk:76.102.27.151|talk]]) 08:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 :The reference you've provided is a primary source, making this section perilously close to [[WP:Original research]]. I'm tempted to remove the entire section, as the reference your removed was one of the only sources I could find which used the terms countervalue or counterforce in relation to the bombing of Japan. [[User:Pburka|Pburka]] ([[User talk:Pburka|talk]]) 15:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
+::I see you went ahead and deleted the section, but I don't understand exactly what you meant by "perilously close to WP:Original research."  Did you mean that you felt the section tried to extrapolate too much from just the primary source?  I would disagree on that point -- though we could always try a rewrite -- but I'm just as happy to leave it out.  And I appreciate how hard it is to find sources that use "counterforce" or "countervalue" in relation to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but unfortunately that academic paper just doesn't meet Wikipedia sourcing standards.  [[Special:Contributions/76.102.27.151|76.102.27.151]] ([[User talk:76.102.27.151|talk]]) 07:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)