Talk:Bibliography of books critical of Islam: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::The idea was to separate single-author opinion pieces from more thorough articles that have been worked on by a redaction. I thought about it in the same way as the [[WP:RS]] guidelines distinguish between reports and opinion pieces. However, I can see how this could make opinion pieces by experts seem less important than reports by not-so-knowledgeable journalists, so I guess it's not really that straightforward. If you want to merge, it's okay with me until we come up with a better solution. [[User:Benjamil|<font face="Impact" color="#990000">benjamil</font>]] [[User talk:Benjamil|<sup><small>talk</small></sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Benjamil|<sub><small>edits</small></sub>]] 23:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
::The idea was to separate single-author opinion pieces from more thorough articles that have been worked on by a redaction. I thought about it in the same way as the [[WP:RS]] guidelines distinguish between reports and opinion pieces. However, I can see how this could make opinion pieces by experts seem less important than reports by not-so-knowledgeable journalists, so I guess it's not really that straightforward. If you want to merge, it's okay with me until we come up with a better solution. [[User:Benjamil|<font face="Impact" color="#990000">benjamil</font>]] [[User talk:Benjamil|<sup><small>talk</small></sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Benjamil|<sub><small>edits</small></sub>]] 23:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Also, when I think about it, some magazines that aren't scientific journals, hold a far higher standard than most newspapers and other magazines, for instance Foreign Policy, The Economist, Der Spiegel etc. Maybe it's better to have this discussion in relation to some concrete examples. I'll think about it and return later. [[User:Benjamil|<font face="Impact" color="#990000">benjamil</font>]] [[User talk:Benjamil|<sup><small>talk</small></sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Benjamil|<sub><small>edits</small></sub>]] 23:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
::Also, when I think about it, some magazines that aren't scientific journals, hold a far higher standard than most newspapers and other magazines, for instance Foreign Policy, The Economist, Der Spiegel etc. Maybe it's better to have this discussion in relation to some concrete examples. I'll think about it and return later. [[User:Benjamil|<font face="Impact" color="#990000">benjamil</font>]] [[User talk:Benjamil|<sup><small>talk</small></sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Benjamil|<sub><small>edits</small></sub>]] 23:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::Thank you. [[User:Visite fortuitement prolongée|Visite fortuitement prolongée]] ([[User talk:Visite fortuitement prolongée|talk]]) 20:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== 2012-07 books == |
== 2012-07 books == |
Revision as of 20:45, 20 July 2012
Categorisation
There is probably going to be a bit of trouble with the categorisation, possibly when it comes to defining the limits between academic books and other books, and very likely when it comes to the border between magazine articles and commentaries. Any ideas regarding a more fool-proof categorisation would be highly appreciated. benjamil talk/edits 12:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, I do not see the difference between Newspaper and magazine articles and Commentaries and columns sections. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- The idea was to separate single-author opinion pieces from more thorough articles that have been worked on by a redaction. I thought about it in the same way as the WP:RS guidelines distinguish between reports and opinion pieces. However, I can see how this could make opinion pieces by experts seem less important than reports by not-so-knowledgeable journalists, so I guess it's not really that straightforward. If you want to merge, it's okay with me until we come up with a better solution. benjamil talk/edits 23:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also, when I think about it, some magazines that aren't scientific journals, hold a far higher standard than most newspapers and other magazines, for instance Foreign Policy, The Economist, Der Spiegel etc. Maybe it's better to have this discussion in relation to some concrete examples. I'll think about it and return later. benjamil talk/edits 23:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
2012-07 books
I suggest to copy the books list here in List of Eurabia literature#Books. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Good idea. benjamil talk/edits 21:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- What about the books list here? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, why not? benjamil talk/edits 23:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
2012-07 Commentaries and columns
In the Commentaries and columns section, only 1 of the 4 articles by Simon Kuper are listed. Is this volontary? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's not intentional. I just didn't have the time to copy all of the references over from the Eurabia article. In my opinion, there's no need to restrict the size of the list yet, so feel free to copy them over. benjamil talk/edits 21:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)