 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Removal of material
editThe material from Ingemar Nordgren, a Swedish scholar, has been removed, although material from Otto Höfler, an older and somewhat contentious Austrian scholar, was left. What is the reasoning behind this? An edit summary says the reference is unclear; how so? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It was I who edited and I reason like this. Nordgren only references Höfler and Höfler is already used as reference. Nevernik (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm reverting you, then. Nordgren is useful since his book is in English (albeit not very good English) and since he examines Höfler's points and differs with them on a reasonable basis. Wikipedia doesn't require that the references it cites in turn be studded with references - it merely asks that they be reliable, and in this Nordgren is as credible as Höfler (and indeed provides information on Höfler). If you can find any additional scholarly views to add, please do. That would be the best way to improve the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- As you said, references should be reliable and after reading Nordgren I believe he is not. Therefore I think Höfler must be a better reference, even though I have not read him myself. Beyond Nordgren writing in english, does he really say anything that is not found in Höfler and needs a reference? More references doesnt automatically make an article better. Nevernik (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- He explains Höfler and disagrees with him in a reasoned fashion on some points, so yes, his point of view is distinct. He has a PhD and the book (derived from his dissertation) was published by presses with reasonable standards in both Swedish and English; WorldCat also shows him editing symposium publications. He doesn't merit an article of his own, but he meets the standard to be cited as an academic authority. As I say, the best way to improve the article is to add any additional scholarly points of view you may know of. (It would be sufficient if he merely restated Höfler, in fact, since it is preferable to have at least one reference on a point that is in English.) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- If he meets your standard fine for you. I still think that referencing to him not improves the article but have it your way. You have obviously made up your mind. Nevernik (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're setting the standard too high, and I don't share your feeling that it's better to avoid referring to two sources when their content overlaps; it might be a different matter if there were lots of sources available, but that's not the case here. However, since I note that removing references to Nordgren here and in a runestone article is what you have been doing since you started this account, you clearly don't think he's up to standard. Therefore I suggest you ask about him at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't set standard very high. Wikipedia should be by and for everyone. I still think these references to Nordgren are misleading. I was thinking about trying to improve that article and started with reading Nordgren again. But now here we are and here it ends. For now I find better things to do. Nevernik (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're setting the standard too high, and I don't share your feeling that it's better to avoid referring to two sources when their content overlaps; it might be a different matter if there were lots of sources available, but that's not the case here. However, since I note that removing references to Nordgren here and in a runestone article is what you have been doing since you started this account, you clearly don't think he's up to standard. Therefore I suggest you ask about him at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- If he meets your standard fine for you. I still think that referencing to him not improves the article but have it your way. You have obviously made up your mind. Nevernik (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- He explains Höfler and disagrees with him in a reasoned fashion on some points, so yes, his point of view is distinct. He has a PhD and the book (derived from his dissertation) was published by presses with reasonable standards in both Swedish and English; WorldCat also shows him editing symposium publications. He doesn't merit an article of his own, but he meets the standard to be cited as an academic authority. As I say, the best way to improve the article is to add any additional scholarly points of view you may know of. (It would be sufficient if he merely restated Höfler, in fact, since it is preferable to have at least one reference on a point that is in English.) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)