Talk:Peshotanu

Untitled

• Did you make this up, or are there references? george 06:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he made it up, but either his memory or his source failed him on a couple of salient issues. And,... either his memory or his source conflated Peshyotan with the Saoshyant. All fixed now though. -- Fullstop 08:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Peshotanu and the Avesta

Apart from Peshotanu, the person, there also appears to be a Zoroastrian religious term called "Peshotanu". The Vendidad labels the worst offenders as Peshotanu. Is it some kind of derogatory term? I would be interested to know the opinion of scholars.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 03:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Vendidad labels the worst offenders as Peshotanu" is too vague. People can't give you directions if you don't tell them where you are. You minimally need to state how you come to that conclusion (editor/edition/page if you are reading an analysis, else chapter:verse pointers and ms # if you are reading manuscript). -- Fullstop (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

The article currently has no referenced sources. The one book listed in Further reading may be the source of the text but unless it is integrated as an in-line reference the reader cannot tell that this was the intention of listing it there.—Ash (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. It so happens that the article has no sources, but the argument that "X may be the source of the text but unless it is integrated as an in-line reference the reader cannot tell that this was the intention of listing it there" is downright absurd.

Articles need editors, not process wonks. -- Fullstop (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You sound offended for some reason. I had assumed that the text in Further reading was there because someone had actually used it to help create the article. If it has not been used then I'm not sure why it was listed on the page. Calling my assumption ridiculous is rather confrontational, perhaps you'd rather I just go away and leave you to own the article?—Ash (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Articles typically begin like this: Someone comes along and creates an article based on some crap he/she found on the web. Then someone with a clue comes along and fixes the garbage. And if the garbage needs fixing asap, and that person is informed enough that he/she doesn't need to resort to the RS to fix the garbage (and doesn't have the time to do so), then the fixes get made without sources. Which is still better than the ostensibly "sourced" garbage.

2. The argument that a single source needs to be integrated using <ref> tags is ridiculous. If an article is based on a single source (as you assumed it was), then <ref>s are superfluous because everything in that article must be from that one source.

3. What I would rather have you do is behave like a constructive editor, i.e. create content (here or anywhere), rather than waste people's time with silly arguments about the "need" for ref tags. -- Fullstop (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you're not offended. I apologise for wasting people's time making silly arguments. I'll try and behave like a constructive editor though as I've been editing Wikipedia for less than 3 years I obviously still have a lot to learn. In order to make me a better editor, perhaps you would care to point me to the part of WP guidance that advises against integrating sources in this manner as I was going by WP:PROVEIT which must have mislead me by advising to use inline citations.—Ash (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, process wonk. But to play your game...

1. PROVEIT states: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
   • As you see, PROVEIT is not actually "advising to use inline citations". It also does not say anything like "X may be the source of the text but unless it is integrated as an in-line reference the reader cannot tell that this was the intention of listing it there"
   • If you are contesting something specific, then use the {fact} tag to identify what it is that you would would like referenced using an inline citation. Or, if you aren't a complete twerp, just remove whatever it is that you have a problem with, otherwise -- according to the silly "reader cannot tell" argument -- it could appear that all but one sentence in article is made up.
2. If you have a problem with the article as a whole, take it to AFD or prod it. Don't worry, I won't contest.

It would however seem that you don't actually have a problem with the article (or anything in it), but would rather just chit-chat about policies with no regard for what they were supposed to accomplish. -- Fullstop (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look back at my original text I stated "The article currently has no referenced sources." The end result of the discussion and reverts by yourself is that the article is tagged as unreferenced which you have no objection to. The simple tag is what I was after in order to encourage good sourcing. In the process of discussion you have called me or my edits ridiculous, time waster, non-constructive, and gaming. If I am accused of such things in such a hostile manner, it is quite normal to respond with an explanation. I am confident that I have not done anything wrong here and would hope that in future you could take on board some of the advice of WP:Assume good faith before aggressively attacking other editors.—Ash (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If the "simple tag is what [you] were after", then why...

a) did you not add the simple tag? Why, instead of a simple tag, did you add this and this?

b) Why did you then try to argue that an article with one source needs ref tags?

c) Why did you then try to argue that PROVEIT advised the use inline citations?

Not only was the addition of inapplicable fansite/one source/synthesis tags not a indication of a simple nosources tag, the supposition that those tags could "encourage[s] good sourcing" is far removed from reality too.

Besides, people who actually create content don't need your "encouragement". -- Fullstop (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)