Moisten your lungs with wine, for the dog-star is rising. The season is harsh, and the heat makes all things thirsty. Among the foliages sweetly the cicada plays its voice . . .
Humecte tes poumons de vin, car Sirius enflammée s'est élevée dans les airs. L'univers assoiffé par la dure et brûlante saison... J'entends sous la feuillée la cigale harmonieuse et son cri . . .
WP:SOURCE: If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science. Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications.
WP:NEWSORG: Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. && Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
WP:AGE MATTERS: Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed.
WP:EXTRAORDINARY: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. && Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources.
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.
WP:BIASED: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. && Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.
WP:RS/AC: A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.
WP:USEBYOTHERS: How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it.
WP:SOURCEACCESS: Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf.
WP:NONENG: Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance.
WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
–– BLP ––
WP:BLPBALANCE: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all.
WP:BLPREMOVE: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: (2) is unsourced or poorly sourced; (2) is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research); (3) relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see #Using the subject as a self-published source); or (4) relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards.
WP:PUBLICFIGURE: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported.
For your excellent contributions to Indo-European topics and ancient cultures. – Βατο (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your truly relentless contribution to coverage of ancient ethnography. Calthinus (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your objectivity and focus. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
Wikipedia editor
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
