Talk:Wadi al-Nasara

Syria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 16 August 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wadi al-Nasara → Valley of Christians – Many sources prioritise this name for intelligibility reasons for English-speakers, and so ought Wikipedia. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose evidence? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Origin[edit]

Very frustrated by user @Chris O' Hare’s refusal to discuss on talk page, I asked them to explain to us why they think the source they are using (Tahawoulat) to support their claim is reliable enough, but they just reverted my edit saying “I won't debate you” and “look for a a 3rd opinion”

Just because a Magazine prints stuff doesn't mean it is automatically a credible source. User Chris has claimed that the Magazine which they are using as a Source “has been publishing academic articles for a decade” without providing evidence. I would love to see any evidence for the scholarly articles this Magazine has produced. According to WP:Reliability: “If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university”

I know a Magazine is different from a Journal, a journal is a scholarly publication which are intended for specialist readership of researchers, academics, students, and professionals. They publish in-depth articles and reviews on specific topics written by specialists and researchers in subject area

The magazine article User Chris is using wasn’t written by an academic historian, and the article doesn't cite its sources of information.

for me this magazine seems to be low quality, and the article user Chris is using as a source doesn’t document its source of information. I hope user Chris explains now why they think this magazine is a reliable source Whatsupkarren (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasnt me that edited the article and added that source. That source had been there for many years. I added new information to the article (notable people). However I do think that the source is credible. Please request a 3rd opinion.Chris O' Hare (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But you said in your edit summary that the magazine has been publishing academic articles for a decade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wadi_al-Nasara&diff=prev&oldid=1212054736&title=Wadi_al-Nasara&diffonly=1

Where's your proof for that? Whatsupkarren (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure if relevant or not but there was another third opinion request and edit dispute between these two editors a few days ago on a different page but about the same topic of origin. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jerrier_A._Haddad#origin. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

I can't find anything at WP:RSN that confirms that Tahawolat is a reliable source. That doesn't mean it's not, but since the source is being questioned it's fine to remove the content until the source is confirmed as reliable or other sources are found. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Nemov (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I think it's on user Chris to demonstrate why the source is reliable Whatsupkarren (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]