Talk:Ewiger Landfriede

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Germany (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject European history (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Removed unsourced editorializingEdit

Not sure why this is being added back with no citation support. If citations exist, please do provide them. aprock (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The text you have repeatedly removed, with no citation support supporting your view either, reads:
"In theory, at least, the use of violence to resolve disputes was replaced by settlements in the courts of the empire and its territories, even if the establishment of this principle took several further generations. In a modern sense, the Ewiger Landfriede formally gave the monopoly on violence to the state or the public sector.[citation needed]"
This was translated from German Wikipedia and "citation needed" was added. Why is that not acceptable? It makes a key point that does not seem unreasonable, unlikely or contentious, so it's entirely reasonable as it stands above. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:CIRCULAR wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:RS. The content in question looks like editorial remarks from a wikipedia editor, and not something that would ever be found in a reliable source. I'll be removing the tagged content in due course if no citation for it can be found. aprock (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion, but as the creator of several thousand articles over several years, I am familiar with Wiki policy in this area. Neither WP:CIRCULAR nor WP:RS are directly relevant because no source - reliable or unreliable - is actually cited and the guidance about not using other Wiki articles surely refers to English Wikipedia not translations from other Wikis. The sentences may be an editor's remark, but there is no way of proving that, so tagging it is reasonable, but IMHO removing it is not. If you don't agree, let's get a third opinion rather than undoing each other's edits which is rather unconstructive. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
You're free to seek out a third opinion if you like. aprock (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Removed. aprock (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Removed again per WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:BRD. aprock (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)