Revision as of 17:53, 4 June 2008 edit 207.193.87.114 (talk) →Objectivity ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:54, 4 June 2008 edit undo 207.193.87.114 (talk) →Objectivity Next edit →
Line 29: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality reliable sources." [[User:Dougweller\|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller\|talk]]) 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :: Your description of reliable articles matches the treatment that the monograph has had with a great ~~reputatio~~reputation for accuracy. There is not a valid reason to say that the source that I have cited is unreliable. Apparently there have been peer-reviewed scholarly articles about the stones that are all referenced in the Blind Men source. The group is the readers of wikipedia. This souce presents a Neutral Point of View. Once again, Read [[WP:NPOV]] [[Special:Contributions/207.193.87.114\|207.193.87.114]] ([[User talk:207.193.87.114\|talk]]) 17:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC) ==Citations==

Talk:Davenport Tablets: Difference between revisions