I see that this edit of mine made some unintended changes, possibly because of an edit conflict which I failed to recognize. I was only intending to make the changes impacting (Deady 2005). I also see that you have made some subsequent edits. I don't want to bump heads with you in your ongoing edits of that article, so I'll just alert you to a possible problem by this talk page message.
Somewhat related -- you might take a look at Template talk:Sfn#Enhancement request: new paramer: name.
- Thanks for the message, kaibigan!
- With respect to Template talk:Sfn#Enhancement request: new paramer: name: I am still just a newbie here at Wikipedia, and this is well beyond the scope of my current understanding of wiki markup. Therefore, I do not have enough information to either support or oppose your proposal at this time.
- With respect to the Philippine–American War article: edit conflicts are inevitable when several people are simultaneously working in earnest on the same article. I will try to turn my attention to other articles if I see that you are editing this one. I would however like to ask your opinion about the following issues:
1. There are quite a few unreliable sources used as citations in this article. For example, these self-published sources:
- Brunberg, Jon (2013). "Philippine insurrection". The Polynational War Memorial. (self-published).
- Dumindin, Arnaldo (2006). "Philippine–American War, 1899–1902". filipinoamericanwar.com (self-published).
- Constantino, Renato (1975). The Philippines, a past revisited (PDF). Socialist Stories (self-published). ISBN 971-8958-00-2.
2. Too many sources, most of which are used only once or twice. I think we should try to identify which sources are of the highest quality and keep those, while discarding those that are of lower quality. The sources which are high quality but redundant, could relegated to the ==Further reading== section, in case they might be needed for later. ns.
1. I'm not very knowledgeable on reliability of individual sources. As ought to be clear from my user page, I'm not an academic.
- Philippine insurrection should be expunged; internally, it says: "Source: Wikipedia".
- I don't know anystthing about Arnaldo Dumindin. His stuff does seem to be selfpub. I don't recall ever seeing anything in his cited articles which contradicted what I think is mainstream history.
- Renato Constantino is an academic and a popularly published historian whose views as seen in his witinngs are (from memory) sometimes controversial and sometimes even at odds with other well regarded giatorians.
2. Agree. As articles develop, editors will add bits and supporting cites from what is handy to hand for them, though the bits added might also be supported by other sources cited elsewhere in the article. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
this: " the condition had not yet been described or given the name "PTSD", but it existed nevertheless" is pretty much the definition of OR when dealing with a primary source. It is your interepretation that what is described there, is PTSD. You need a secondary source that says that the 1899 article is discussing PTSD. Please don't add, and especially please don't try to edit war, original research into WP. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)