Talk:Bombardment of Algiers (1683)

June 2023
the source that I removed is not only unreliable. The fact that it's used in other parts of the article should not be used as justification to keep it, especially when whatever is attributed to it is contradicted by reliable sources. M.Bitton (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * M.Bitton How do you define what's reliable or not . I'm sure the one who made the article in the 1st place must have known it better. What makes your sources reliable. The point is the article is taken from the source you just removed Qaayush529 (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's very simple: please read WP:RS. Who created the article and what has been added since then don't change the fact that the source in question is unreliable and contradicted by reliable sources. M.Bitton (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @M.Bitton Again why do you think it's not RS . Its not like it's a orginal research.
 * And if it really is the case, then we will have to rewrite the whole article itself. All of it is taken from there and we have no other describing the whole scenario Qaayush529 (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you read the WP:RS? If so, please tell me what makes you think that it's reliable (publisher, author, etc). I have no issue with rewriting the article and basing all of on it on proper reliable sources, though, that's something that should be done in small steps. M.Bitton (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * please refrain from edit warring, especially when a discussion is ongoing. Ignoring the question as you did and reinstating what you think should be there is not how Wikipedia works. M.Bitton (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Going back to the questions: who is the author and what are his credentials? what makes you think that "http://www.vallee-du-ciron.com" is a reliable publisher? M.Bitton (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)