Talk:Tarbula

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 17:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Figureskatingfan (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 50 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]


Unreliable sources[edit]

I have tagged this article for having unreliable sourcing. For example:

  • Dunbar 1901, cited four times, is problematic per WP:OLDSOURCES, WP:PARTISAN and some of WP:SCHOLARSHIP; the author claims no scholarly authority for herself, as noted in the preface, and notes that she has essentially compiled primary sources and Catholic writers. In the case of Tarbula, this is Sozomen (also cited in the article) and a history from the priest John Mason Neale, who in turn also primarily cites Sozomen.
  • Sozomen, being a writer from around fifty years after Tarbula's reported death, is clearly a primary source, and a WP:PARTISAN one at that, being heavily prejudiced towards Christianity and against the Persians.
  • At least we have a recent source, Jensen 1996. None of her critical analysis on what Tarbula's story says about her society actually makes it into this article, though. Instead, we have uncritical description of the source that describes her: a certain Sozomen.
  • And as for this source, it doesn't say what their sources are, or who the author is, or anything that could help us call it reliable.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many if not most ancient sources can said to be biased and life of lesser known martyrs all carry with them an idealized image as well as a scarcity of sources. Sozomen is the only source we can draw from that is near -contemporary wich makes it the most reliable. Though the source can be approached with a more objective eye and be more clearly reflected in the text. Sfar13 (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sfar13, that's a good point. For the past four years and under the auspices of WikiProject Women in Religion, I've become committed to improving the quality of bios of obscure female Christian saints, in order to fill both the gender gap and an important topic gap. One of the things I've learned is this undertaking can be challenging, especially regarding finding sources. (Actually, that's a challenge with most of the articles under the project's auspices.) The solution is to do as Sfar13 suggests and reflect these concerns in the text. Easily done, and something I promise to take care of, at least with Sozomen. Pinging @AirshipJungleman29 to ensure that they see these responses. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]