Talk:Geis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Geis is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess. The project aims for no vandalism and no conflict.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

refs: http://www.isle-of-skye.org.uk/celtic-encyclopaedia/celt_g1b.htm,

1 Pronunciation
2 Original Research Claim
3 Page Move
4 Tynged

[edit] Pronunciation

Could anyone in the know add a remark about the pronunciation of the word? Qatharsis 11:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Added, but my IPA isn't great. If someone wants to check to make sure it's correct (should result in a word sounding like gesh, with a hard g) then I'd appreciate it. g026r 14:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you got it right. I just added { {IPA|} } to clean it up. Gitman00 15:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research Claim

Taken from what you linked to

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

   * It introduces a theory or method of solution;
   * It introduces original ideas;
   * It defines new terms;
   * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
   * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
   * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
   * It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

I'm guessing you're referring to...the second one? the fifth one?

You can find MANY "researchable" locations noting that Code Geass relates to geas. A simple google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=Code+geass+geas) finds many examples.

One easy example: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=6704&page=22

Also, this whole *page* has no sources. Maybe this whole *page* needs a "SOURCE REQUIRED" link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.248.63.92 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 June 2007. Also, all of that above was me Fattierob 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fattierob (talk • contribs) 19:46, 25 June 2007.

First of all, the content you are adding to the article constitutes speculation, rumors, is unverifiable (not being sourced by a single official, reliable source), and therefore cannot be included into an Wikipedia article per Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and numerous other policies. A Google search nor a user-added trivia section is not a verifiable nor reliable source and therefore cannot be used in articles. Please refrain from adding unverified or false content into articles. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 19:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

For a more detailed explanation, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Attribution, to understand why such content cannot be included into articles. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 19:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

my edit disappeared. please hold on a moment, I need to re-type it up Fattierob 20:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OBJECTION! The source I listed is from Anime News Network, which is a *reliable* source.

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors *are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

Somebody *had* to approve the user submited trivia, ergo, that information is on THAT person's credability. Whoever approved (moderator, admin, whatever) that information to appear on ANN website is the source of that information. Not to mention the website of http://www.geass.jp (more specifically: http://www.geass.jp/world_01.html and http://www.geass.jp/world_02.html)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fattierob (talk • contribs) 20:06, 25 June 2007.

First of all, the ANN trivia page you're trying to cite is an anonymous user-added section and therefore cannot be included into the article as this is simply not a reliable source. The author is therefore not trustworthy nor authoritative, therefore this cannot be simply added to the article; this is an extremely important part of a reliable sources— you will note that similar "trivia" sections from other websites are also not considered reliable sources, if you check any of the featured film and television articles on Wikipedia. Also, I've checked the official website myself, nowhere where it is stated about "geas", so I'm afraid these are all speculation and rumours, which can't be included per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please do not add such content into articles, which does not serve adding anything useful, I'm afraid. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user-added section? Who approved it? Not that Anonymous user. Thats the point i'm getting at it. Also, the website meantions Geisyu or was it Geasya?....I was using google translater. That sounds like good enough engrish to me to mean "geas". Or is that also an unreliable source of information, right from the gift horse?Fattierob 20:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The official website is actually referring to the in-show term geass (katakana: (ギアス giasu^?)), as used in Code Geass, which is different from the actual Celtic term geas (ゲッシュ (gesshu^?)), as used in this article (please see the Japanese wikipedia article for geas). The website, and neither does any official source, as I've researched myself, cites this, therefore I would simply like to advise you not to cite such false statements. Regarding the ANN trivia page, whether not "who approved" it does not concern Wikipedia, as only the reliability of the author of that particular source matters, which is an anonymous user of no authority; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Therefore, this cannot be included in the article, as it is merely speculation on the part of fans, and not supported by a single official source (as I have just verified myself).···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

allright. that clears it up. Thanks for your time. On a related note, whats stopping me from making a small blog or website that just says "CODE GEASS IS A REFERENCE TO GEAS"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fattierob (talk • contribs) 20:57, 25 June 2007.

Well, small blogs/websites shouldn't also be included, since they aren't official, notable nor authoritative, so they can't be used as references in any article, if that's what you're asking. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 21:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Move

IIRC, this was originally at Geasa, and the article was written as if Geasa were the singular. I'm pretty sure I'm the one who changed it to the singular, Geas. But the thing is, there's nothing in here about Scottish lore, and it seems silly to have it under the Scottish version of the name. So, I'm moving it to the OI and Mod. Ir form, Geis. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)