Talk:Banking in Tunisia

Tunisia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tunisia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Tunisia. For more information, visit the project page.TunisiaWikipedia:WikiProject TunisiaTemplate:WikiProject TunisiaTunisia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poor citations

Regarding citations added 04-1012. The original article made extensive use of a similar, derivative work by the same author that was published in a Blog venue that did not meet WP:RS. These citations were foundational to some of the points made in the article and had to be replaced. New citations are from the original, academic work, which I found hosted on Social Sciences Research Network, ( http://www.ssrn.com/ ) a 20 year-old, board-reviewed institution that hosts “top quality research papers around the world.”, and which appears to meet every guideline of “reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”, as specified in WP:RS. Jdc wms (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, SSRN does no fact checking themselves, it is simply a clearinghouse for already published material. I'm sure you're aware of this. As such, this appears to be simply self-published material, unless you can point to the original point of publication. Kuru (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kuru Actully, I'm not an expert on SSRN, but I guess you must be? They seemed to me to provide exactly the type of serious venue we want to cite to expand and improve Wikipedia. I assume from your comment that you must have investigated this venue thoroughly, and that you therefore have independent knowledge of SSRN's policies and procedures that is not evident on their public website. Can you please share this, so we all can be better informed? Thanks, Jdc wms (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]