![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I just reverted an edit that deleted a bunch of sources, such as a book by De Witte. Is there something wrong with that book, and with the other sources that were deleted? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems very questionable to use Wikileaks as a source. It's not a secondary source, obviously. Any thoughts? There has been discussion on this subject at Wikipedia before. For example, a January 2011 RFC concluded:
Leaked documents, classified by a national government, are generally the viewpoints of the entity that produced them; they are not subject to the balance and editorial checks that we expect of reliable secondary sources. That does not mean a prohibition on using them as sources, but the guidelines and restrictions on using primary sources apply.
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
(Undent) I agree, that we ought to remove the wikileaks footnotes, and either remove the material in the body of the article that cites to those wikileaks documents, or else inserts "cn" tags if the statements aren't inflammatory. The wikileaks footnotes apparently refer to cables from a US embassy; all of the urls point to the main wikileaks site, rather than pointing to the individual documents. Per the Mother Jones web site:
WikiLeaks' stance that all leaks are good leaks and its disregard for the established protocols for verifying them also alarms some journalists. The site suffers from "a distorted sense of transparency," according to Kelly McBride, the ethics group leader for the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. "They're giving you everything they've got, but when journalists go through process of granting someone confidentiality, when they do it well, they determine that source has good information and that the source is somehow deserving of confidentiality." Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, thinks WikiLeaks' approach gives fresh ammunition to those who seek to pressure journalists to cough up the names of their unnamed sources. She forbids her staff from using the site as a source.
So, I guess we should get started hacking up the Wikipedia article. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The section titled "Political career" covers up to 2004, and then has subsections for the subsequent periods. I think this structure is okay, and the subsections have been overhauled today with lots of acceptable new footnotes. But the main part up until 2004 still has to be done. I'll be editing that next. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much
Anythingyouwant for your valuable contribution. The standard of your updates is far above of mines as well as of those who refused to consider my concerns. I will be happy to seeing improving where it is needed the content of Etienne Tshisekedi biography.
Thanks from
EditorUd (
talk) 13:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
EditorUd
EditorUd (
talk)
13:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Following last updates from Anythingyouwant, I did implement 2 amends as follow: - Changed UPDS to UDPS; - Changed the date of the UDPS Congress from April to 10-14 December, as the latter was supported by Etienne Tshisekedi (see the Congress Report published on the UDPS website). EditorUd ( talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)EditorUd
(Undent) I added some info about the December 2010 congress, citing Africa Review. Africa Review seems like a reliable secondary source (it's run by the same company that runs The Nation newspaper in Kenya). Radio Okapi is a very good source too, but it's in French so an English-language source might be better here (my French is terrible!). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
(Undent) Very much appreciated and thank you. What do you think about this following rephrasing? As Radio Okapi is one of reliable sources as well which can be used on Wikipedia: At a UDPS meeting in April 2009, delegates unanimously affirmed that the party would participate in the 2011 election and asked that Tshisekedi be their presidential candidate. He officially announced his candidacy on December 14th, 2010 at the first congress [reference to Radio Okapi: http://radiookapi.net/actualite/2010/12/11/congres-de-l%E2%80%99udps-tshisekedi-appelle-a-l%E2%80%99unite-de-son-parti-et-de-l%E2%80%99opposition-pour-la-conquete-du-pouvoir/] of his party in Kinshasa held from 10th to 14th December 2010. EditorUd ( talk) 09:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)EditorUd
I don't know who has been editing this page but it has gone way off track. It is quoting things in Ludo de Witt's book which do not exist, it is using partisan sources from partisan media in the drc and has probably been tampered with by an opposition party supporter 21:55 gmt 29 December 2011 User:digitalfax —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC).
Tag added as no one can reasonably contest that this BLP is strongly pov-oriented. Collect ( talk) 23:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Note to self or other editors Philmv ( talk) 20:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I just reverted an edit that deleted a bunch of sources, such as a book by De Witte. Is there something wrong with that book, and with the other sources that were deleted? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems very questionable to use Wikileaks as a source. It's not a secondary source, obviously. Any thoughts? There has been discussion on this subject at Wikipedia before. For example, a January 2011 RFC concluded:
Leaked documents, classified by a national government, are generally the viewpoints of the entity that produced them; they are not subject to the balance and editorial checks that we expect of reliable secondary sources. That does not mean a prohibition on using them as sources, but the guidelines and restrictions on using primary sources apply.
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
(Undent) I agree, that we ought to remove the wikileaks footnotes, and either remove the material in the body of the article that cites to those wikileaks documents, or else inserts "cn" tags if the statements aren't inflammatory. The wikileaks footnotes apparently refer to cables from a US embassy; all of the urls point to the main wikileaks site, rather than pointing to the individual documents. Per the Mother Jones web site:
WikiLeaks' stance that all leaks are good leaks and its disregard for the established protocols for verifying them also alarms some journalists. The site suffers from "a distorted sense of transparency," according to Kelly McBride, the ethics group leader for the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. "They're giving you everything they've got, but when journalists go through process of granting someone confidentiality, when they do it well, they determine that source has good information and that the source is somehow deserving of confidentiality." Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, thinks WikiLeaks' approach gives fresh ammunition to those who seek to pressure journalists to cough up the names of their unnamed sources. She forbids her staff from using the site as a source.
So, I guess we should get started hacking up the Wikipedia article. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The section titled "Political career" covers up to 2004, and then has subsections for the subsequent periods. I think this structure is okay, and the subsections have been overhauled today with lots of acceptable new footnotes. But the main part up until 2004 still has to be done. I'll be editing that next. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much
Anythingyouwant for your valuable contribution. The standard of your updates is far above of mines as well as of those who refused to consider my concerns. I will be happy to seeing improving where it is needed the content of Etienne Tshisekedi biography.
Thanks from
EditorUd (
talk) 13:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
EditorUd
EditorUd (
talk)
13:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Following last updates from Anythingyouwant, I did implement 2 amends as follow: - Changed UPDS to UDPS; - Changed the date of the UDPS Congress from April to 10-14 December, as the latter was supported by Etienne Tshisekedi (see the Congress Report published on the UDPS website). EditorUd ( talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)EditorUd
(Undent) I added some info about the December 2010 congress, citing Africa Review. Africa Review seems like a reliable secondary source (it's run by the same company that runs The Nation newspaper in Kenya). Radio Okapi is a very good source too, but it's in French so an English-language source might be better here (my French is terrible!). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
(Undent) Very much appreciated and thank you. What do you think about this following rephrasing? As Radio Okapi is one of reliable sources as well which can be used on Wikipedia: At a UDPS meeting in April 2009, delegates unanimously affirmed that the party would participate in the 2011 election and asked that Tshisekedi be their presidential candidate. He officially announced his candidacy on December 14th, 2010 at the first congress [reference to Radio Okapi: http://radiookapi.net/actualite/2010/12/11/congres-de-l%E2%80%99udps-tshisekedi-appelle-a-l%E2%80%99unite-de-son-parti-et-de-l%E2%80%99opposition-pour-la-conquete-du-pouvoir/] of his party in Kinshasa held from 10th to 14th December 2010. EditorUd ( talk) 09:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)EditorUd
I don't know who has been editing this page but it has gone way off track. It is quoting things in Ludo de Witt's book which do not exist, it is using partisan sources from partisan media in the drc and has probably been tampered with by an opposition party supporter 21:55 gmt 29 December 2011 User:digitalfax —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC).
Tag added as no one can reasonably contest that this BLP is strongly pov-oriented. Collect ( talk) 23:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Note to self or other editors Philmv ( talk) 20:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)