User talk:Crum375

Picture of the day

Peanut

Photograph credit: Ivar Leidus

• Archive
• More featured pictures

Holocaust Article

has been vandalized, I cant revert or fix--Woogie10w (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC) It appears somebody hacked into Wikipedia?--Woogie10w (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I am having no more problems, but it seems scary to me that a vandal could use this template to disable the article.--Woogie10w (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Gol 1907

Hey there, good to hear from you. I'll have a look at the article and see what I can do. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, just a few comments to get you started :) I apologize for the delay, but I've been dealing with some RL issues and my involvement here has been pretty limited.

• Most of the citations are poorly formatted. Many are missing essential information such as author, date, access date, and publisher, and some (such as refs 3 and 4) are completely "bare". In the more comprehensive ones, there are some inconsistencies in author presentation (Lastname, Firstname vs. Firstname Lastname) and date formatting (YYYY-MM-DD vs. Month Day, Year) and date linking.
• The "Investigation" section is very jargon-heavy. What does "squawk ident" mean, and how does that ATC exchange "confirm" the Legacy's altitude clearance? Perhaps a link or footnote would be useful.
• Speaking of notes, it would be better to separate footnotes (such as note 13) from references. See Richard Hawes for an example of how to mix {{ref}} and Cite.php.
• The images are all right-aligned and are concentrated very heavily at the beginning of the article. Can't we move any images to the bottom sections?
• In the "Search and recovery operation" section: "The recovery teams spent nearly seven weeks, working intensively in an extremely harsh jungle environment, painstakingly searching for and identifying the victims' remains." May come across as peacocky—way too many adjectives and not really descriptive.

Addressing these would be a good start. Would you like me to place any further comments at the article Talk page? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I see that as one of the principal contributors, you have not been notified of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Svidersky (4th nomination). Ty 10:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And to you too. Ty 17:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Afd of Mucoid plaque

Mucoid plaque is up for AFD... again.

The latest discussion is here. As a previous participant in a AFD discussion for this article, you are encouraged to contribute to ongoing consensus of whether or not this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Lucy Dawidowicz Table in Holocaust article

The question marks in the Denmark and Finland rows are misleading. In her table she uses dashes (--)and the text makes it clear that virtually no Jews were annihilated. I don't know how to make such corrections. Maybe you do or know somebody who can.--Joel Mc (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Telescope

I noticed after you protected this page another editor put on a higher level of protection, left a message about having more comments later, and then left the building[1]. I don't think these edit locks are going to do any good since IMHO we are dealing with the other side of WP:PREFER, namely "persistent edit warring by particular users". More at the bottom of this defunct talk page[2]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ty for your reply. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:The War Against the JewsTable.png

A tag has been placed on File:The War Against the JewsTable.png, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

A screenshot of a wiki table, unused, the table should be used instead. Consensus on talk is that this file is useless.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:File:The War Against the JewsTable.png|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Gol 1907 Press Release website

I tried using web.archive.org to display an archive of Gol's press releases for the 1907 disaster

This archived home page gives a link to a press release page: http://web.archive.org/web/20061004053934/http://voegol.com.br/ But the link doesn't seem to work - My browser offers a download of a file. Open the file in IE and it is a "404" WhisperToMe (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's a shame because that link would have made for a great external link - For other incidents I have found archives of the press releases. Hopefully web.archive.org will preserve the Air France 447 press releases, which were done in three languages. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • To try to ensure the archive tools pick up the press releases for AF and Turkish, I have them on my talk page so the archive bots will pick them up WhisperToMe (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Gol1907-relative.jpg moved to commons

Hi! I moved File:Gol1907-relative.jpg to the Commons as it is Creative Commons WhisperToMe (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Gol 1907 FAC

Hey there, just dropping by to let you know I haven't forgotten :) I'll leave some comments at the Talk page tomorrow. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good so far, I've just done some minor copy editing. If anything needs serious reworking, I'll let you know. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned with heavy reliance on Portuguese-language sources; although that's not an issue for me (:), it will probably be brought up at FAC. You should be prepared to justify their inclusion per WP:RSUE. Also, don't forget to italicize newspaper and magazine titles, add access dates for all online sources, and place title translations in brackets, not parentheses. There may be a little overlinking going on as well. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of LANSA Flight 502

I have done a GA Reassessment of LANSA Flight 502 as part of the GA Sweeps project. The article is very close to meeting all the GA Criteria. There is one unreferenced section and some formatting issues along with two dead links that need to be repaired. My review is here. I am notifying you, as the primary editor, of this review and that I have put the article on hold for one week. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

AF 447

Your edit raises an interesting issue. What time zone should be used for mid-flight oceanic crashes? In most regards the Chicago convention would use the flag state for investigating crashes in international waters. Local time is nearly irrelevant. Paris is on GMT. But in this instance Brazil is closer, so many sources will use their time zones.LeadSongDog come howl 17:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No objection in this case, and I suppose mid-ocean crashes are fortunately so rare as to not need a guideline.LeadSongDog come howl 19:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cite book

Hi. I see you've "added translated title support" on this template. What does this do? Is it just where one can put the English version of the title if the cited book is in a foreign language? Is it dependent on language= having a value? If you give me some idea I'll add it to the template's documentation page. Regards. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 14:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Its behaviour is weird. I was playing around in my sandbox and tried this:
*{{cite book|first1=Major-General I.S.O.| last1=Playfair| authorlink1=Ian Stanley Ord Playfair| last2=with Stitt| first2=Commander G.M.S| last3=Molony| first3=Brigadier C.J.C.| last4=Toomer| first4=Air Vice-Marshall S.E.|editor-last=Butler| url=http://www.speedtest.net/| editor-first=J.R.M| editor-link=James Ramsay Montagu Butler | series=History of the Second World War, United Kingdom Military Series| title=Mediterranean and Middle East Volume I: The Early Successes Against Italy (to May 1941)| trans_title=Translated Title| language=Another Language| publisher=Naval & Military Press |location=Uckfield, UK|year=2004| origyear=1st. pub. [[HMSO]]:1954| isbn=1-845740-65-3| lastauthoramp=y}}
to yield

• Playfair, Major-General I.S.O.; with Stitt, Commander G.M.S; Molony, Brigadier C.J.C.; Toomer, Air Vice-Marshall S.E. (2004) [1st. pub. HMSO:1954]. Butler, J.R.M (ed.). Mediterranean and Middle East Volume I: The Early Successes Against Italy (to May 1941). History of the Second World War, United Kingdom Military Series (in Another Language). Uckfield, UK: Naval & Military Press. ISBN 1-845740-65-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

In this case not only does it put the translated title first in its own double quotes (in contrast to say {{cite web}}) but it inserts the editor between the two!

Now look what happens when you add a chapter:
*{{cite book|first1=Major-General I.S.O.| last1=Playfair| authorlink1=Ian Stanley Ord Playfair| last2=with Stitt| first2=Commander G.M.S| last3=Molony| first3=Brigadier C.J.C.| last4=Toomer| first4=Air Vice-Marshall S.E.|editor-last=Butler| url=http://www.speedtest.net/| editor-first=J.R.M| editor-link=James Ramsay Montagu Butler | series=History of the Second World War, United Kingdom Military Series| title=Mediterranean and Middle East Volume I: The Early Successes Against Italy (to May 1941)| trans_title=Translated Title| language=Another Language| publisher=Naval & Military Press |location=Uckfield, UK|year=2004| chapter=Chapter 10| trans_chapter = Translated chapter| chapterurl= http://www.google.co.uk/| origyear=1st. pub. [[HMSO]]:1954| isbn=1-845740-65-3| lastauthoramp=y}}

• Playfair, Major-General I.S.O.; with Stitt, Commander G.M.S; Molony, Brigadier C.J.C.; Toomer, Air Vice-Marshall S.E. (2004) [1st. pub. HMSO:1954]. "Chapter 10". In Butler, J.R.M (ed.). Mediterranean and Middle East Volume I: The Early Successes Against Italy (to May 1941). History of the Second World War, United Kingdom Military Series (in Another Language). Uckfield, UK: Naval & Military Press. ISBN 1-845740-65-3. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  

The translated title behaves perfectly as a translated Chapter title and links to the chapterurl = nicely. Presumably the problem is that chapter= is unique to {{Cite book}} and for some reason trans_title= is associated with chapter= rather than title=. Somehow this should be changed but I'm afraid I have no coding skills so can't help. Presumably there should be a trans_chap= parameter as well, behaving in the same way but linked to chapter=. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Television and citations

You said: "I don't think "I saw/heard it on TV/Radio" qualifies as reliable sourcing; we need some form of written verifiable published documentation" - Under some circumstances I would agree (i.e. if the citation has few details that can allow a person to locate the specific footage)

But my citation cited the episode name and the name of the program. That is enough information for one to locate the episode. A specific video should be as good of a source as a written document. I must also add that I have copies of these episodes on my computer, so I can watch them to verify certain details. Also written transcripts of some of these programs exist. BTW many Wikipedia articles cite the Mayday episodes. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That other WP articles rely on TV (or hearsay in general) is well known, but our goal is to follow the sourcing policies. You say that written transcripts of some of the programs exist. Do you have a copy of the one for this accident? Crum375 (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For this particular one I have not found a transcript online. There would have to be a transcript somewhere, but I'm not sure how to find hard copies of transcripts. Having said that, I don't see how citing a television documentary would be equivalent to citing hearsay. Hearsay, according to Merriam-Webster would be "1 : rumor - 2 : hearsay evidence" - Citing a television documentary is not equivalent to putting down "Blah blah blah" because one heard it from Uncle joe. The television documentary is a specific document, and one can easily procure the document through DVR, a DVD, or the internet. It is not equivalent to a rumor being spread across the water cooler. Also these documentaries include oral speeches from accident investigators, people on board these flights, government officials, friends and relatives of deceased victims, and speakers related to other fields. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is "verifiability". We need to base our articles on published information, which is relative easy to verify. When it comes to TV or radio shows, unless there are published transcripts, it becomes very hard, if not impossible, to do that for an average reader. It is also very hard to evaluate the reliability of such information, even if we assume that some words were said to that effect. Who said the words? Under what circumstances? What was the context? Was it one witness? Was it a researcher? What was the raw data they relied on? What vetting process did they use to verify the information? In a TV or radio show, there can be a mix of information of varying reliability. If we don't have written material, we have no way of assessing the quality of the information which a Wikipedian tells us he/she heard or saw. This is why relying on written published material is best. BTW, I have no special problem with this specific information tidbit; it is the principle which bothers me, when I think a reader would read the article, see how we are careful to use reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS, then we effectively say: I saw it on TV! Trust me! Crum375 (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are very good points, so what I think people need to do is ensure they present the information in the documentary properly and in context. For instance when watching a documentary one should be careful to distinguish analysis and perspective stated by the documentary narrator and words stated by a person interviewed by the documentary creators; the qualifications and position of the interviewee should be noted (i.e. what is his/her line of work? Is he/she an investigator? Which agency? Is he/she a lawyer? for whom? A person at the event? An expert in what field, etc?) - As for generally people citing TV, sometimes I have seen people post citations of local news station footage, but it's unlikely to be widely available, so I don't think those particular citations are good. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think even you trust a Wikipedian to do that careful observation you describe (I am not sure if I trust myself for that, while watching a TV show), there is still the issue of the reader, who now needs to trust some unknown Wikipedian describing what he/she thinks they heard or saw. The whole foundation of WP is verifiability, which means we write statement X, and add a reference. With that reference, the reader can verify for himself the veracity of that piece of information. There is no need to trust some unknown Wikipedian of unknown education, motivation, or even mood. Once you introduce TV/radio as valid source (without published written transcripts), you lose the verifiability, which is one of our strongest suits. Crum375 (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to start a discussion at WP:V about this. In the meantime one can read a book as carelessly as one can watch television, and therefore one can watch television (keep in mind VCRs, computer media players, and DVD devices allow people to rewind or to change the position in the track) as carefully as one can read a book. You said: "there is still the issue of the reader, who now needs to trust some unknown Wikipedian describing what he/she thinks they heard or saw" - With an episode of a TV show someone can always rewind, fast forward, or change position. A careful editor will know that they said that on the TV program. There is no justifiable tendency that would allow for a person to "think" someone said statement X in a book without checking, and the same goes with a television program. Just like an editor is careful to ensure that the citation is supported in a book, one can easily do the same with a television program. When I used documentaries, if I was unsure what was said, I moved the marker indicating the place in the film back and then re-listened to the relevant section to confirm what was said. A careful editor would do just that. As for trust, when a user makes a citation from a book that is not available to read online, we trust that the editor read the text carefully and that the information he/she says is from x page numbers is conveyed on those pages. It's the same principle with a video documentary. EDIT: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Television_documentaries_and_RS WhisperToMe (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The thing about a book is that we can all go the library and read it there, if it's not online. In this case there is no known published transcript, and it is unclear if the video can be obtained by anyone in a typical library. Especially in cases of aviation accidents, where facts can be easily misinterpreted and eye witnesses are often confused, it is important to rely on published written information, accessible to any reader to verify. Crum375 (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For this particular work, Mayday, I cannot find copies of it in a library. I found a DVD of the first season on Netflix, Blockbuster (for purchase and for rental via mail), and Amazon. Amazon says this DVD was released on April 7, 2009. I'm not really sure what the criteria for whether a library or a video rental store takes a film. The other episodes could be captured via a person with a DVR machine. As for the discussion I started, so far there have been no replies... WhisperToMe (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see a case being made that if a video is published like a book, and is available at stores and public libraries so that readers can access it and verify its contents, we could use it as a reference assuming other requirements are met, for example by adding the specific DVD details published by Amazon for the documentary, as we do for a book. If a transcript is published, then that would be no different than any other published document. As far as directly capturing TV shows off the air and using that as a reference, I don't think that would qualify since an average reader, esp. one in other countries, would have no easy way of accessing it. The bottom line again is published verifiability — we need to allow the average reader to easily verify our sources on his/her own. Crum375 (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding other countries, this particular series is broadcast in many countries outside of its native Canada in English and in other languages. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Still, if you are an average reader, and didn't happen to capture the program at the right time, you'd be out of luck if you wanted to verify the claims. Unless the DVD is sold at stores or available in libraries. I thought high caliber documentaries routinely publish their transcripts (or make them available upon request). Is that no longer so? Crum375 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, if documentary producers make their transcripts available on request, I could e-mail Cineflix (the maker of the series) and inquire about transcripts of the Mayday series. EDIT: I sent an e-mail to Cineflix asking how transcripts are made available. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW there are responses at the thread at WP:V WhisperToMe (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Gol 1907

Yes, I saw that it was nominated at FAC, and figured that I should complete the Sweeps review now to see if I noticed any issues before the reviewers at FAC did (well, at least the basic ones I can notice). I moved the Waldir Pires image down because it was sandwiching the text, which is frowned upon by the MOS guidelines. Just to let you know, per MOS:IMAGES, the image under the heading "CENIPA final report" should not be aligned to the left under a third level heading. That's why I moved that image down. For me, since it's usually such an issue in formatting the images, I tend to keep them all to the right (see my current FAC: Oklahoma City bombing). That's an option to consider but maybe you should wait to see what reviewers say. As a side note, I think that the collision image needs to be larger, it's very small in relation to the other images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation query

As you have been working on this template recently, could you please look over the request here? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

File:KSFO Airport Diagram.png

Hi! I saw that you uploaded File:KSFO Airport Diagram.png and decided not to give you a Twinkle template since you've been around awhile... WP:DTTR and all. Anyway, could you improve this image's description? Right now the source isn't very descriptive (it says that it's from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, but TinEye didn't find it on a government site online... if there's an online source, could you use that, or just specify more where the offline source is). It also doesn't have a image copyright tag. Watching this page. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)