Talk:International Forestry Students' Association
The references cited for this article is mostly from IFSA's own sites. Although accurate, these references are not reliable third party references. Thus, the article is tagged as original research. Please improve the article by using less of the subject's own material and adding more third party sources.--Emana (Talk) 20:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Although taken from the organisation's web site, the information is verified by two third parties: a) the registry court in Freiburg im Breisgau, and b) the financial authorities. IFSA is a democratical non-profit organisation by German jurisdiction, which means that before its legal establishment, and furthermore after each General Assembly, the organisation has to hand over precise information about itself to both the court and the tax office. The information is contained a) in the statutes and b) in the Minutes of the General Assembly. For that reason, these documents are legally binding. After being approved by both the court and the tax office, these documents are by definition verified by third parties (German authorities).
- And, by the way: Information on charity organisation usually always originates from these "first parties". Where else could it come from, if not from approved statutes or the organisations' own archives? Even if find a scientific paper on an organisation like IFSA (there are some indeed), and explore the cited sources, you will find that the information on things like structures, turnover, board members etc. are always statutes and official reports, compiled for financial authorities.
- I will change all relevant links to the corresponding paragraphs in statutes and General Assembly minutes, then remove the tag.--Wladmeister (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Since you seem to be contributing to Wikipedia out of the goodness of your heart, and you are certainly are an expert in the field of forestry, I will not contest the validity of your sources. On the other hand, If the courts and the financial institutions have approved IFSA's applications, please cite the court as the source, not IFSA. --Emana (Talk) 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- From the formal point of view, you definitely have the right to ask for more reliable sources (by the way: that alone doesn't qualify as OR, it's only a citing mistake). So, if you insist on a tougher verification, we'll have do it the way you suggested, of course. I just seriously doubt that such a counter pragmatical step is a benefit for WP. Regards, --Wladmeister (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)