User talk:Kitauga
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Thank you for your Poland-related contributions
|
.svg/150px-Flag_of_Poland_(state).svg.png)
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 11:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Bartekos Hi Kitauga ! Thanks for correcting mistakes in my articles....Greetings from Poland
- Hello Kitauga. Regarding Artur Boruc, some personal footage recorded on a cell phone and posted on YouTube is not a reliable source for "Rangers fans reacted with outrage when Boruc crossed himself during a Rangers vs. Celtic game at Ibrox". It is infact the very definition of original research. If there is a comment on Boruc crossing himself in any of the match reports tomorrow, then we can add it. Until then it must be removed per WP:BLP. Rockpocket 00:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rockpocket,
I've just read the article on original research. It says "images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments". Therefore, I see no reason why the video should not be allowed. It's just moving images. Kitauga 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hello. I think you are misrepresenting the context of that quote. Original uploaded images are excepted because they do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments by themselves. You would be welcome to upload a still from that image to the article without any problems and let the reader make their own interpretation. However, using an unreliable image or a movie as a sole source for unpublished ideas or arguments does violate WP:OR. Specifically, you were using that movie from an unreliable source to justify the date, the situation and the "furore" this qualifies as introducing an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments. Finally, unles it is commented on by a reliable source, it simply isn't deemed notable.
- All that notwithstanding, I found a reliable source we can use for the information and added it, altering the text to reflect the source's take on the issue. I've left your video there for representative purposes. Rockpocket 18:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Which part of what I wrote ("On December 17, 2006 Rangers fans reacted with outrage when Boruc crossed himself during a Rangers-Celtic game at Ibrox.") is my own "idea or argument"? That video has been commented on by over a hundred people. Not one person has disputed that this is from the Rangers-Celtic game on December 17 and that it's from the second half when Boruc blessed himself in front of the Rangers end. The only point of argument is whether the fans were justified in reacting that way. And what exactly is wrong with my choice of the words "Rangers fans reacted with outrage". I don't agree that it's "analysis" of the situation, merely stating what happened. There was a strongly negative reaction from the Rangers end which provoked the Scotsman to put the issue on its front page.
What's not notable? The incident? It wouldn't have made the front page of the Scotsman if it wasn't. Kitauga 12:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- And as soon as the Scotsman reported on the issue, it became notable. Before that it was a video on youtube that could have been doctored or taken at any match. You say the video was commented on by "by over a hundred people" and that not one "disputed that". Well there are literally millions of people that believe the earth was created a few thousand years ago by a man in heaven, by your logic because not one of these new earth creationists would dispute that, it would be acceptable for us to report it as fact!
- What was wrong with your choice of words is that it was your choice of words. You provided your own analysis (and that of 100 hundred other forum contibutors) of what went on in an unverified video. For example, how can we be 100% sure they were Rangers fans? How do we know the response was one of "outrage"? Who verified this? You did! Our job here is to report on notable events, using reliable sources. WP:BLP means we have to be very strict on that with regard to living people. Until the media reported on the issue, it was neither notable nor verified. Now it is both so the problem is solved, can we leave it at that? Rockpocket 18:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cut & paste move
I have fixed your cut & paste move of Piechna Grzegorz to Grzegorz Piechna. Please use the "move" button to move articles, this preserves their history. See Help:Moving a page for more details. Conscious 11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
