Help desk
< July 5	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

July 6[edit]

Use of the word "claimed" in articles on living persons[edit]

I recently posted this at Wikipedia talk:BLP but have yet to receive an impartial opinion: "Although this refers to a specific article, Józef Kowalski, it may apply to (many) others. The contention here is that the use of "claimed to be" implies the "possibility of falsehood", the counterargument being that use of "thought to be" implies a level of surety which is not backed up by any WP:RS. I would have thought that, in general, "though to be" would be appropriate where there is no proof but there is no suggestion of falsity (in any RS), but "claimed to be" would be appropriate where there is any suggestion (in any RS) that there is a possibility, however slight, that the claim is untrue or cannot be proved to be true." Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't a reliable source for the "claim" or "thought" it must be removed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point, Roger. The question is, does the choice of words between "claimed to be" and "thought to be" imply that there is or is not any suggestion of impropriety in whatever RS's are being used? Rojomoke (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the right place/page to discuss nuances. Since your question involves reliable sources, a better option would be to post at WP:RS/N. Also, please note WP:FORUMSHOP. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets compare:

Wookery is thought to be a scam. This is never the best way of putting it, because it implies that we can read minds.
Wookery is claimed to be a scam. This should be avoided because it runs afoul of WP:WEASEL.
Wookery is claimed by Frodo to be a scam. This is a simple and verifiable statement of fact. It leaves open the possibility that Frodo is wrong but doesn't do anything more than that.
Wookery is a scam. This is a statement in the voice of Wikipedia, and can only be made if all reputable sources agree with it.

The bottom line is that "claimed to be", or something similar, should be used whenever there is disagreement among reputable sources. Looie496 (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And in the case where there is disagreement, where possible, direct attribution should always be used (as in your Frodo example), or at least direct footnotes to the sources making the claim, if there are too many to conveniently attribute directly in the text. That is, don't say merely "is claimed to be", but rather say "Is claimed by so-and-so to be", that's a much better way to do it, if you must. --Jayron32 05:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that seems the appropriate solution. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs?[edit]

While random article editing I started to notice more and more articles that are formatted in snippets...<sentence--white space--sentence--white space---maybe two short sentences--white space--etc>. ..which, I feel, are not encyclopedic. I usually have been creating paragraphs but I'm beginning to wonder if I am "bucking a trend". Is there a definitive rule about how articles should look i.e. paragraphs or snippets? ```Buster Seven Talk 12:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should be "encyclopedic" -- that is, they should look like what a reader would expect to see in an encyclopedia. So paragraphs are the desired thing -- however unfortunately we have a lot of editors who either (a) aren't very good writers, or (b) have a fact they want to add but don't want to take the time to figure out how to integrate it with the rest of the article, so they just stick in a sentence at some arbitrary place. Looie496 (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subject regarding a page on 'Joshua Sridhar'[edit]

Hi,

this is to request you to help me protect the page 'Joshua Sridhar'. I'm representing Joshua Sridhar and there are a few wiki editors who edit the page frequently and i have serious problems with that. How can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totalrecall999 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 6 July 2013‎ Totalrecall999

Please stop adding this material to the page. You have cited no source whatsoever, and according to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, any contentious material added to such articles must be deleted. This is not optional. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further, you claim to be representing Joshua Sridhar - if this is the case, read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And also, please read WP:OWN - at Wikipedia, no one "owns" a Wikipedia article, no matter who they are. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Totalrecall999 has been blocked for a week for WP:BLP violations. If he/she actually represents Joshua Sridhar, I'd suggest that a full reading of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:reliable sources policies, along with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest would be a useful way to fill their time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New topic[edit]

he didnt fight with kharitonov and he didnt win alistair a lot of wrong information! Kindly fix all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.203.118.68 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 July 2013‎

you will have to provide more details - which article are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to mark a reference used multiple times (^ a b) as dead?[edit]

On the page Boko Haram, reference 46 ("Genesis, Training And Changing Tactics Of Boko Haram Revealed") is used in two places, and adding ^{[dead link]} before the </ref> of one of them, as instructed by Template:Dead link, doesn't work. (Also, I couldn't find the page using the site's search.) Tagus 20:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed it, in this case "ref name" has not been used correctly - both instances contain the full citation. The editor who originally added it apparently didn't understand the purpose of "ref name", just look at how long the "name" is! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stone (scientist) move to article namespace[edit]

I have accepted Robert Stone (scientist) page, but I am having trouble moving the page to articles. Please assist Aeroplanepics0112 (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a move over redirect - the problem will be solved soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!