Thank you for the correction! Will add source now!
Thank you for the correction! Will add source now! Thank you for the correction! Will add source now!
DYK review
Hello. I've reviewed the DYK nomination for this article – note that some issues need to be addressed. Quandarie13:13, 2022-09-20
Talk face --KellyIbrahim (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have a question.
Is cia.gov a primary or secondary source? --Informationappeared (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Informationappeared: This is a great question! There's a lengthy and relatively recent discussion here on the reliability of the CIA; the general gist is that other reliable sources are almost always preferred, and sourcing from the CIA should be avoided in anyplace where the US government has a particular interest (i.e., treat as a primary source in these places). Documents like the the World Factbook are typically considered reliable secondary sources, but in cases where you're looking to cite less "polished" communications, there is more nuance and caution should be applied. Ultimately, it's not a cut-and-dry question, and you should consider the context in which you're citing (both the specific item you wish to cite and the article/claim you wish to apply it to). If you have a specific article/claim in mind, I'd be happy to provide further advice. AviationFreak💬 22:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is adding a citation considered a minor edit? --BeefyBoi1223 (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @BeefyBoi1223: Good question! Per this page, which has lists of things considered "minor" and "not minor", edits that add or remove citations should not be marked as minor. AviationFreak💬 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thank you! BeefyBoi1223 (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason you reverted my addition to Ted Kaczynski in the Life in Montana section? It just says ' Rv huff post-sourced addition'. The Huffington Post is listed as a reliable source. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
Chiffre01 (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, I should've been more aware of the status of HuffPost - I was under the impression that the whole site was considered generally not reliable, not just politics content & some pre-2018 stuff. With that said though, I think the particular article at hand here is still not an FA-quality source. It's written by a person who was personally connected with the subject, and the article has a fairly editorialized tone. The specific claim, that "Kaczynski is known to have poisoned his neighbor's dogs", is not sufficiently supported (one dog is claimed to have been poisoned, and there is no real evidence of this in the article besides a single-sentence unsubstantiated claim - remember, the author here has a personal stake in the content). I'm skeptical of the reliability of these "HuffPost Personals" articles overall; they seem to have little editorial review, making them akin to WP:SPS. AviationFreak💬 22:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I can include some other sources just to make sure everything is credible.
- Here's a couple newspaper articles from the Missoulian (4th largest newspaper in Montana) with additional info about the dog thing, but with more details including evidence the FBI found and Kaczynski himself admitting he killed someone's dog. .
- https://missoulian.com/ted-the-menace-and-killer/article_36a3e5b2-10b1-5e01-9edc-9047d68c658e.html
- https://missoulian.com/kaczynski-blasts-unabomber-book/article_061cde39-ad8a-5dee-86b0-a2793ed92f16.html
- I can add more sources about the rifle scope thing, but they are all interviews with the family referencing Kaczynski's journals. The NYTimes article already sourced, says the same thing but from an interview with a book author. Chiffre01 (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The dog stuff seems reasonably well-sourced, I'd just change up your wording (the original formulation, Kaczynski is known to have poisoned his neighbor's dogs, is WP:WEASEL-y). The rifle thing seems poorly-substantiated if it only appears in interviews and the off-hand mention in the NYT Opinion piece. AviationFreak💬 00:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-added the dog part with better working and additional sourcing. Chiffre01 (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. When Wikipedia "edit ribbon" suggests articles that it says need to be brought up to date, sometimes these articles are about things that no longer exist or are no longer in use, for example the [[1]]. The center has been closed in 1999, and demolished five months later, yet someone placed a "needs to be updated" notice on October 2024.
What kind of update is expected here? A new hospital was built in its place, I don't see how we can have further updates on a building/facility that no longer exists in any shape or form.
I removed the notice, but I'd just like confirmation that the notice is unnecessary for articles like these. --TurboSuperA+ (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TurboSuperA+: First of all, thanks for helping out in this area. This kind of tagging articles without sufficient explanation is a problem on-wiki, and I'd suggest asking the tagging editor on their talk page if their tagging is unclear. Ideally, if the problem is not unambiguously obvious, the tagger will leave an explanation in either the tag template or article talk page. In this particular case, I agree that the tag is not clear and seems odd. AviationFreak💬 19:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, thanks. I thought it was odd, as well. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vb --امیررضا رستم خانی (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how do I write --116q (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @116q: See this page for an introduction on how to edit Wikipedia - let me know if you have any other questions! AviationFreak💬 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
