User talk:JulianHensey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
I am uncertain about this "promotion policy" - I want to write an article about a company that are designing a new innovative way of combating anti counterfeiting - yet policy is that you cannot promote a company, yet many companies have wiki pages about them so how do I get around this as what this company are doing is actually interesting from a scientific point of view? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JulianHensey (talk • contribs).
- Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!
- Wikipedia has clearly-defined policies on advertising and notability of companies. Before beginning an article on a business, company, organization, etc., it is a good idea to read through the all-important guidelines at WP:CORP, which lay out what the community believes constitutes an organization notable enough to warrant an article. To answer your question simply, Wikipedia relies on citing reliable sources to ensure articles have only factual, verifiable information in them. For a business, this means that other parties must have written about them in a book, newspaper, magazine article, or similar (reliable, notable websites are acceptable too). This does not include press releases or the like released by the company themselves, as this is not a third-party source of information. If this information can be provided and linked to in the article's references section at the time it is written, then the article has a much stronger case for its inclusion.
- I hope this answers your question. Oh, and don't forget to sign comments you make on your own talk page, or the talk pages of other users or articles, by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after the comment (these will be replaced by your user signature, time and date when you complete the post). ~Matticus TC 14:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I was editing an article on BA Connect the airline. I know from statistics and talking to people that BA Connect suffer much more in foggy conditions on cancelling flights. Someone has removed that whole section - I believe they work for BA Connect and cannot bear the idea that factually it is correct. What can I do to prevent something that people don't like because they may be from the organisation, but it is factually accurate? JulianHensey 17:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- What you know is unimportant, it is what can be shown from verifiable sources without engaging in original research. We do this by looking for reliable sources who are saying that and citing them. We don't engage in original research, so obtaining reliable sources for statistics then concluding your point is more often that not unacceptable. --pgk 17:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Now I am confused. If a person can read on a airport web site clearly by statistics that an airline cancels more flights than another airline, then that is accurate and factual. But, unless that is published by "someone" it is deemed unacceptable for wikipedia? JulianHensey 17:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- If your posts amount to original research then no you cannot. The figures will at best show given a certain period at that airport that they did indeed cancel more flights, joing that to a reason such as fog etc. and then that this is a general problem the airline suffers more than most I would suggest is original research. Showing the facts is not a problem, using those facts to draw a conclusion is. From the no original research policy, "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" --pgk 19:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for that. It is a great shame that Wikipedia forbids new research until a newspaper or other media publishes it. What is interesting is that Wikipedia insists on everything being verifiable, yet thousands of articles are accepted without any reference to sources or their verification. With the verification policy enforced randomly it becomes less of a powerful voice to say everything must be verifiable and clearly there are no sources published on numerous pages.
- I think saying "accepted" is over stating the case, we don't accept articles in a formal sense, "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", means we do get material added which fails to meet our policies. When items which don't cite there sources then they can either be tagged to indicate a citation is needed or the material removed, ultimately all the material which is unverifiable should be removed. The template {{Fact}}.
Each of these templates contain this text:
Regarding the unsourced or poorly sourced information:
1. if it is not doubtful, you may use {{fact}} or {{citequote}} tag to ask for better citation in order to make the article complete.
2. if it is doubtful but not too harmful to the whole article, you may use {{verify source}} tag to ask for source verification.
3. If it is doubtful and (quite) highly harmful, you may move it to the talk page and ask for a source.
4. If it is very doubtful and very harmful, you may remove it directly without the need of moving it to the talk page first.
In articles on living people (WP:BLP) things should be held to a pretty high standard and if in doubt the material removed.
A category is maintained by adding the relevant templates Category:Articles_lacking_sources, there are editors who spend a great deal of time working with this category hunting down sources or removing the material if no source can be found. --pgk 07:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well let us look at one aspect of Wikipedia which is fascinating - if you type in the date you get a list of birthdays, important dates, etc etc. None of those show their sources which they should according to our discussions, and therefore a Wiki editor could rightfully delete all of them or at least tag every entry for a source reference which would destroy a whole page in one foul swoop, but would be within the terms of the Wiki editorial policy? Also I am considering writing an article on the "demise of BA Connect" siting various articles, but that would be gathering evidence based on published facts and presenting it as an article, again, which would probably constitute "research?", but would add to and be a very useful addition to the article? JulianHensey 10:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well arguably the date pages are effectively disambiguation which reference the main articles which themselves will cite those facts, dates which don't have a corresponding article I would agree would fail the verifiability criteria. Anyone of course deciding to take such a drastic action as blanking pages would probably be accused of making a WP:POINT. What wikipedia is not is also an interesting page to read, one of the items Wikipedia is not a bureacracy in particular covers that our "rules" are generally not supposed to be absolutes, it is the "spirit" which is important. Without knowing the content of your article it is difficult to judge, but yes if it relies on taking verifiable facts then drawing those facts together to draw conclusions it is unlikely to meet the standards of WP:NOR and quite possibly not other core policies such as neutral point of view. --pgk 19:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Low Visibility Operations at BRS
I note with interest the edits between yourself and 192.149.117.69. I am not sure that singling out BA Connect is the right way forward without applying this for the other airlines affected. I have post the following on the BA Connect Talk Page
- I am not sure this is the place to record this data. If it believed it should be then I suggest that given the snapshot given which I have just looked at the link given, the I would expect equivalent items to be added to articles for Eastern, Air Southwest, Flybe the airline going as OL, Thomas Cook - in fact all the airlines apart from EZY and FR (do FR fit thier planes with Cat III landing equipment? I do think that the low visibility issue is one for the airport article.
I will also post this on the 192.149.117.69 Talk Page.
== Stewart 18:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, if you only have factual knowledge in one particular airline, it would be unwise to put other information about other airlines you do not. You cannot, just because you know about one particular airline, then insist that every airline has a comment about it. You just don't have that knowledge. This suggest a very unwise editorial policy of stating because you have knowledge about one airline you should promote this "expectation of equivalent items" - by whom exactly? JulianHensey 10:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alexander Litvinenko
Hi Julian. Good job so far with the article, but I wanted to let you know that you shouldn't link in too much excess. I mean, you basically linked every single term that has a Wikipedia article. Also, can you please be more careful in your additions to the article, because some of them aren't written in excellent form. Thanks. =) Nishkid64 20:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
