Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Moscow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-07-05 Moscow 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Close? 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-07-05 Moscow

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

The entire issue is taking place on the Moscow article.

Who's involved?

• Elk Salmon
• Tariqabjotu (myself)

What's going on?

In the process of attempting to improve the Moscow article, I've been trying to add references and citation requests to the article. However, Elk Salmon will often remove sources and citation requests ({{fact}}s) saying they're unnecessary, ridiculous, etc ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). On my part, I'm trying not to flat-out revert his contributions, but instead re-add a couple references or {{fact}} templates ([6], [7], [8], [9]) and simultaneously explain the importance of the sources, and especially English-language sources ([10], [11], [12], [13]). However, Elk Salmon has responded reiterating that he believes the sources are ridiculous and unnecessary ([14], [15]) and that only Russian-language sources should be used because Moscow is in a Russian-speaking country and that my only option is to ask Russian-speakers to help me understand those sources ([16]). He presumably understands Russian (given the template on his user page) and I do not.

What would you like to change about that?

If Elk Salmon is wrong to be removing all of these sources and citation requests, I would like some help in explaining to Elk Salmon the importance of sources (especially English-language sources for the English Wikipedia); hopefully that would be enough to get him to stop removing sources. If Elk Salmon is correct, I would like to know why that is so. And also (although this may be a third opinion request), I would like to know whether online webpage translators, such as Altavista Babelfish, are allowed to be used in conjuction with foreign language citations when those types of citations are unavoidable (see Reference 7 in this version of the article).

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No; maintaining discussion on Wikipedia is perfectly fine.

[edit] Mediator response

Taking - CP/M 14:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC).

I've looked at the reverts. In part I have to agree with Elk, as some of the references aren't exactly necessary, and {fact} tags make the article look worse. In some situations, facts are completely non-controversial and not politically crarged, so no reference is needed. An example is the statement "On May 1, 1944 a medal For the defence of Moscow and in 1947 another medal In memory of the 800th anniversary of Moscow were instituted".

However, in most of the cases adding references only improves the article's credibility. This is useful for all facts that a significant number of people might question.

Both the suggestions about using Russian sources generally don't look balanced enough to be acceptable.

Joeturner's suggestion Also, we should really shy away from sources in Russian improves ease of verifying info for English readers, but English WP is international and the audience isn't limited to English-only readers. Besides that, verifiability doesn't necessarily mean instant verifiability, and we do include books as sources. Internal sources obviously can include much more detail about their own country, and tend to represent information more correctly. For worldwide statistics foreign sources are preferable, but information about most other subjects is better detailed in internal sources.

Elk's suggestion to use Russian sources only, with ...Therefore you will not find any reliable source in English, is also not acceptable accroding to the purpose of encyclopedia. Most sources have some bias, and therefore a wide selection of credible sources is better. The requirements for accepting a foreign source as credible, of course, should be much higher, but this doesn't mean exclusion of these sources. They are necessary for English-speaking readers.

Of course, in case both Russian and English sources with the same information are available, the English one is preferable.

Concerning automated translations, it is most probable that we don't have a desperate need for them, and so shouldn't use them. Any automated translation always contains a number of mistakes, some of which can result in factual ones. There are enough users who speak both English and Russian to translate something important, possibly using programs for speeding it up, but at least checking the translation.

I await for any comments, objections, or suggestions on the issues from anyone involved.

[edit] Close?

If no response from Elk Salmon follows, the case will be closed with suggested compromise accepted. CP/M (Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 05:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing case. Nothing new reported in almost a month. Appears to be settled. SynergeticMaggot 20:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

• Keep the {{fact}} templates off, but re-add all the sources. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

In response to:

Joturner's suggestion "Also, we should really shy away from sources in Russian" improves ease of verifying info for English readers, but English WP is international and the audience isn't limited to English-only readers.:

The Wikipedia isn't just limited to English-only readers, but this is after all the English Wikipedia. I didn't want to make it sound like Russian sources are bad, but rather that English sources should be what we're looking for (see the first comment here). If information is found in a Russian source, the source can be mentioned in the article, but afterwards, an English-language source should be sought after (note how I mentioned that we should shy away from Russian sources, but then went ahead to add the Russian source Elk Salmon mentioned in his edit summary). If no suitable English-language replacement can be found, then the Russian-language source should stay.

I'd suggest the following: we should use English sources whenever available for inline references, as they are likely to be accessed in process of reading, and in the corresponding section both fit well. In case there is a more detailed Russian source than the English one, it's better to add it in the section, but for inline citations such sources are only preferable when there is no English source or difference in the quality (detail, credibility) is serious. CP/M 22:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the {{fact}} templates: In the process of trying to find sources, I'm having a tough time finding English-language sources that discuss some of the information in the article. Perhaps, that's because the information came from a Russian source (hence, the citation requests as I cannot read or understand Russian). However, although I also disagree with the idea that the {{fact}} templates look ugly (there weren't that many), I'm okay with leaving the {{fact}} templates off (I had planned to go back and find fulfill my own citation requests had no one else done so anyway). But, the removal of sources is especially puzzling to me. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Fact templates are useful when a citation is really required for information that can be found questionable. But sometimes it isn't essential, so adding source is good, but a temporary template is not required. CP/M 22:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, as I indicated on the Moscow talk page, this removal of sources from the public transport section was unintentional and they have been re-added since they were not one of the sources Elk Salmon removed. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, the number of stations and lines in the Moscow Metro may be easily verifiable (especially because there is a map on the right), but the daily passenger ridership definitely is not. I found another source (from the BBC) that stated that there were nine million passengers per day riding on the Moscow Metro (which would make the Moscow Metro the most ridden metro system in the world). On the other hand, the official site for the Metro states seven million passengers per day. Obviously, it would be a better idea to go with the Moscow Metro's seven million estimate, but since this number is contested, this should definitely be sourced. We can leave out sourcing the number of stations because the two sentences come consecutively (and so sourcing the second implies sourcing the first), but I suggest adding the source at the end of the sentence that states 7 million passengers / day ride the Moscow Metro. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Since a week has passed without response from Elk Salmon, I'm going to re-add the sources. If he reverts again, perhaps he'll come here to discuss the re-added sources. If not, I may go to a request for comment (particularly because a third-party on the Moscow Metro talk page is thinking of doing the exact same thing anyway). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)