 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Reliable sources
editNikola Smolenski has used the source http://arhiva.glas-javnosti.co.yu/arhiva/2000/01/20/srpski/P00011902.shtm to add to the article the information that "NATO released video of the attack sped up 4.7 times in order to create impression that pilot was unable to see a passenger train on the bridge until the instant before his missile struck". I have a problem with the source and I think a controversial statement like this needs a better source than this, preferably in English. Any comments? --John 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I believe WP:V#Sources in languages other than English provides appropriate guidance to this instance. In any case, there are quite a few other problems with the article. I'll have a crack at rewriting it myself. -- ChrisO 17:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I already drew that to Nikola's attention. I've commented out the two problematic paragraphs for now; one needs a proper source and the other seems to imply guilt where none has been (reliably) ascribed. --John 17:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- If the problem is that the source is in an other language than english then most ex-yu articles should be re-written Paulcicero 21:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, the problem is that an extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence to back it up. This Serbian source shows no evidence of being a reliable source. Read the policies and you'll see what I mean. --John 21:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Glas Javnosti refer its claims to Frankfurter Rundschau is that reliable enough for you? Paulcicero 21:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- No. That's just a link to the front page. If you can find a reliable source that shows the info, I have no problem with including it. Otherwise I'm afraid it cannot be. --John 21:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Glas Javnosti refer its claims to Frankfurter Rundschau is that reliable enough for you? Paulcicero 21:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, the problem is that an extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence to back it up. This Serbian source shows no evidence of being a reliable source. Read the policies and you'll see what I mean. --John 21:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- If the problem is that the source is in an other language than english then most ex-yu articles should be re-written Paulcicero 21:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I already drew that to Nikola's attention. I've commented out the two problematic paragraphs for now; one needs a proper source and the other seems to imply guilt where none has been (reliably) ascribed. --John 17:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I found this document from amnesty it says that the tape was speeded up to almost 3 times Paulcicero 22:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. According to this article, Frankfurter Rundschau reported that it was sped up 4.7 times, while NATO admitted it was sped up only 2.7 times. Nikola 15:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to add that it was speeded up then, without a number, assuming I can find a decent reference for that. Please don't continue to use the reference I have queried unless it can be established to be a reliable source. The other bit cannot stay unless its relevance to this article can be demonstrated. --John 19:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- "The video of the cockpit view of both attacks was shown at the press conference on 13 April. Several months later it was reported in Germany’s Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper that this video was shown at three times speed, giving the impression to viewers that the civilian train was moving extremely fast. According to press reports, the US air force attributed the speeded-up film to a technical fault" this is from amnestys report, The US air force didnt deny that it was sped up at 3 times the normal. And furthermore why isnt Glas Javnosti a reliable source? Have you read the animal farm maybe? Paulcicero 22:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do you mean George Orwell's book Animal Farm? I read it at school if so. However it was written in the 1940s and I fail to see its relevance to this article. As for the Serbian source, it isn't a reliable source because it fails to demonstrate that it passes WP:RS. Pop in a reliable source and we can move on from this. Otherwise it is obvious that different sources make different numerical claims, which I regard as evidence that nobody really knows reliably. Please don't remove {{fact}} tags without providing a valid source though, that's rude. Best wishes, --John 22:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- "The video of the cockpit view of both attacks was shown at the press conference on 13 April. Several months later it was reported in Germany’s Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper that this video was shown at three times speed, giving the impression to viewers that the civilian train was moving extremely fast. According to press reports, the US air force attributed the speeded-up film to a technical fault" this is from amnestys report, The US air force didnt deny that it was sped up at 3 times the normal. And furthermore why isnt Glas Javnosti a reliable source? Have you read the animal farm maybe? Paulcicero 22:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- So amnesty isnt a reliable source? Regarding the animal farm i was referring to the part of everybody being equal. Paulcicero 22:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Er, no, it was me who added the Amnesty bit from the Guardian. I thought you were talking about that Serbian op-ed piece that someone was trying to use earlier, which is definitely not a RS. As far as Orwell goes, in a text-based medium I always find it better to speak plainly rather than using literary allusions. If something is bothering you, let's hear it. If not, let's just get on with improving the article. Cheers. --John 22:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I provided a document from amnesty above, but i dont know how to use it as a source since its in .doc format. Why isnt glas javnosti reliable? Paulcicero 22:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Er, no, it was me who added the Amnesty bit from the Guardian. I thought you were talking about that Serbian op-ed piece that someone was trying to use earlier, which is definitely not a RS. As far as Orwell goes, in a text-based medium I always find it better to speak plainly rather than using literary allusions. If something is bothering you, let's hear it. If not, let's just get on with improving the article. Cheers. --John 22:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to add that it was speeded up then, without a number, assuming I can find a decent reference for that. Please don't continue to use the reference I have queried unless it can be established to be a reliable source. The other bit cannot stay unless its relevance to this article can be demonstrated. --John 19:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I guess chris put an end to the discussion... Paulcicero 22:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Bravo, Chris. A .doc document isn't good because it's a non-free format. Many users (including me at the moment) don't have anything installed that can read a .doc file. --John 23:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
If anyone would ask me to clarify reliability of Glas javnosti, or translate relevant parts of the article I'll be glad to do it. Nikola 19:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Russia
editIt should be mentioned that America has blamed Russia for it by saying that it was a train in ukraine Napalm Guy (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)