• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Help me sort out this wikipdia hoax

Graham2001

Graduate Poster
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,771
Proceed by replacing the non-evidential and poorly spelled article currently on-line with something fact-based that has good spelling. :)
 
Proceed by replacing the non-evidential and poorly spelled article currently on-line with something fact-based that has good spelling. :)

I agree.

In fact, your advice matches the rewrite instructions that appear on the Wiki page in question. Graham2001, be sure to give detailed reasons in the revision history file.


ETA: the word hoax does already appear on the page.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it will totally fly to use the blog post you cite as a source, but you could use it in conjunction with citations of the underlying source documents that the blog references.

Specifically the 1944 journal article should probably end up being a key source:
http://mdc.ulpgc.es/cdm/singleitem/collection/revhistoria/id/428/rec/3

Make sure you use a {{cite}} template to give correct bibliographic info for the source, not just a link.
 
Thank you gerdbonk.

Just found your TAM9 album, if you are going to TAM this year, please follow me around, with camera in tow.

I might just need you to look over my long photo needs list. From time to time I will do a shout out on FB asking for specific photos needed for WP pages.

If you would be so kind I would like to have this one. http://www.flickr.com/photos/26533094@N08/5971572315/in/set-72157627244963594

Don't want to get off topic (too late)

Graham2001

so seriously you want to improve this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Farrukh

What a nightmare!

Not even sure why this page still exists on WP? Probably because there are too few people trying to repair WP and too many wanting to just throw things on WP without citations.

If you really really want to do this rewrite then there are several ways to do so.

First write on the talk page your intentions so that you don't have some other editor coming out of the walls to freak out on you. I doubt this will happen as it is like the great-great-grandniece of a stub page. But it is still the polite thing to do.

Then you need to find real citations (not the blog) but surely they used some kind of citations (sorry I didn't read it).

Generally you will become a expert (of sorts) on this topic.

There are many ways to do this, depends on how you like to organize things. My team prefers to work using their sandbox or a user page. This way no one will mess with your changes as you are not making the work-in-progress public.

You will need to read all you can find on the subject. Keep track of all the citations. These should be notable citations (notable usually means they have their own WP page, but not always)

You will not write it like a essay, but it will have at least 1-3 paragraphs explaining what the page is about (this is your lede or sometimes called a lead)

Then you will have the body of the article to explain more in detail what you said in the lede. Everything in the body, every single claim you make must be cited.

Then you have to finish up the article with all the nuts and bolts that make the page better, categories, external links, reference area and so on. I suggest you look around the hoaxs category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes and any other pages that might be peers. See how they are handled, and learn from what they have done/not done.

You are always welcome to run it past me by email susangerbic@yahoo.com as I rarely check JREF these days.

So, because you said you already edit WP I won't go into the major details on how to do this. I'm just going to assume you meant that when you wrote "but am not sure how to proceed in this case." you mean, where do I start? Not, "how do I do this?"

There are many talented people here on this forum, and I'm sure they will advise you as you go along.
 
Susan,

Thanks for the advice. I've never taken on a task quite like this. The article itself is/(was) low traffic.

I linked it to hoaxes last night after adding the word 'mythalogical(sic)' to it (Now corrected to 'mythical') and that caused a spike in the readership.

I'm also looking at the 1944 document. It is in Spanish (which I cannot read), but all the bibliographic information is provided so a proper citation can be made.

First proper step is to link to Colavitos blog post.
 
Thank you gerdbonk.

Just found your TAM9 album, if you are going to TAM this year, please follow me around, with camera in tow.

I might just need you to look over my long photo needs list. From time to time I will do a shout out on FB asking for specific photos needed for WP pages.

If you would be so kind I would like to have this one. http://www.flickr.com/photos/26533094@N08/5971572315/in/set-72157627244963594

I'll be there. If there are any shots you need, let me know.

You are welcome to have the photo you linked to.

[/end derail]
 
Could be. As to the comment the page is a nightmare. I'd certainly say it's going to be much harder than the last time I dealt with something on that site that needed cleaning up.

[de-rail]
1. The first version of the NOAA-b article (2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NOAA-B&oldid=347054629

2. The current article after I rewrote it between 31 December 2012 and 1 January 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA-B

What I've often found is the article is created and then, even if you leave notes suggesting what needs adding it never seems to be done unless you do it yourself.
[/derail]

I've added a talk page to the article with a call to help in the clean up, recovered the original 'source' of the article (Which has been saved to the talk page.) and started planning how I'm going to approach this...
 
Graham, I don't envy you taking on a project of this size. Although you should know pretty quickly if you will be able to find 3-5 mainstream, reliable sources that discuss the subject. If that is not available then it is probably best to nominate the page for deletion before you put a lot of work into it.

If you decide that the subject is notable enough to warrant the work then I think what Susan is suggesting is a "warning" on the talk page so that other editors know you are actively working on the page. You aren't expecting them to do the work for you but they are welcome to help. The Talk page post is not totally necessary but it does kinda call "dibs" in case the page has a few small typos while you are working on it.
 
Graham, I don't envy you taking on a project of this size. Although you should know pretty quickly if you will be able to find 3-5 mainstream, reliable sources that discuss the subject. If that is not available then it is probably best to nominate the page for deletion before you put a lot of work into it.

If you decide that the subject is notable enough to warrant the work then I think what Susan is suggesting is a "warning" on the talk page so that other editors know you are actively working on the page. You aren't expecting them to do the work for you but they are welcome to help. The Talk page post is not totally necessary but it does kinda call "dibs" in case the page has a few small typos while you are working on it.

There is already a note on the talk page of the article discussing this and I've added a cleanup tag to the page.

Finding mainstream sources about this may be difficult.

Typing "Ibn Farrukh" into Google brings up the wikipedia article, Jason Colavito's article and a lot of 'woo history' that seems to have copied the Wikipedia page.

http://www.google.com.au/#output=se...89,d.dGI&fp=9e9407a7875bef03&biw=1280&bih=842

Ditto with Bing.
 
Graham -

Allecher is correct. If you can not find 3-5 good notable sources within a hour of searching, then they may not exist. You might just need to cut your losses and not fight this battle.

As Allecher said, you might just want to nominate the page for deletion.

You should always pick projects that are your passion, but sometimes it is just too much.

We at GSoW are always looking for team members, our to-do list is very very long. hint hint
 
What I've often found is the article is created and then, even if you leave notes suggesting what needs adding it never seems to be done unless you do it yourself.

Welcome to skeptical activism 101
 

Back
Top Bottom