Talk:Arthur Wiechula

Birth year ?
Herman Blocks book Wir Pflanzen eine Laube ISBN # 978-3-936896-33-6 says (1864- 1941)Slowart (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Treeshapers.net

 * These two statements (both of which I have moved here from the article space and on both corrected the refname (from Weichula2) to treeshapers.net for accuracy & clarity), while interesting and possibly even true, both need credible source(s):


 * “He wrote a few books on the subject of self-sufficiency and working with the land. It was to be his later books that would have the largest impact in Germany where he was born.”


 * “Using the ideals that he'd set out in his books, Arthur would start his own company called Nature Construction. This was later bought out by Neulohe Ltd. After the sale Arthur continued to sell his books and encourage others work co-operatively with nature and to construct with trees.”


 * Treeshapers.net is not a credible source, as previously established conclusively at Talk:arborsculpture. It is a self-published website by the editor that posted the information, and in its present state is both original research and a copyvio (as these are both direct quotes from the not-credible source).  On those four grounds, both are disallowed.  Is there a reliable, verifiable source for any of this information?   If so, please provide it here for verification. Duff (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Tracey Link on Arborsculpture pdf
The edit summary for an edit removing this citation at diff, indicated that it was duplicitous. It is not, and I have restored the reliable, verifiable link to the cited document. The edit summary read "(This ref (TLink) gives citations an earlier reference (designboom) within the article, so you are effectively citing the same reference twice)". I don't agree that if one source cites another source (not inline), then the first source & the second source (which was cited by the first source) cannot both be mined for details and cited separately in a wikipedia article. I think this is incorrect. They are both secondary sources, both valid. I say they can both be used, otherwise all sources used in a given paper would be disqualified for citation once that paper was cited. Comments? Duff (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)