Talk:Licancabur

Removed content
As discussed on my user talk page and the talk page of this editor, the source does not mention Licancabur at all and it's not clear that it is reliable either: "The border area around Licancabur was mined by the Chileans during the dicatatorship of Pinochet. Although de-mining has taken place along some roads from the Chilean side, there are still mines in the area. For this reason, the Bolivian route to the summit is recommended ." Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have found a few more sources for information about landmines around Licancabur: The following source is more reliable as it's from an academic paper http://www.ijch.net/vol4/127-CH0001.pdf. Furthermore, a newer edition of the landmine monitor archive mentions Licancabur: http://archives.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?url=lm/2003/chile.html. There is a discussion on some climbing sites: https://www.summitpost.org/licancabur/153749 http://gerdbreitenbach.de/anden/bolivia_1/licancabur_en.html http://wyprawy.az.pl/en/21/expeditions This site shows quite clearly the signed minefield and the road leading to Licancabur: http://machacasonwheels.blogspot.com/2014/12/uyuni-to-san-pedro-de-atacama-via.html ... I think that with the newer source from the-monitor.org and the ijch.net paper, my statement could be changed to "The border area around Licancabur contains land mines on the Chilean side (insert refs); for this reason, the Bolivian route to the summit is usually taken." I do not have data to backup my original statement about this happening during the dictatorship, although that was what I remember people telling me. Here is some more information from another reliable source : https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/22/magazine/voyages-nathalie-cabrol-searching-mars-life-on-earth.html  Kamerondeckerharris (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I re-added a comment similar to the original one I made. All claims are now backed up with references. Hopefully that checks out. Thanks. Kamerondeckerharris (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me...except that I can see an "International Journal of Culture and History" on User:JzG/Predatory/M., is this from the same dubious publisher? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , both look equally bogus to me. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hrm, seems like we can't use it as a source then. From what I can tell only these sources might work; the other ones have WP:SELFPUBLISH issues and even these two are so-so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As a working academic myself, my opinion is it's hard to determine who is or isn't "predatory". In some people's view, top journals like Nature, Cell, Science, and the whole Elsevier group are "predatory". However, from what I can tell this is a peer-reviewed journal although it's not in my field. I do not see IJCH on the User:JzG/Predatory/M list. What is wrong with the land mine & cluster munitions monitor? The UN itself uses it as a source https://research.un.org/en/mines/statistics Kamerondeckerharris (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Aye, but on Wikipedia we've settled on a particular definition of "predatory". I've rewritten the text to strip out the unreliable sources. Also, to be honest it seems like the landmining issue has been given a bit of WP:Undue weight on Wikipedia; it's only a minor component of the history of this volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

On W.E.Rudolph
Linking this study as it illustrates one reason why I think they are a RS for cultural things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)