Talk:Sjeverin

Untitled
Helpful as always, Ckatz. The reference linked only to the report, not to the organisations' website, hence the external link. Apologies for the transgressive use of such a mechanism which you prefered not to resolve constructively. I've now identified the organisation by its website as a reference. I presume "we" have no objection to providing information concerning the existence of an organisation.Opbeith (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Skip the snarky comments, please. The URL was removed because we do not typically link in this manner. The organization is already accessible through the URL in the reference, so a second one is not necessary. (We don't need a second link to verify its existence as the report serves the same purpose.) I've also reformatted the reference to more clearly state the source. As an aside, the references will need to be updated in this article. We cannot use a Wikipedia article as a reference for another Wikipedia article. The existing references in the French Wikipedia article will need to be copied here. I'll try to get to it unless you are able to do it first. Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  08:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This time I appreciate it that you are being helpful, thank you. Nevertheless as I pointed out the first time, which was why I was upset, the reference you've left does not link to the Sandzak HRC organisation site, it simply links to a downloadable document.  That was the reason for keeping the reference/external link/whatever to the Sandzak HRC site itself.  Without it there is no easy route to the SHRC.  I'd create an article for SHRC for use as an internal link except it would be the subject of a request for deletion within five minutes and there's YIHR to sort which is a rather more important organisation nationally and internationally.


 * I've seen other language Wikipedias used as a reference/link, presumably because the same standard of verifiability is used there. If this isn't standard practice, then I'm happy to get the references from the French article, but if I don't got round to it then I'd appreciate it if you would.Opbeith (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, I've had another thought - setting aside the fact that the French references are naturally in French and source names and text will need to be translated (which I can do, but introducing scope for possible problems - eg discrepancy from other renderings of institution titles), citing references taken from the French Wikipedia will imply that the figures are primarily sourced, whereas as it stands it is clear to the reader that the source is a secondary source - one that it is legitimate to use but subject to the usual difficulties that may arise with any secondary source - transcription errors, whatever. If this is a rule, it is a risky/counter-productive one.Opbeith (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The more I think about it, surely it's wrong to replace the direct source by the indirect source. Until the information can be directly verified, which would be the ideal but you and I will be in a better place before all the ideal solutions in life or Wikipedia are arrived at, it is better to have the information available with the direct source rather than omit it as having no reliabity, treat it as unsourced or suggest that it is directly sourced.Opbeith (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)