Talk:Edward Makuka Nkoloso

Comments

THIS... IS... HILARIOUS!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.107.253 (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Above comment might provide basis of a serious treatment of the Zambian Space Project: ridicule by the west. A quick check, https://www.google.com/search?q=Edward+Makuka+Nkoloso&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs , makes clear that the project is seen as a joke. The articles on the project are jokes. This incident could be turned into an examination of attitudes toward African industrialization and western views and attitudes. Will (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)woodpainter

In regards to the above two comments, while the events may have been used to get media attention, by way of satire, all evidence suggests his actions were in earnest. He is not just an anonymous figure in Zambian history. Although it would not surprise me if many Zambians feel embarrassment about the "space program", there are also many who are inspired by his audacity. Indeed, there is a certain degree of flamboyance and over-the-top attitudes common in Africa. Roguetech (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The letter from the Minster of Power stating the government was not involved is marked as needing verification. This is independently verified by another source. Verifying Mr. Kamuyuw was minister of Power in 1988 would go a long way, but the information contained is extremely credible, with no reason to doubt its accuracy. Leaving unreliable warning for further discussion. Op-ed by Mr. Nkoloso was also marked as unreliable. However, it is visually consistent with a 1960's newspaper, all facts are consistent with other sources, and it contains a photo of Nkoloso holding a spear that is independently verified he had in 1965. In addition, source is only used to establish Nkoloso's personal intentions, which are described consistently in other sources. Further, his son has tacitly confirmed the contents. Ergo, the source is verifiable beyond any reasonable doubt, despite not knowing the exact publish date or the newspaper it was published in. For these reasons, removed its unreliable warning. With 11 separate largely independent sources, this article is well sourced, and all sources have reasonable verification, and therefore removed of additional citations needed notice. Mr. Nkoloso is an important figure in Zambian history, and the space program garnered wide-spread media attention and clearly not a common occurrence. In addition, it is still relevant to the people of Zambia, and continuing to receive media attention, including an art show and two documentaries. Therefore I removed the notability warning. Roguetech (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed orphan status again. Article is linked from two other article. Removed self-published status. There is no indication that the Wiki article has had any contributions made by the deceased Nkoloso! There are 11 separate sources, only two of which are self-published; neither are used for self-promotion of Nkoloso, but rather to establish intent of otherwise established actions. Removed unreliable source status. The source in question is an article published by Nkoloso in a newspaper. It is been verified by: 1) visual consistency with a 1960's newspaper with no evidence it has been altered or faked (it's a photograph/photocopy); 2) All facts stated within have been independently verified by other sources, so would have required knowledge of events and great skill to fake (some sources used for verification have only recently been published); 3) The article contains a photo verified as being Nkoloso from c.1965, so anyone faking it would have required access to said photo, and indicates likelihood it was published in his lifetime (with no refutation being made available to Western journalism); 4) It is only used to source his personal intentions, and these are consistent with statements made in other sources; 5) His son did not refute the validity in a documentary in which he participated, despite the source having been used and mentioned (CCTV); 6) Only used to source intention to go to mars, to convert martians to Christianity, and belief of vandalism - these beliefs are in no way extraordinary. Therefore, there is no reasonably doubt Nkoloso is the author. Since we can conclude he was the author, exact publication date or the name of the publisher is not relevant to either the information sourced or to the veracity of his statements. The other argument presented is that due to this being a Biography of a Living Person article, higher standards are required. Not only does this article meet those higher standards, but Nkoloso is deceased, so it's not a BLP. Removed stub status due to this article containing all facts available through Western media sources - while more information may be available through African sources, and hopefully these will be added in time, the article does not meet stub standards. In addition, article has been published for several years. Finally, no reason in Talk has been provided for these statuses having been added, and the burden of evidence lies on the one making the allegations. Editor inanygivenhole has been in personal discussion with myself regarding Nkoloso's editorial, and was aware that I oppose considering it unverified. It is my belief inanygivenhole is retaliating for not being able to counter the above list of validation methods, and made no prior mention or argument in support of article being designated stub, orphan or self-published. Roguetech (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Plain and simple. There's no tag for this in particular, but the basic gist of the notion is that *this* source is not reliable enough to make *this* claim. Calling inclusion of this "vandalism" will not make it go away, and in fact will incur civility warnings in the future. Inanygivenhole (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What is extraordinary about which claim in which source? All sources have been verified, all sources are corroborated by further sources, and so far as I know, all sources are properly cited. The letter from Ministry of Power was published by Investigator magazine, with a publication date and URL, as sourced. If you feel it would be better sourced as "web", we can discuss that. I have changed the article titled "We're going to Mars! With a spacegirl, two cats and a missionary" from being "news" to "web", on the basic premise that it is equivalent to a self-published and/or primary document (e.g. a newspaper article of established authenticity but unknown publication). The repository is the Lusaka National Museum, the photographer is Erik Trinidad with date of photograph and a URL is provided for the image. (And I've stated the reasons authenticity is justified from the document itself above - even without publication/repository information.) If you feel it would be better sourced as "news", "image" or "web", we can discuss that. I have tried to find the correct notation for a primary document, as was unable to, so please feel free to suggest how to cite it in such a way as to include all available information. Nonetheless, both Nkoloso's article and the letter from the Ministry are well documented. Setting an article to stub status (on a 5 year old, reasonably thorough article), orphan status (blatantly false as *stated above*) and setting self-published status (blatantly false with a deceased person) all with no discussion (including offsite) as retribution for an offsite conversation is vandalism. Just so you know, I have changed all sources to use endnote cite template, so that the citation data is more clear (and to prevent article clutter). Both of these sources have been in place for years; the original status quo is with the citations in place and unflagged. Therefore, replacing the citation and unflagging the other. If after discussion, we can not agree, then an admin or neutral arbiter can decide, but I will report unilateral deletion of these sources, citations of these sources or flagging these sources again without a consensus as edit-warring. Therefore, if you feel no consensus can be reached, by all means - state your case and refer to an admin, and let *them* change it (or not). Roguetech (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DR and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance for further information. Roguetech (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Changing it from "news" to "web" still doesn't change the fact that it's self-published (in fact, it now explicitly makes that an issue: if it's not a news article, then it's a self-published web bit), and an extraordinary claim. I removed bootnsall from most citations because we have plenty, and there's MOS guidelines against using many citations for the same claim. The article is the opposite of well-documented: we have no idea who published it, or when. Calling my edits "vandalism" is blatantly misusing the term, in full disregard of what guidelines and policy actually say, and is uncivil.

I'm letting ANI know because it's clear we're getting nowhere. Inanygivenhole (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI = ? [edit-NM, found it. Good post.]

I had already typed (and apparently lost) statement that I would refer to admin or editor review, due to you reverting an edit that includes substatntive change not in dispute despite specific request not to do so. Requesting you provide input as to your preferred method:

Editor review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests

Refer to specific editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance (please state preference(s) on editor)

Report for edit war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/EW

As you state you will let "ANI" know, I guess you're already taking care of it, but if not, please provide input. (And otherwise, let me know what ANI is. [edit-see above]) Roguetech (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The "substantive change" was kept, and the only thing changed was in-line with policy. It's an extraordinary claim, and one so fundamental to the program, you'd think someone else would have mentioned it. All of the links you have given are irrelevant, and there are proper venues for this: ANI and 3O. EW is only needed if the revert rule is broken. Inanygivenhole (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"The "substantive change" was kept"" - Thanks.

The three-change rule has been broken, so EW would be an appropriate avenue to take. However, I personally feel that if we both agree on a third-party method, it is unnecessary. Despite not having agreed upon it, I am fine with ANI, though alternative has been suggested.Roguetech (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The three revert rule was never broken. I would suggest getting acquainted with it if you haven't already-I noticed you're new-And it's a pretty fundamental rule. Inanygivenhole (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Three reverts in 24 hours is the limit. Many edits one-after-the-other count as one revert. Inanygivenhole (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)