Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/LaRouche criminal trials and Summit Camp: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
Will Beback (talk | contribs) →LaRouche conspiracy trials: fixed two SPS issues |
NEEM Camp |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Summit Camp''', also '''Summit Station''', is a year-round research station on the dome of the [[Greenland Ice Sheet]]. Its coordinates are variable, since the ice is moving. The coordinates provided here are as of 2006. The station is located 3212 meters above sea level.<ref>http://facility.unavco.org/project_support/polar/summit/base.html</ref> |
|||
===[[LaRouche conspiracy trials]]=== |
|||
It is about 360 km from the east coast and 500 km from the west coast of Greenland. The closest town is [[Ittoqqortoormiit]], 460 km [[ESE]] of the station. The station is however not part of Ittoqqortoormiit municipality, but falls within the bounds of the [[Northeast Greenland National Park]]. |
|||
Winter population of the station is four, and has peaked at 55 in summer. |
|||
:<small>''Nominator(s): [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]]''</small> |
|||
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Featured article tools|1=LaRouche_conspiracy_trials}}</noinclude> |
|||
<!-- Please don't edit anything above here; just include your reasons for nominating below. --> |
|||
Summer temperatures range fron 0°C to -40°C, and winter temperatures from -25°C to -60°C.<ref>http://www.geosummit.org/resources/lrp/LRP_presentation.pdf</ref> |
|||
This article is comprehensive, fully sourced, and neutral. It has passed PR and GA reviews. I've just finished converting (almost) all of the citations to templates. I think it's ready for FAC. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Accessibility is by [[C-130_Hercules]] aircraft from [[Kangerlussuaq Airport]] which land on a 15,000' by 200' (4572 m by 60 m) snow runway, which is prepared and regularly groomed for ski-equipped aircraft.<ref>http://siempre.arcus.org/4DACTION/wi_alias_fsDrawPage/1/92</ref> |
|||
* Elbow grease needed to clean up the citations including a failure to use named refs (see [[WP:FN]]), plurals on singular page numbers, *The* New York Times, *The* Boston Globe, and the article mixes {{t1|citation}} and cite xxx templates (see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates and tools]]). I also corrected image layout issues (see [[WP:ACCESS]] and [[WP:MOS#Images]]); there may be more. Also [[WP:ALLCAPS]]. I left sample edits to help get you started.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LaRouche_conspiracy_trials&diff=244718952&oldid=244688114] [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::*I've used named refs on every duplicated ref I can find. |
|||
::*removed plurals for singular page refs (a big in Zoteroa, apparently) |
|||
::*removed "the" from newspaper titles |
|||
:::* Backwards :-)) ''[[The New York Times]], [[The Boston Globe]]'', etc. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::**Half of them were that way before. Sigh. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 23:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::* Yes, they were the ones I had already corrected as samples :-) [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::*changed all {citation} templates to {cite xxx} templates |
|||
::*fixed remaining caps. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 20:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
**Thanks for the review. Those are fairly easy to fix. (Though I'm astonished to learn, as I did a few hours ago, that the two citation template "familes" are incompatible, and that there is no conversion tool. The templates are more trouble than the researcing and writing!) And thanks for fixing the images. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 06:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*** They give inconsistent results, or so I'm told. Personally, I use templates because I never could be bothered to figure out where all the punctuation goes in a footnote, this way I don't gotta learn! [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 12:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*** This handy script [[User talk:Dr pda/editrefs.js]] will help a bunch with editing refs. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 13:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
****Thanks for that. It makes a huge difference. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 20:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
***** Multiple problems still throughout the citations: I left sample edits. Several things would make your citation easier. See [[Ima Hogg]] for a sample of how to separate the book sources only, and then use short citations for the page numbers (example, all the Spanous refs). Also, cite book and cite news handle page numbers differently; you've lost many page numbers, and need to carefully scrutizine your refs for accuracy. And, you need to check on and use the correct newspaper names (example, ''The New York Times''). Finally, if you will use a consistent citation style (last name, first name, etc ... ), once you're done, you can go to the printable version, edit copy edit paste the refs to Excel, remove/replace the gobbledy gook before each citation, and easily spot refs that you missed for named refs. If you get the citations cleaned up, I can do that final part for you; in the current state, I can't do anything. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*****I'm kind of fed up with these templates. These mostly aren't problems with the citations, they're problems with the fricking templates and the template fillers. Are these minor issues enough to derail a FAC? I'll work on these, but none of them affect the article itself. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 23:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
****** I'm not aware that they are derailing the FAC :-) They are just common things that need to be fixed; once you get used to using the templates, they aren't much of a big deal. Once all of that cleanup is done, we can cap this section off if you're concerned about it. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*******(Sorry for my impatience - it's just that I've already spent over a dozen hours re-researching and formatting these citations. It's hard to fix the citations in a mature with so many refs.) OK, I've changed some cites as a test to see if I understand what you're looking for. The idea would be to move all of the books to a "reference" section. Please see refs 8 and 59 and let me know if that's right. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 23:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
********Will, just a note to say you don't need to use citation templates at all. It's a lot easier and faster just to write them out manually. <font color="Brown">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="Light green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|edits]]</font></sup></small> 06:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
******** Except for the missing space in p.xxx, it looks good (also, is it Spannous or Spannaus?). You don't have to use this method, but you will find that it makes your text less clunky to edit, your citations easier to read, and your article probably easier to load without all those templates. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
********#I've moved all of the books (only four) to the "referecnes" seciton and replaced them in the "notes" section with the quasi-Harvard style citations. |
|||
********#I've checked to make sure there are no duplicated references that aren't named. There is no easy way I can see to regularize the order of fields. It would be a monumental effort to do it by hand, with no visible benefit since the templates order them anyway. The random order is an artifact of trying to bring together so many sources using (what I found are) incompatible reference/template tools. I just copied and pasted the material into a text processor and sorted the lines. |
|||
********#* I checked them in a spreadsheet and found only one. Is it Spannaos or Spannaus? I'm not sure what you're referring to at all by "regularizing the order of the fields". The templates do that automatically; inconsistencies occur when the editor uses the wrong field. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
********#**Re; "regularizing": I thought you were asking if I could makes sure each field appeared in the same order in the raw citation. (OT: Why do you suppose that {cite news} and {cite book} handle pages differently? I can't imagine a benefit.) Thanks for catching that extra duplicate. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 00:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
********#Another problem is that many of the references were added by a banned editor using a book that is not easily available. I don't doubt that he reported the contents accurately, but I have no way of obtaining page numbers, for example. Several of the references for that work are briefs and transcripts whose lengthy and arcane titles are given. For example ''United States of America vs. Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. et al, Brief of R. David Pembroke et al., Amici Curiea, No. 89-5518, published in Spannaus (1989)''. Is that what you mean "gobbledy gook"? Does anyone see a way around it? |
|||
********#I've checked to make sure there is now a space after every "p." in page numbers. |
|||
********#Spannaus" is now spelled correctly throughout (a stupid mistake copied over and over). |
|||
********#* Still one there, I left an inline highlighting it. Since it's to a news report rather than the book, I'm unsure if it's a different person. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
********#**Ah, I didn't look for ''that'' misspelling. Thanks for highlighitng it. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 00:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
********I also opened a window to get some fresh air. That helps! Thanks for the input. You were right when you said this needed some elbow grease. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 00:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
********* It becomes second nature after a few FACs and FARs :-) You have inconsistent date formatting throughout the citations, but since the changes to MoS about delinking dates are still rather recent, most FACs are getting off the hook on that one, although I may go in and fix them myself if I find the time. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
**********I'm glad there's an allowance on date formats. Getting those consistent is not a fun job. You'd think someone would have a program for it. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 00:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*********Regarding this comment: '' If there's no URL, there can't be an accessdate'' |
|||
********#A majority of these citations were obtained through the [[Proquest]] archive, which I have free access to courtesy of my library system. The URLs all include a reference to the library that routes browsers to a library-specific log-in screen. So only readers in this library system can use those URLS. For that and another reason I removed all of them. Anyone with Proquest can easily search for the headlines. If an accesdate without a URL is bothersome I can remove those too, but I think they have value. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 00:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{coord|72|34|45|N|38|27|26|W|display=title}} |
|||
'''Comments''' |
|||
* <s>Current ref 6 needs the publsher broken out from the link title.</s> |
|||
**Fixed |
|||
* <s>Current re 9 has a numbered link in it, you need to format the link with a link title. Do you really need the link? I'm not sure who is the publisher (or republisher) of the stuff on the link... I'm not sure it's reliable or not a copyright violation there (Do they have the right to reprint the work?)</s> |
|||
**Fixed (see below for copyright & reliability) |
|||
* <s>Current ref 52 (It's Time for Truth-in-Justice..) doesn't give a publisher</s> |
|||
**Fixed |
|||
* <s>Same for current ref 69 (The Summary of Relevant..)</s> |
|||
**Fixed |
|||
* <s>As Sandy said above, even when the original gives a title in all capitals, we don't put it in all capitals.</s> |
|||
**Fixed |
|||
* <s>Current ref 86 (Murphy, Carlye...) is lacking a publisher</s> |
|||
**Fixed |
|||
* <s>Current ref 97 (http://www.subgenius.com/subg-digest/v0/0088.html Volume0 SubGenius) is lacking a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable source?</s> |
|||
**Fixed (see below for reliability) |
|||
* What makes http://american_almanac.tripod.com/index.htm a reliable source? |
|||
**See below for reliability |
|||
*** This is really strange. It appears as if it's a magazine that is published in hard print (in which case it should be using cite news, not cite web), and yet they have a ''tripod'' website ??? What kind of publication is this? Can we access this periodical in a library or does it fall under [[WP:SPS]] ? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
****Yes, strange. If I understand correctly, the ''American Almanac'' is or was an occasional insert into ''Executive Intelligence Review'', the flagship periodical of the LaRouche movement. I don't know if it's carried in any libraries - it's not in the large library system to which I have best access. To the extent that the entire movement is an entity, I've presumed that it falls under [[WP:SPS]]. Other than a few quotes in newspapers, the movement publicaitons are the only source for the movement's viewpoint. Now in many articles, newspapers are considered sufficient sources for all viewpoints. But in this case the movement considers the major newspapers to be part of a conspiracy agasint them. As I noted below, we should probably double check to make sure that none of the SPSes are used to make contentious assertions about 3rd parties. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 04:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* <s>Current ref 139 (Schiller Institute -- LaRouche -- Bad Guy...) needs the publisehr outside the link title</s> |
|||
**Fixed |
|||
* <s>Same for current ref 141 (Schiller Institute --INtroduction)</s> |
|||
**Fixed |
|||
* <s>Current ref 146 (The Curtis Clark ...) needs a publisher</s> |
|||
**Fixed |
|||
* <s>Same for current re 147 (Statement of Mann=Chestnut..)</s> |
|||
**Fixed |
|||
* <s>and for Current ref 148 (Exonerate LaRouche...) </s> |
|||
**Fixed |
|||
: Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 13:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==See also== |
|||
::Thanks for the review. Almost all of these that lack a publisher or are of questionable reliability are LaRouche sources, and have been accepted as essentially self-published works talking about themselves. I'll go through and add the relevant entity as publisher. Likewise, it can be assumed that movement publications have permission to republish materials from other movement publications. It occurs to me though that some of the self-published sources make assertions about 3rd-parties, and those assertions should probably be removed. I'll go through these one by one and check them off as I do. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 19:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[NEEM Camp]] |
|||
::: Yeah, if I'm asking for a publisher, but don't question the reliablity of the source, it is just a "housekeeping" thing that needs a publisher. I don't have time to read every source and compare them against every citation, I just try to make sure we catch the obviously self-published/non-reliable sites. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::In an absolute sense, the LaRouche-related publications aren't reliable. However they are the only source for the LaRouche movement's viewpoint on the matter, except for a few quotations in news accounts. While I've addressed the technical citing issues listed above, I haven't deleted cases where they make claims about 3rd-parties because that is a more delicate operation. I believe that many of them have been at least quoted in reliable sources so that may not be an urgent problem. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: Ealdgyth, when all of yours and mine is resolved, you can add mine to your cap. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: I think the only concern is the American-Almanac things, and even there, as far as using it for LR positions, it should be fine. It would only be on third-party type things that it would be questionable, and it sounds like Will is checking those? [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 17:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::There are two statements about 3rd parties that are of concern: |
|||
:::*''According to Barbara Boyd, Billington's attorney had not prepared a defense, assuming that Billington would "cop a plea," and the judge refused to permit Billington to substitute a different attorney, despite the fact that one stood ready.'' |
|||
:::While the shading may be a bit biased, I have read another account that more or less agrees with this. Plus the attorney is unnamed, making it less personal (though I gather the attorney in question is fairly prominent now). I think it's probably OK. Any other thoughts? Another statement from an SPS stood out for a different reason: |
|||
:::*''Bostetter said the government's actions amounted to bad faith regardless of whether government agents and attorneys had intended this outcome. He found that the government's actions and representations in obtaining the bankruptcy had the effect of misleading the court as to the status of the organization, leading to a "constructive fraud on the court."'' |
|||
:::I happened to read over one of the appeals court opinions last night and saw this footnote: |
|||
:::*''We also note that the Defendants have greatly distorted the character of much of the evidence presented in support of these claims. They assert, for example, that the bankruptcy court found that the bankruptcy petition was filed in bad faith when in fact the bankruptcy court expressly rejected the contention that the petition was improperly motivated. In re: Caucus Distribs., Inc., 106 B.R. at 928. Much of the other evidence presented in support of these claims is equally lacking'' [http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/4/987/525762/] |
|||
:::Since this assertion is directly contradicted by the appeals court, the best thing may be to simply remove it. Sorry for not finding this earlier. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::: On the first one, my best advice would be to back it up with the other source, if possible. The second, I'm afraid that removing is probalby the best option, or another option would be the "attribution" option, maybe something like "American Almanac says that (blah) occured, but the appeals court found (opposite of blah), which contradicts AA." or similar. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I've fixed both, more or less as you've suggested.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LaRouche_conspiracy_trials&diff=245059642&oldid=245036723][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LaRouche_conspiracy_trials&diff=245061555&oldid=245059642] I deleted the part about not being prepared to make a defense, as that only appears in the SPS, and is somewhat contradicted by a statement from another LaRouche spokesman. The article does name the lawyer, so extra care is needed. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 20:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==References== |
|||
# The lead contains many statements without sources. Per [[WP:LEAD]]: ''The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, '''should be carefully sourced as appropriate''', and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.'' ; |
|||
{{Reflist}} |
|||
# The section named "State trials" contains a cover of a book, in violation of [[WP:FAIR]]; |
|||
# The title of section named "Claims of LaRouche supporters" could be changed to something more neutral and factually accurate, and contains unsourced material such as "The convictions of LaRouche and his associates were a defining moment in the history of the LaRouche network." Surely there must be sources that make that assertion. The section title "Attempts at exoneration" could also be changed to something more neutral. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 01:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==External links== |
|||
*Jossi, I didn't know you reviewed FACs. This is a rare honor. |
|||
*[http://www.geosummit.org/ Summit Camp Homepage] |
|||
**''Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality.'' - [[WP:LEAD#Citations]] |
|||
*[http://www.summitcamp.org/transport/weatherstation/ Weather data of Summit Camp] |
|||
*#The current lead was discussed on the talk page and all requests for citations have been met. |
|||
*#[[WP:FAIR]] sets out ten criteria for inclusion of images. I believe it meets all ten. The title (pictured on the cover) makes the assertion of having been a "political prisoner" and serves as the source for the assertion in the text. Is there a specific citerion that it fails? |
|||
*#"Claim" has a legal meaning which is not prohibited. However it could be replaced by a word like "argument". I'm not sure how "attempts" is non-neutral. Would "efforts" be better? I'm not sure why, but if it is then that's fine too. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 01:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Cities, towns and villages in Greenland]] |
|||
::: [[WP:FAIR]] for a book cover requires does not apply in this case. A book cover can only be used in an article about the book, or in an article that discusses the book critically. As for the section titles, I am sure you can find a more neutral presentation. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Settlements in the Arctic]] |
|||
::::[[WP:FAIR]], the policy you cited, doesn't mention book covers. Are you thinking of some guideline? [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 04:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Actually, the way "claim" is being used here is completely different than the legal meaning of the word "claim", so the normal rule should apply. [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 04:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{Greenland-geo-stub}} |
|||
::::Would "arguments" be better? [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 04:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Leads don't require citations as long as facts are cited in the body, except in the case of direct quotes. '''[[User:Giants2008|<font color="blue">Giants2008</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Giants2008|<font color="red">17-14</font>]]) 01:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: That is not what [[WP:LEAD]] says. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I quoted [[WP:LEAD]] above, and that seems to be exactly what it says. Have you read [[WP:LEAD#Citations]]? [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 04:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' I haven't gone through the article that thoroughly yet, but the refs to legal documents are still kind of a mess. "Appeal, United States v. LaRouche, No. 89-5518, published in Spannaus (1989)" is probably the worst - is this a motion? a decision? what year was it filed in? what court wrote it (or what court was it filed in? what case does it pertain to? It appears to be the motion for an appeal filed by LaRouche in the 4th circuit but it's really hard to say. I know that these documents are reprinted in that Spannaus book, but really we should have sufficient citations for readers to find the original documents if need be. Hopefully there is enough info in Spannaus that can be added to make it so. Any court filing should have the name of the filing, the name of the case it relates to, the volume/reporter/page # of the case it relates to (or at least the docket number, but hopefully we can avoid that), the court it was filed in, and the year it was filed. (Court filings include normal briefs, amicus briefs, motions, etc.) Do you have access to that book? It appears that my law library has it but I don't know if I'll have time to go get it or not. Another big-picture issue with the article is how it mushes up all the appeals for what appear to be separate cases at the end. As a legal reader I find this extremely confusing, because each case surely deals with different issues on appeal, so it makes no sense to group appeals with each other rather than with the cases they pertain to. [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 04:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
**I don't have access to ''Railroad!'', the Spannaus book, and the nearest library that has it is a hundred miles away. I tried to get an interlibary load without success. There is a law library near me that should have some of the actual appellate decisions. See also the list of appeals on the talk page. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 04:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:02, 13 October 2008
Summit Camp, also Summit Station, is a year-round research station on the dome of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Its coordinates are variable, since the ice is moving. The coordinates provided here are as of 2006. The station is located 3212 meters above sea level.[1] It is about 360 km from the east coast and 500 km from the west coast of Greenland. The closest town is Ittoqqortoormiit, 460 km ESE of the station. The station is however not part of Ittoqqortoormiit municipality, but falls within the bounds of the Northeast Greenland National Park.
Winter population of the station is four, and has peaked at 55 in summer.
Summer temperatures range fron 0°C to -40°C, and winter temperatures from -25°C to -60°C.[2]
Accessibility is by C-130_Hercules aircraft from Kangerlussuaq Airport which land on a 15,000' by 200' (4572 m by 60 m) snow runway, which is prepared and regularly groomed for ski-equipped aircraft.[3]
72°34′45″N 38°27′26″W / 72.57917°N 38.45722°W
See also
References
External links
 | This Greenland location article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |