Talk:Ruslana Korshunova: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:45, 17 July 2008

Biography: Arts and Entertainment Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Ethnicity in lede

Any call for this? --72.209.10.176 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

I think a photo MUST be added to this article. It's our way of respecting this woman. It's something we can do and must do. I can't express it in words, what this means to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollomonkey1 (talk • contribs)

The current photo is falsely claimed as {{PD-self}}. We need to get a better photo. Fair use can be used as the subject is deceased. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a beautiful girl :( --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldo controversy

Should anything about Geraldo showing footage of her corpse on his show be added?--WinOne4TheGipper (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't sound that relevant to her bio, not worthy of mention, imho. I would also think the part about the Russian mob could be removed. Has that been reported outside of that blog? --72.209.10.176 (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diaday.com

Neither I would mention Geraldo and in addition to that I would permanently remove the diaday.com-link as everything on that site is stolen from somewhere else. ► robomod 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm removing the speculation about the Russian mafia along with the diaday.com link. Speculation has no place in an encyclopedia and I've already removed the diaday link once, someone added it back claiming it was relevant and contained important info. After reading it, I don't agree with that at all as it seems to be a copy of what other outlets have reported. Pinkadelica 21:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I noticed that thing with the resubmission of diaday.com. It's looking better now. ► robomod 09:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diaday.com owns the copyrights for all the articles on its site. Audios are likewise the property of diaday.com. Photos are orginal and owned by diaday.com or licensed by diaday.com. Any suggestion to the contrary may possibly shed false light, be libelous, defamatory etc. Diaday.com’s coverage of the Ruslana Korshunova tragedy provided orginal photographs and audio with a person at the scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gators855 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears from the story that the article and photos are copyrighted by Tactical News Service and I find no notation on either webpage that they are one in the same. Tactical News Service has an explicit copyright notice on its pages. Meanwhile, the website still appears to be a blog. Before readding this link, you need to take this up at the appropriate noticeboards that determine the acceptability of external links, and not return it until you do. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus to omit the link has been reached. Pinkadelica 15:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A clear and comprehensive notice appears on www.tacticalnewsservice.com which states in its first paragraph, “Tactical News Service, Inc. has entered into an agreement with diaday.com to provide diaday.com with breaking news coverage, photographs, audios, videos, articles, etc. to be published and disseminated on diaday.com, or in any manner diaday.com sees fit, without exception.”

Tactical News Service lists the news organizations to which it has provided coverage in that notice and they include The Associated Press, CNN, WOR Radio, NY1 and The New York Post to name but a few. Tactical News Service also lists its press credentials.

A read of the diaday.com “About” section makes it clear that diaday.com is not a blog. Furthermore, as per Wikipedia: Reliable sources, diaday.com qualifies because it is disseminating information gathered at the scene of an event, with original photographs and audio provided exclusively to it by a bona fide news service.

Tactical News Service has provided coverage to mainstream news outlets falling well within the description of such under the News organizations subsection of the Wikipedia: Reliable sources entry. Tactical News Service, from the notice on its page, is now providing diaday.com the same kind of coverage that has been presented to any number of other mainstream media outlets.

The diaday.com external link goes to an exclusive piece of reportage done by one of the first press members on the scene. The audio and photographs, particularly, represent important information that meets Wikipedia’s standards and is an important piece of factual reportage. Therefore, the link should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gators855 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming an edit war when it really shouldn't. If diaday.com is not a blog, it looks suspiciously like one, but that really isn't the point. I don't see how this link adds anything to the article that isn't already stated. There are two photographs on that site and again, I don't see how that is needed. Further, Wikipedia is not a collection of links, there are already sufficient references provided in the article along with a link to the Chicagotribune.com. article in the external links which should provide anyone with any additional information that isn't covered in the article itself. I'm going to let others weigh in again, even though a consensus to remove this link was already reached. Pinkadelica 19:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is something decidedly suspicious about one account constantly adding, then re-adding, the link and another account doing the defending of the addition. In addition, both accounts appear to be single-purpose accounts, both created and only used for this link addition to this article. The notice on the Tactical News Service site was not added until this morning at 11:30 am. First, Figment1 has been reported for WP:3RR violations and simply cannot continue to revert to add this link. Secondly, Gators855, it was requested that this website be submitted to the appropriate noticeboards for approval of its status. It's easy to post notices on your websites in order to help bolster the reliability and validity of the page, but rather than establish its validity as a news source, it has clouded the question. There is a definite WP:CoI involved in your and Figment1's insistence on inclusion of this page on this article. Were this a legitimate news site, it would have been added to at least one other article on Wikipedia. Again, take it up with the appropriate noticeboards, or we will as a violation of Wikipedia policy. Consensus has been reached that this link is not relevant to the article as an external link. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to add an additional external link to diaday.com if there are plenty of references to "The Telegraph", "New York Post" or "New York Daily News" - just to mention a few - whose coverage is already far reaching . Besides that, this article is intended to be a biography and not a discussion board about Ruslana's suicide, where everything has already been said within the text and the mentioned references. One external link to the suicide story is adequate, the rest is superfluous. I would even substitute "Chicago Tribune"'s link with the one from "Telegraph", because the Tribune article consists of 3 lines while the Telegraph has a detailed one. ► robomod 11:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her body

Was she buried or cremated? There's no information about her funeral.Brazilian Man (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her mother arrived in New York to claim the body and is arranging for Korshunova's body to be sent back home. There has been no funeral yet.--71.112.145.203 (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Komsomolskaya Pravda, Ruslana's funeral took place in Khovanskoye Cemetery in Moscow, 7th of July. New York Daily News information about Mitinskoe Cemetery is wrong, since that information came before the actual funeral.

That's fine, but we need a source for it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to correctly edit her actual page, so here's a link to the article in Pravda that confirms the funeral site to be Khovanskoye: http://www.kp.ru/daily/24125.5/347037/ . It is in Russian, but easily translated with an online translator. Feel free to remove this afterwards, I just thought it would be better to have the correct information. Thank you!