Talk:Vincent Otti

message: Why "ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo also asked the court to probe the claims." is considered "incorrect"?  Note the reference to an article, which states, "In a letter to the ICC Pre-trial chamber on Thursday, the Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo asked the court to institute a probe following claims that Otti was killed on Kony's orders on October 8."  Is there a conflicting source that I'm not aware of? - BanyanTree 21:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreno-Ocampo's letter to the Pre-Trial Chamber is here (PDF).  He didn't ask the court to do anything about the claims.  The Sunday Monitor article got it wrong.  Sideshow Bob Roberts 22:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for that.  It looks like he just said that the Office of the Prosecutor is carrying out the queries.  (As a side note, what the heck is that signature?  Is that "Luis"? Heh.) - BanyanTree 23:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICC probe 

message: Do we have a reliable source for the claim that Otti was born in 1946?  The ICC arrest warrant (PDF) says he's "approximately 60 years of age" but doesn't state his year of birth, which usually means the Prosecutor was unable to find a reliable source.  Otti shouldn't be placed in :Category:1946 births unless we're sure.  Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... based off my first revision I would guess that I simply counted back from the age given in the ICC warrant and put that as "ca 1946".  The BBC says he was 61 in November 2007, but I would give decent odds that the BBC writer got his date of birth from us. If there's a better category, please replace it. - BanyanTree 04:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth 

message: OK, I'll bite.  Why is blogspot.com taboo? - BanyanTree 10:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the external links guideline, blogs are not a reliable source.  Who says that the text there is correct, and is 'official', it most probably is a copy of an original, why not link/refer to the original?  Moreover, why this interview and not many others (not a linkfarm), and why not use the information to write more in the article (see intro of the external links guideline).  Hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm having a second look.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I see that the original interview is accessible here.  Site does require (free) registration, which is also a problem in the external links section, but it seems to me that that gives a better (primary) reference than a blogspot-copy.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you and have updated the link accordingly.  However, I would like to point out that EL states "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." as "Links normally to be avoided".  This appears to be a textbook exception.  The site claims to be written by Willy Akena, an NGO information advisor, who is apparently working for the Anglican Diocese of Northern Uganda.  I'm inclined to believe the claim, especially given the relative lack of infrastructure in the region.  It's a lesser quality link, but not a bad link, if you see the distinction, and I don't think it should have been removed without replacement in the first place. On a brighter note, this onwiki conflict led me to notice that official LRA confirmation of the death came out two days ago. ;) - BanyanTree 00:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That part is true, and I agree on that, but blogs generally fail also some of the other points stated there, importantly being that they are far from reliable (except when they are from an recognized authority), but also that they sometimes contain scraped information, as in this case a text which is copied from a newspaper.  The newspaper requires registration, and is is a big newspaper in the country.  That suggests strongly to me that the newspaper may have some kind of copyright on the information, which, per WP:COPYRIGHT, would result in that we should not link to that document on the blog at all.  Hope this explains, and thanks for looking further into the matter as well!  --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are all fair points. BanyanTree 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  external link 

message: I've repeatedly removed Otti's date of death from several articles, so I thought I'd explain myself here.  The BBC quotes Riak Machar as saying Otti "probably" died on 3 November 2007, but this is far from reliable.  Details of his death were widely reported in October 2007, so until we get a definitive source for the date, I think we should just say he died in 2007 (or "late 2007").  Polemarchus (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of death