Miscellaneous desk
< March 31	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 2 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 1[edit]

Queensland Education[edit]

Please advise in what year the last year grade eight (known as scolarship) was conducted in Queensland schools — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.51.38 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're not an answer service. We don't take requests. We are quite willing to help you, but at least google it first. Think of us as a librarian. Shadowjams (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should adopt the Victor Borge Principle: I don't usually play requests. Unless, of course, I am asked to do so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Kriete Letter[edit]

I have a question about the Henry Kriete Letter that exposed a lot of abuses in the International Churches of Christ. Because Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter (husband and wife) aren't they the best source on the letter that they wrote?

In several posts I tried to explain something to User JamieBrown2011, but he keeps saying that Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website and Henry and Marilyn themselves are not reliable sources on the letter that they themselves wrote. I don't understand that.

Here is some of my reasoning:

@Qewr4231, personal blogs are not Reliable Sources for Wikipedia, yet you insist in trying to insert content from them. Even if you agree with the opinions of the authors it is still not appropriate for Wikipedia. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011, who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website.

Again, let me ask you . . . who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website.

Again let me point something out to you . . . who wrote the Henry Kriete Letter? Henry and Marilyn Kriete wrote the letter. Who's website is this? http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/ This is Henry and Marilyn Kriete's website.

I quote from WP:RS

"Definition of a source

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

         the piece of work itself (the article, book);
         the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
         and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University  Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

WP:RS says that a credible source is "the creator of the work (the writer, journalist)." The source I used was Henry and Marilyn Kriete's own website Gloriopolis (http://henrykriete.com/). Further I sighted the exact source that the material came from: Gloriopolis (http://henrykriete.com/2013/12/29/london-the-letter-and-looking-back-marilyn-kriete/). This is a nine part series written by Henry and Marilyn Kriete, on their own website; however you called what WP:RS calls a reliable source, unreliable.

Qewr4231 (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually now it's a 12 or 13 part series that is still continuing. But you know what? Here's the kicker . . . The Henry Kriete Letter was written by Henry and Marilyn Kriete. Qewr4231 (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Qewr4231 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a primary source. If this letter has received attention elsewhere, then you should cite the independent sources. You can also include a link to the letter itself. If it hasn't received attention elsewhere, then it isn't relevant to the article. I'm copying this discussion to the the reliable sources noticeboard, the proper place for these questions. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss accounts[edit]

Resp. Mr. Julian Assange, Ur Honour Had stated that many Indians' accounts, Having in Swiss banks (in the form of black money to save the tax) whose list is with Ur Honour. Why R U not publishing in press/media ??? R U telling truth or just a fake Pl. ??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.224.191 (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be writing to a judge. This are not a courtroom or the media here, this is Wikipedia. StuRat (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange's organisation is Wikileaks, not Wikipedia. The two are not connected. Rojomoke (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you do return here to see these messages, I strongly urge you to read 419 scams because from what you've posted I suspect you've been targeted by a fraudster. --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see any reason to think that, there's nothing to even suggest the OP received personal contact let alone if they did it was a scam, as opposed to a soapboxing rant they receive telling them about how many evil politicians were on the list (or whatever). Either way, the OP may very well be confused (beyond them posting them here).

Indian black money documents that there are a lot of confusing claims surrounding this. E.g. while I'm pretty sure Julian Assange has said that the Julius Baer leaks have Indian (sounding) names [1] but I'm not sure he ever actually said they have the most money on the list as some sources claim [2] (who couldn't even get Rudolf Elmer right).

Note also if you read the better sources carefully, I'm pretty sure the list doesn't have enough info to establish if it's black money without more info like tax declarations, income details, etc. (Obviously the info may lead to questions or an investigation, but the point is you can't automatically say it's black money.) I suspect even residency or nationality can't be known without linking the name to a person and you obviously have to be sure you have the right person. In fact, I'm not even sure if his list has money/account balances (which would be from 2002 or earlier I think) or just names. You may be able to make assumptions, I read somewhere that the minimum (opening?) balance for these accounts was $1 million so it can probably be presumed these people had this much money at one time (or perhaps have the right friends).

Incidentally, the statement (of Indians having the most money) has also been attributed to other people who likewise deny it (and frankly were never likely to say it).

Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, from what I can tell, the last word from Assange on the names is as per the first source and also [3] i.e. Wikileaks wasn't going to release the names yet because of suggested risk to Rudolf Elmer. While this was from late 2011, the case against Rudolf Elmer appears to be partly ongoing [4] so it may be they are still holding out for this reason. On the other hand, may be someone in Ecuador is on the list and won't be happy for it to be revealed or there are other reasons it's never been made public. Then again, this would hardly be the first time that much was promised but little delivered by those involved in wikileaks.

(While may be not wikileaks fault, as partly evidenced from the previous source, there was also a big fuss for a short time in mid 2012 after the courts in Switzerland unsealed the CDs involved with the suggestion the names may be made public because it was an open trial. From what I can tell, not surprisingly, this never happened.)

A final point, as per the sources, there seems to be dispute over whether what Assange has should really be called relating to a Swiss bank. Or rather, while Julius Baer is the group involved and they are Swiss based, it's suggested it may involve their Cayman Islands division. (Which is relevant in the case because it's suggested the Swiss banking secrecy laws Elmer has been accused of violating don't apply.) Note that either way, from what I can tell, Assange only ever claimed to have some (about 2000 total) names from Julius Baer. While there has been a fuss over other alleged lists of names, including from HSBC and involving Indian nationals, these don't seem to involve Assange.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Song playing in the background[edit]

I can tell it's a Mike Jackson song playing in the background. Can anyone tell me which song it is?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdLq9Rb9XB0

Mike? Okay, well it's "Smooth Criminal". Dismas|^(talk) 20:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]