User talk:Klopod
Norilsk
[edit]Hi, Klopod! Thanks for your inquiry. You are, of course, correct in that the CNN claim can be refuted (or at least counter-balancing opinion could be given), but Wikipedia policies allow only certain ways in which that can be done. Even if you (or me) go to the location and make sure that there are in fact trees growing in the area in question, your word (or mine) is not going to be sufficient for the article's purposes, because it cannot be verified. Pictures you take will not do it either, because while we do accept pictures for the purpose of illustrating the articles, they cannot be used for citations unless they came from a reliable source and can be cited as such. A link to a reliable source making a counter-statement is, of course, always acceptable (a local newspaper is quite fine, and so is any official website), and if such a source has pictures showing the trees growing there, that would be even better. Personal webpages (yours included) are not acceptable for this purpose, you are right about that. Standalone pictures (i.e., without accompanying article) would only be acceptable if they explicitly define the area in question and are published in what can be defined as a reliable source. Satellite pictures, such as those available on Google Earth (thanks for taking time to look them up, by the way!), are more complicated. While definitely "reliable" (as defined by WP:RS), Google Earth maps and satellite pictures are a primary source, so no matter how straightforward their interpretation seems to be, it would be an interpretation nevertheless, and thus would fall under Wikipedia's no original research policy (because we would not be using them purely descriptively, as WP:PSTS requires, but would use them to refute a cited statement).
All in all, what this boils down to is that we need a statement in a reliable source confirming the existence of the living trees in order to be able to provide some balance to the CNN's mistake (if that's what it is) or to remove it altogether (in which case a note can be made on the talk page, as you have suggested). Meanwhile, in absence of any other sources, I would recommend to add a note to the CNN statement with a link to the satellite picture in which the trees are visible, which is an easy temporary fix until good counter-balancing sources are found.
Hope this helps! Please don't hesitate to contact me again if you need anything else or if anything is still unclear. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)