Template:Did you know nominations/James Blair (MP)
< Template:Did you know nominations
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Revision as of 14:36, 28 June 2014 by imported>BrownHairedGirl (some changes, explained)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
James Blair (MP)
- ... that when the British Slavery Abolition Act 1833 compensated slave-owners, the largest single payment was to the Tory Member of Parliament James Blair?
- ALT1:... that when the British Slavery Abolition Act 1833 compensated slave-owners, the largest single payment was to the Tory Member of Parliament James Blair for his 1,598 slaves in British Guiana?
- Reviewed: Nossa Senhora da Graça incident
Created by BrownHairedGirl (talk). Self nominated at 17:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC).
New (26th), long enough, neutral, no copyvio found via spotcheck but will re-check later, QPQ done. There are a number of sources used in the article tagged as unreliable, and what's up with the Hansard? Isn't it just some unofficial site? Aren't there better public sources available? Please ping me if I don't respond. czar ♔ 03:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Ping Thanks for the review.
- Hansard is the Official Report of debates in Parliament. The online source used is a digitised version produced as part of a project led by the Commons and Lords libraries. -- see http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/index.html
- The refs which are tagged as unreliable are to Leigh Raymnent's House of Commons pages. This is self-published work (which is why someone decided to tag it as unreliable), but it is of extraordinarily high quality. Cross-checking it with other sources over tens of thousands of articles has revealed almost no errors in Raymnent's work, while other more traditional works have many more errors. Having changed a ref in the lede, I don't think that any part of the article relies solely on Rayment, but those references add value by helping readers to verify content in an online source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Right, but the website says to not cite it as a source czar ♔ 03:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Ping I absolutely agree that it should not be used as an indexing source, for example to determine whether an MP spoke or when they first spoke, etc. The actual text usually seems pretty good, but I take the point about them asking or it not be cited as Hansard, so I have replaced the URLs with Google Books links. (Ideally we would have both, because the experimental site is so much more useable, but {{cite book}} allows an alternative URL only for an archive)
- Where do you think that leaves us? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- This doesn't have to kill the nom—we just need to find a way to deal with it. So "Template:Tq" is why I wouldn't trust that Hansard site. In that vein, if that was how you sourced that stuff, you cannot simply just change the link because it means the information was written while relying on a non-authoritative source (so it needs to be checked in whatever actual source you're linking)—otherwise we're greenlighting something that no one has confirmed. I wouldn't use the Hansard site until it is definitively approved by the body itself. And things like cite 13 are original research if they're making conclusions from primary sources (not as self-published) that even the primary sources don't say. Perhaps those types of things can be cleaned up and the rest of the choppy one-sentence paragraphs merged? As for Rayment, is there no suitable alternative? The next step would be taking that to WP:RS/N for approval, because it needs to be vetted as reliable (by other secondary sources) before we can use it. czar ♔ 12:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Ping I have made a series of changes, which together have the effect of:
- Removing all the Rayment references, and replacing them with an RS
- Merging the single-sentence paras
- Adding a London Gazette ref for Stopford-Blair's name change
- You comment about how I sourced the material misunderstands how I did it. In each case that a primary source is cited, it is as back-up verification for info gleaned from a secondary source. So in the case of Stopford-Blair's name change, my original source was the secondary one (M'kerlie, verified by the primary source (London Gazette).
- In the case of the Hansard quotes, I did the same thing: secondary source (Estcott's History of Parliament article), supported by the primary sources (Hansard 1824 and Hansard 1825).
- This is a belt-and-braces approach to referencing. The secondary source is evidence of the significance and interpretation of the primary source, but the primary source is included as well to allow the reader to perform their own verification of the secondary source.
- That is not original research; it is responsible verification of secondary sources.
- Please can you clarify whether you object to the inclusion of primary sources as back-up to secondary sources. If so, I would want a third opinion, because in my view the integrity of any article is enhanced by providing verification of secondary sources. I am a bit offended by the suggestion that their inclusion amounts to original research; it appears to me to contradict WP:PRIMARY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Ping I have made a series of changes, which together have the effect of:
- This doesn't have to kill the nom—we just need to find a way to deal with it. So "Template:Tq" is why I wouldn't trust that Hansard site. In that vein, if that was how you sourced that stuff, you cannot simply just change the link because it means the information was written while relying on a non-authoritative source (so it needs to be checked in whatever actual source you're linking)—otherwise we're greenlighting something that no one has confirmed. I wouldn't use the Hansard site until it is definitively approved by the body itself. And things like cite 13 are original research if they're making conclusions from primary sources (not as self-published) that even the primary sources don't say. Perhaps those types of things can be cleaned up and the rest of the choppy one-sentence paragraphs merged? As for Rayment, is there no suitable alternative? The next step would be taking that to WP:RS/N for approval, because it needs to be vetted as reliable (by other secondary sources) before we can use it. czar ♔ 12:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- Right, but the website says to not cite it as a source czar ♔ 03:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)