Talk:William Herbert York

Untitled

I moved the following editorial remark from the article content to here:

"This material is taken from an interview I did with Lum in 2003 for an article I wrote for a London Music magazine. --Katywalls (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)"

TO WHOMEVER KEEPS REMOVING THE REFERENCE TO DELORES YORK: ALINE YORK WAS MY HUSBAND'S GRANDMOTHER. THE BIRTH/DEATH OF DELORES IS A VERIFIABLE FACT. MY FATHER IN LAW STILL PLACES FLOWERS ON HER GRAVE EVERY YEAR. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE HER REFERENCE ANYMORE.LAtruthseeker (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed it the first and second times. It was removed the fourth and fifth times by an anonymous editor at IP address 76.102.12.35. The IP and I used similar explanations all four times. This information needs to cite a reliable source. Your relationship to any of the involved people is not verifiable. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I cited LA State Vital Statistics. Perhaps I didn't enter the citation properly. If so, please tell me exactly how to do that. The last I checked, a birth and/or death certificate is a verfifiable document. LAtruthseeker (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC) And I must say I find it very confusing that in an article with a BIG banner at the top saying it has NO references, I can't keep something on it. Is her tombstone in Roselawn Cemetery at 4045 North Street in Baton Rouge, LA a verifiable source?LAtruthseeker (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A birth cert/death cert is a reliable document. However, you would need to cite the document (not the agency holding it) and show that it actually refers to the person named in this article, especially given the fact that York's first, middle and last names are rather common.

Yes, the article has no sources. Also note that the banner you mention asks for reliable sources. "LA State Vital Statistics"[1] is not a reliable source. The reliablity of a source depends on the nature of, "the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times)" WP:RS. Your citation mentions the writer/publisher, but not what the work in question is. Please review WP:CITE for more info. I would be more than willing to assist in any way that I can. Feel free to ask on my talk page, on this talk page or elsewhere. If you would like assistance from an uninvolved third party, you might consider the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I know it can be frustrating when you are newish to Wikipedia and it seems like policies and procedures are coming out of the woodwork to block your every move. That's not our intent, but it certainly can seem that way. Most of us want the same thing: reliable, sourced information presented in a non-biased fashion. Unfortunately, there are often edits from editors who are not yet familiar with our policies and others who don't care what our standards are that we need to be on guard for. I get the impression you are merely trying to correct information that you believe is incorrect. That's great, I'd like to help. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. So could I simply say "source:birth certificate"? Like I said, the documentations available (as far as I know) are the birth/death cert. and tombstone. Aline York passed away in the 90s. And I doubt my father-in-law has any other documents regarding Delores. Again, I really would like your help in honoring her memory here. Thanks.LAtruthseeker (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you cannot cite a birth certificate based on documents that are available "as far as you know". Cite sources that are A) publicly available (thus, verifiable) and B) that you are actually looking at. Once you have the document in question available we can discuss how to cite it. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)