User talk:DGG/Archive 0.6

SOURCING ARCHIVE

---

                                       ARCHIVES

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD,      Speedy & prod,        NPP & AfC,       COI & paid editors,      BLP,                              Bilateral relations
Notability,               Universities & academic people,       Schools,                       Academic journals,       Books & other publications
Sourcing,                Fiction,                                               In Popular Culture      Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D 
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

 

            DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

AfDs/blogs

Hi, the assumption is that I'm "pro" the blogs I'm currently fighting to keep an entry for, but that is jumping to conclusions. I wrote many new entries on Muslims and Islam, and I would fight to keep them. They're there because I think it's important people have access to information about these issues. In any case, a pattern won't be seen since this user first did a "speedy delete" on several entries using an IP and only identified themselves when I argued that an anonymous user shouldn't be speedy deleteing (to point out that it's against wiki policy and an ip user shouldn't be discriminated). The reason I went out directly against him is because of his claim that he's being attacked for something he's only been doing for "two-three" days, and of course, looking at his "user contributions" that's what it looks like, so why accuse him? I am not accusing him that he's anti those blogs, I'm accusing him of abusing the system and I don't like it. As I wrote him directly, his only contributions are nitpicking those of others. I think that's anti-wikipedia behavior.

I think blogs are in a catch 22, since old style newspapers have no interest in writing about them, and at most they'll reach the editorial page. Most blogs are not worthy of an entry, but I just wonder how many entries are going to be deleted before the policy is changed.

About the Fjordman blogger, for example. When the original speedy delete came up I said that if you google, it comes up in amazing numbers. To which I was told by this user "it's a common name in Scandinavia". But then, why does the blogger get top billings on the first 3-4 pagse of Google (at which time I gave up looking). What do I need to do to prove that this guy is immensely popular? Misheu 06:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions and input. I do need somebody with some common sense to tell me this :-) I'm not so anti what you say as you think. When I told this user that I actually appreciated his speedy delete since it caused me to look up sources he thought I was joking and took it as an insult. I wouldn't be so "up in arms" this time if it wouldn't be posed as "look up all sources now for all entries or else" and come as a 'second wave'. There are so many other ways to approach articles you think need sources. Again, some of the entries he brought for deletion, i agree with, but most of them he's going against established, well known, influential blogs. Misheu 06:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

DGG, thanks for your help in this recent mess. I appreciate the good words helping move this process forward. --Edwin Herdman 21:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Blogs etc as references

I am wondering about when blogs become useful as references. Some blogs are written by known figures who are notable already from their other writing, or from their qualifications or expertise. Some are associated with people who give their real names and professional positions and credentials. Some science blogs have been highly rated. For example, Nature magazine placed a "review of some of the best blogs written by working scientists" on its website in July 2006.[1][2].

Some examples:

• Pharyngula (weblog) by PZ Myers, a biologist from the University of Minnesota, science category winner in the 2006 Weblogs Awards
• Panda's Thumb (weblog), with many professional scientist posters, also highly rated (second place winner?). Almost every poster I have seen on there already has a WP article, and is noted for other writing already. Usually with good sources.
• talkorigins not a blog exactly, but with many articles written by well-known professional scientists and well-sourced
• RealClimate, a blog produced by "real climate scientists at the American Geophysical Union"
• Aetiology, found at [3], written by Tara C. Smith, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology in Iowa
• scienceblogs, a provider of science blogs includes many interesting and useful blogs [4]. Note that they are selective in who gets to blog, in fact.
• Nature itself hosts assorted science-related blogs [5]

Comments? Ideas? Suggestions?--Filll 04:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

essentially, i think a review like that of Nature gives authority to the blog. The best way of establishing the authority is to write an article about the blog for Wikipedia. I think this is true in general for any type of sources which not everyone will recognize as notable without an explanation, and I have done so for a few reference sources, and have always intending to do more, including some blogs. Blogs run by magazines are like letters to the editor. Some places screen them very very carefully, some don't. (remembering again to distinguish from the letter to the editor type of short article, as in Nature). Something published in a blog by a recognized authority is an easy case--regardless of where she publishes it, she gives it authority. But remember to be fair about this--some blogs by those with whom we do not agree are also responsible.

so I encourage you to write some articles about blogs. Let me know & I'll look at them. DGG (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC) (dp)

other sources for bios

DGG, It might be useful to mention in the discussion which are the reliable big US biographical dictionaries, that can be used as better sources - no doubt you know. Johnbod (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two. The older one is Dictionary of American Biography 1928-1937, and supplements through 1985. Most college libraries and large public libraries will have it in print, locations at. [6]--not all libraries will have all the supplements. I do not know if it is online.

the newer one, greatly preferred if available, is American National Biography Oxford Univ press, Print and online. Print in about 1800 libraries--essentially every college library and many large public--a listing can be found at [7]. (if you enter your zip code it will show nearby libraries) Online in at least 200 libraries and library systems--partial listing at [8]. They have a personal subscription at $25/month.

They each have about 20,000 entries, but not all the older ones were carried over into the new edition. Obviously, the new one is the more accurate for the ones it covers, and will have an up to date bibliography, listing both primary sources and selected secondary sources. I would regard anyone with a full article in each as unquestionably notable. My impression is that it is less scholarly that ODNB, but full up to the demands of WP.

there is a convenient free online bio of the day at [9]. Todays listing is Fiorello H. La Guardia. There is also, free availability to the biographies in every monthly update during the current month, at [10] The lastest is october 2007, and contains 43 articles--most but not all are in WP, but some are without good references. Between them, that's 800 articles a year available free. This would be a convenient way to help build the encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

List of 100 greatest hockey players by The Hockey News

Isn't the mere fact that the list says that it was copied from a copyrighted source an indisputable indication of a copyvio? If not, my apologies for using the speedy tag innapropriately.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 13:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The list is taken from a newspaper feature article (and since then, published as a book), but it is the articles about each player that would be the most contentious material, and none of that is included in this article. The list itself is basically just the table of contents, and I think that constitutes fair use. If not, we should include at least the top 10, and include an analysis of the full list (e.g. # of players by country, # of players by position, etc.). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

First, as for item one, no. Obviously the person using it thought it was fair use. It doesnt even proved it was actually copied, rather than merely based on. For that matter, there have been times when someone inserting material thought it was under copyright, and it has turned out not to be at all, as when, people have uploaded material from a copyright source (but for which they had fair use) but had been copied by that source from a government source--not that this applies here).

Twas Now is mostly correct--the 4 tests for fair use in the US are purpose of use, nature of material, amount taken, and commercial effect. (it need only meet them overall, not necessarily all 4 ). And this does meet all four: its for non-profit education purposes, is descriptive prose rather than fiction, is a small element of the original, and would have no imaginable effect on sales. But it has been held that if it did not meet fair use requirements, taking only say the top 90% of a list would not necessarily make it usable-- but I think ii would if we reported just the top tenth. But the entire list is fair use. 19:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

DGG, I'm looking to create a new article that I found some references for at the library. I have all the info needed for the source, but I'm not sure how to cite the author/editor. It's a "local history" book that appears to be a compilation of different chapters, which each chapter having (a) different author(s). I'm only using information from one specific chapter. Do I cite the author of that chapter, or the editor of the book? I feel like I should do both. The editor's name is on the cover of the book, and each author is only listed on their respective chapter(s). I couldn't find this addressed at WP:CITE or WP:CIT. Maybe Harvard Referencing has some way that I didn't see. Thoughts? Jauerback (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Use the 2nd form under CIT encyclopedia. The logic of CIT is that you when you use "citation" instead of "cite book" etc., you can combine any elements you need from the various versions; the fullest list is at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles

{{Citation
  | last1 = Kramer
  | first1 = Martin
  | last2 = Ludwig
  | first2 = Peter
  | author-link = Martin Kramer
  | contribution = Chapter on XYZ
  | editor1-last = Boyd
  | editor1-first = Kelley
  | editor2-last = Jones
  | editor2-first = Peter
  | title = Collected essays on the subject of ABC
  | volume = 1
  | pages = 719–729
  | publisher = Fitzroy Dearborn
  | place = London
  | year = 2009
  | isbn = 0-9999-1850-8
  | url =  http://www.book.htm
  | contribution-url = http://www.book#chapter.html   
  | accessdate = 2009-06-29  )
}}
 

which should come out as
Kramer, Martin; Ludwig, Peter (2009), "Chapter on XYZ", in Boyd, Kelley; Jones, Peter (eds.), Collected essays on the subject of ABC, vol. 1, London: Fitzroy Dearborn, pp. 719–729, ISBN 0-9999-1850-8, retrieved 2009-06-29
using url and contribution-url only if it's online. If there is more than one author, use the last1 first1 technique from citation for conferences for them. I included the code for multiple authors and editors if needed; I think I will add this to the CIT page. DGG (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ransom Center ?Spam?

Hi DGG, I recently noticed a situation that I thought might be of interest to you. On my watchlist in several places this evening I noticed a user adding links to special manuscript collections that are at the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center. The editor Sashafresh did this pretty widely and was given a link spam warning User talk:Sashafresh#link additions. I assume the editor in question is a librarian or researcher at the Center, hence why I thought to mention the situation to you. On the one hand, I can see how it could be a very useful resource if more librarians helped connect Wikipedians with their resources; on the other hand, I see the potential for abuse. In the cases I looked at, the Ransom Center does have some remarkable manuscripts and such that would be of definite interest to the serious researcher. Anyways, I don't really plan on intervening in the situation, but thought I'd flag it for you. --JayHenry (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As you say, these will have to be examined individually. There's been previous discussion on this question, with respect to him and others, and the bar for adding such resources is very high. There are justified examples. There's a better solution, of course: to get copyright release for the first page of a manuscript, put a GFDL tag on a web illustration, and add it to commons. The legends will then show the institution. Adding these otherwise requires prior consensus on the article talk page, which might be obtainable for some of them. Let me try to get into contact off-wiki. DGG (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC) (dp)

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Questionable_journals.

Could I invite you to this discussion related to further tweaks to the Scholarship section of WP:RS. I want to try and get this right. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WW in America

I disagree; WW in America is the one I was in. They had no QC, no documentation requirements, nothing. I wouldn't depend on them for anything more substantial than a mailing address. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If they included you, they probably had a reason. I think it was perhaps the appearance at the Dem Convention. (I havent checked for dates or the like) There is the quality control of not wanting to appear in public in a prominent & permanent place like a jackass. I suppose its time to look for another academic study on them, because libraries do use and recommend them. DGG (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, my invitation to be in WWiA was before my stint as a DNC delegate (I may be wrong); when I failed to order a copy of the volume, I was quietly dropped from the next edition. My concern is that I could have lied through my teeth about academic background, employment history, offices held, etc., and apparently they would have taken my word for it. In this era of padded resumes, this is a matter of grave concern for all users of reference materials. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Will take a look at it again, & ask some colleaguesDGG (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Lectures

Hiya David, I see you were scheduled to give a lecture on sourcing in mid-May...did you give the lecture, and is there a "transcript" somewhere, or perhaps you've done an essay on the topic? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think it has been transcribed yet, but the outline is at User:DGG/LR DGG (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Times of London and John Edwards

Hi D - Well, apparently editors think that Sunday Times sleazy piece that used only the National Enquirer as its source, is a reliable source. I wonder if any of them actually read the piece. There's no reliable sourcing even about if this tabloid story hurts his career - just some random writers' opinions. I'm amazed that this has been added. Any suggestions? Tvoz/talk 08:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I consider Sandstein a responsible admin about BLP, and the consensus was clear, and I've always said no individual admins have the right to object to consensus on BLP questions--or anything else. And, we would really have difficulty saying the event isn't notable--in the end I think it would appropriately have a separate article, with a one line link from the campaign and maybe the bio. I'd think the article should discussing the blogging as much --or more--than the Enquirer's actions. That there is actually a quote from them defending their journalistic methods is telling. I'd not advise going to great lengths keeping it out for a few days when it will eventually be in after all--not as if the convention were tomorrow. I intend to continue discussing the Times as a RS when stories like this are used in WP. I want to wait a few weeks before adding it to the article on them & on the Enquirer--here your argument that it would be good to know the conclusion is very much to the point.DGG (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My issue is not with Sandstein - I disagree with his view, but I think he was being responsible. I do have serious questions about the sourcing - not only the Times, but is the Irish Independent "News and Gossip" column seriously considered a reliable source? Because that's what we've got. Tvoz/talk 17:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

not enough to say he had an affair, not perhaps enough to say he was suspected of having one; enough to say that some blogs and tabloids published that he had. DGG (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussion, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines--SaraNoon (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources

I'm finding more and more that newbies are misunderstanding about when primary sources are acceptable, or even if they are acceptable at all.

I started a look at some policy and guideline pages, but through typical over editing (such pages are typically edited/developed due to some current event or other), the primary sources explanations seem a bit watered down and too vague.

If you wouldn't mind, would you a.) help me find any and all pages relating to primary sources, and b.) would you be willing to help write a stand alone guideline concerning them, to better help editors understand usage and so forth? - jc37 02:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no simple guideline. partly because there is no definition of "primary sources" that applies to all types of subjects, and party because the possible uses of them in Wikipedia are very various. Attempts to write one are what have generated the present state of confusion. Just a few example example: to a historian, a newspaper is a primary source, because it is used as the data about which histories are written. To us it is a secondary source, because it's an professionally written and edited responsible covering of the events. To a biologist, a journal reporting research is a primary journal, as distinct from a journal that published review articles, but the actual primary source is the lab notebook. A historian of science studies both it and the publications as primary sources for the history. The same source can be both primary and secondary: an appellate court decision is both: it's the primary source for the wording of the decision, but it's a secondary source, and a highly reliable one, for the facts of the case and the appropriate precedents. In literature, the primary source is the work being discussed; the secondary source is the discussion, but the discussion is a primary source for the thoughts of the scholar in an biography of the scholar. For a fictional work, the work itself is, though primary, the best source for the facts of the plot, because it is more detailed and accurate than anything that may be based on it; for interpretation of motives, if not obvious, a wecondary source discussing the work must be used--but there is not clear distinction about what is sufficiently obvious. The practical distinction for Wikipedia is that primary sources which cannot be used as such except as illustrations are those that require interpretation, because we do not do interpretation, which is original research. A textbook is often given as an example of a tertiary source, being based mostly on review articles; but advanced textbooks usually discuss the actual research article themselves to a considerable extent. And some textbooks, like Knuth's books on TeX and Metafont, are actually the primary sources, because the material presented there was never discussed previously and is of his own invention--unless one wishes to consider the program coe as the primary source.

In any given situation at Wikipedia , the guideline however written will always require interpretation, and the authoritative place for interpretation is WP:RSN--even though the individual interpretations may be contradict each other; just as the authoritative determination of notability is Deletion Reviews, even though different discussions may contradict each other. An encyclopedia is not a machine-written summary, but a work of creative human judgment about what to include, how to source it, and how to present it. The concept that we just repeat what thesources say in a proportionate way is overly simplistic: it helps teach beginners the principles, but does not actually decide any non-trivial cases. The examples which makes that clearest are the unfortunate widespread use of selective quotation and cherry-icking in controversial articles. I'll get things started by copying this into an essay. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a very good start.

Due to some of the issues you note, I think I'm going to ask a few others to also help. (User:Black Falcon in particular I have found is great when it comes to policy/guideline page creation/editing, as well.) - jc37 02:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect there will not be complete agreement; but since RS is a guideline explaining the details of the fundamental policy WP:V, the practical course will be to indicate the accepted range of variation rather than try to find an actual single wording--attempts at that are usually either vague, or do not actually have the claimed consensus, because different people go on to interpret it their own way regardless of what gets written. (yes, I propose that as a general approach to writing guidelines) DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ever get around to copying this into an essay yet? : ) - jc37 14:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just seen your extremely helpful reply above and, as I was reading it, I thought it would be well worth making into an essay. I am glad you think so too! Coming from a scientific background I had no difficulty in understanding that WP "original research" was merely a term of wikispeak and that "verifiability" is such an odd word that it could have no obvious connotation. However, it took me a long time to realise that, when people were saying "primary", "secondary" or "tertiary", they were meaning something quite unlike anything I had understood. Thincat (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will try this weekend. But "verifiability" is a relatively straightforward concept: it means the material in the article must be able to be shown accurate by published sources. We have no way of judging what is really true , because we have no research capability, and few editors with the recognized professional standing to check submissions by academic standards. We therefore rely on outsiders to do that, in publications that have editorial supervision. Whether we "should have such editors and give them authority is a rather complicated question & I'm going to incorporate some material I wrote for Foundation-L about this problem. (My view, briefly, is that we should not do so, but rather go as far as we can the way we have been working. There is a need for an comprehensive freely available encyclopedia with proper scholarly editing, but I don't think our methods can produce one. If it is tried, it should be as a separate project, but the experience at Citizendium has been very discouraging. The most problematic questions are: who will pick the experts?, and , what if they disagree?. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Older sources

At User talk:Dr. Blofeld#archive.org I mentioned that I am in the process of beginning the work to upload some of the old, now public domain, articles from the Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics to WikiSource, at least partially because I think, in at least a lot of cases, the content of some of the articles in wikipedia we would have on older subjects about whom the scholarly opinion may not have changed much in the intervening time might well benefit from having such a good, reliable, academic source on their subjects very easily available. In fact, I was thinking of maybe proposing to Blofeld that one way to help get some content together on some of the major topics we don't have articles on yet is for, maybe, me to upload old articles to WikiSource, and then he, with his astonishing productivity, maybe check some of the more recent reference and other works on the subject (I think he has both the free Highbeam Research and Questia accounts given out earlier), and, between the older and newer sources, we could get together at least fairly solid "starter" articles on a lot of those topics. One thing that might be useful there, though, would be to know which if any of these older PD reference sources would be most useful in such an effort. I think you are probably the best person we might have to answer that question, if you see fit probably Dr. Blofeld's talk page. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is no subject whatsoever, about which there may not have been very significant additional information in 70 years, or about which scholarly opinion will not have substantially changed in 70 years. I would very strongly oppose moving any content on major topics here unless (1). The specific portion moved was indicated in the article so we could tell the old material from later additions. and (2) A competent search had been made to see what revisions were warranted. (Unlike some other encyclopedia, there is no current edition to make for an easy check.) This is not going to be easy if done properly. It would make more work to do this than to write from scratch--it could more appropriately be a list of article that need writing. If Dr. B wants to take this on, I am sure he will do it well, but if I were doing it I would rewrite, not merely supplement.

I regard our earlier use of the old EB and Catholic E. ,to have been reckless. We have spent 10 years cleaning those articles up, and it's not yet finished. Yes it's better to have some information than no information, but that's only the case if "some" means incomplete, not if it means wrong or misleading. On the other hand, I must admit that our use of the old DNB has been fairly successful. It clearly separated facts from opinion, and, especially in the articles about the earlier historical figures, relies very usefully upon direct quotation of the sources. Even for this source, naïve use of it simply copies, and does not remove what nowadays we would consider fluff.

More generally, there are, as you say, a great many such works. There may possibly be some fields where matters are stationary enough, but I cannot immediately think of any. In art and music even basic attributions change. In descriptive biology, even frequently used scientific names change. There are similar works to the DNB for other countries, but I have never analyzed them. Having all these encyclopedias available is and will be a wonderful resource--but in general they require interpretation and knowledge of context. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't myself disagree with you about searching for updates in general. I guess I should say that the few I thought might not have received a lot of large changes would be things like (because I deal with religion a lot) the thinking of Thomas Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo, which have been analyzed to the point of absurdity for centuries, and about which there haven't been much in the way of recent discoveries. And I might not have stressed hard enough that I although think that Blofeld, or myself, would also consult the databanks like Highbeam and Questia which will generally have some of the more recent reference sources, like the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion to review the Hastings against. I think both he and I have both of them. Regarding the qualifications you cited, I think that if either he or I did anything like this, we could probably arrange the citations in the article to address your point 1, and the search of databanks for more recent material would probably address point 2. I know, for instance, the Hastings article on Ægean religion (I am truly beginning to hate that "*Sheehy, Eugene P., ed. (1986). Guide to Reference Books (Tenth ed.). Chicago and London: American Library Association. ISBN 0-8389-0390-8. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title= and |month= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

" character BTW) says that their main goddess could be thought of as being Rhea, when more recent research would probably indicate that Leto would be the more likely candidate, and probably doesn't even make that jump to any sort of conclusion at all.

I myself am probably going to try to "fill out" the existing missing articles in the Eliade/Jones EoR more or less on the basis of a mining of the Hastings and itself, emphasizing the latter over the former. But, yeah, in general, I think you are probably right. I probably should have thought it through a bit more. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Analogously, the material in the old DNB could certainly be used to supplement articles, by someone who could do it with some confidence that the part being used is uncontroversial. Additionally, substantial parts beyond the accepted fair use limits here could be quoted. (I think almost anything short of a full article would be legal fair use, & if I were making the rules, I would permit using anything legal, but the consensus wants to be more restrictive. Using out-of-copyright sources removes that problem.)

I've realized another reason why using the old encyclopedia article by themselves --even by an expert who is sure that the interpretation is still correct--is misleading. Doing this does not make clear to the reader that the earlier interpretations are still considered correct--only a current source can do this. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Good points, although I suppose if we were to eventually develop some of the articles on reference sources, and I'm thinking many of them meet our content guidelines, we might have articles on them which say that their content is still very highly regarded and accurate for some specific topics. I am in the process of getting together some sources for content on Aegean religion and some of the "Ages of the world" subjects, because those are the ones which have separate articles in both the Jones EoR and the old Hastings. If I do create them or develop them, it would almost certainly be based on at least both of those sources, and probably any other major current reference sources I can find on the databanks. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, but only an expert (not necessarily a professional academic--many amateurs are equally skillful) in the subject will know enough to do it right, and I certainly do not mean to discourage you. In summarizing current sources, a lower degree of subject knowledge is needed, because the sources can be more consistently relied on. I regard old sources very highly, so highly that I own a *print* 1911 EB & 1907 Catholic encyclopedia, But that an encyclopedia is generally reliable doesn't say anything about a specific article. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia is very reliable within its limits.

BTW, you mentioned Sheehy (1986). I have it & most of the older editions also, & they show nicely the changes over time. What was reliable in 1986 may not be reliable in 2013, and the online Guide to Reference is the reliable source for current views of quality. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Good points. And thanks for the hint to the online Guide to Reference. I am actually right now only really using the Sheehy book because it is one I have available to me, and it does seem to have come out right around the time of what seems to have been a marked proliferation in the production of specialist encyclopedias and similar reference sources, the mid 1980s. The various databanks I have access to have a frankly huge number of reviews in various academic and professional publications about such works, and the material there is probably sufficient to indicate which sources published since then are out there, and possibly provide a better indicator of where they are most and least reliable. I actually have already downloaded a mess of them to my e-mail, and as my limited time allows, I hope to create articles on the more important of them. But I chose the admittedly outdated book because it can possibly be used to help establish notability of some of those older sources, and allow for us to have some ideas regarding what is still considered good in them. A few of the articles on Buddhism in the old Hastings ERE were said in reviews of the more recent Eliade EoR to have been the best articles ever written on their individual subjects, including those in the Eliade EoR, and my hope is that when and if I get the time to read and write them all the articles on those works include mention of similar highly regarded articles in those earlier works. Personally, I think that at this point maybe one of the more important things we might be able to do is make it easier for editors to know which articles we do and don't have, and where sources for them can be found, and reference books, even the old ones, are probably among the best things available to help do that. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I'm the one who should apologize, because I've been meaning for several years to add everything from GtoR. I do not have it routinely available from home either, and the main library I work at these days, NYPL, unbelievably does not have it. But i can still go down to NYU or Princeton and use it--they have both the online and the printed multi-vol version, and ideally both should be added. I agree the older vols. are usable, and that was notable then is notable now. But if you use them, you'll also need to check about newer eds of the print, and especially about online availability, which is of course much greater at present than it was earlier . However, I'm not clear about "what articles we do and don't have"--surely finding that is easy enough--I think you mean, what sources we have not yet exploited, and I'd be glad to find a way for this. The best I can devise is to use a template for adding the references to a particular source, which will automatically make a category--which can then be given on the article on that source. I think i'll do a batch. I can figure out how get them usable for the various ref formats, but as I prefer plain footnotes, I'll do that; others can add options if they care to. Project for February. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Subjects Without Enough Sources

My article on Nitro Type has been declined because of lack of sources. The problem is that most of the information I put in the article is attainable just by going to their website. I simply compiled everything in an easy to read format. Anything that someone couldn't get from just going to the website I made sure to source. I am not the first to try and write a Nitro Type article, so I think others are having the same problem. As for it sounding too much like an advertisement, I can fix that. But could you reconsider the sources part. If it were to be published, maybe people could find more sources.? Thank you, and please consider changing your decision on it.

DVORAK Typer (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)