Talk:Harry Braid

Sourcing

User:The Drover's Wife Agree about POL, but you've quoted Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources where Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject? which it is (or arguably it's a non-indep/non-3rdP/primary source about itself). A whole article sourced only to an orgs own site? I believe in that context the {{third-party}} adequately covers this, and is useful to highlight how it should be improved based on the current single source (which also could be legitimately tagged). So no, I vehemently disagree that a bio with such sourcing shouldn't have a tag. Widefox; talk 16:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It isn't "an orgs own site", it's the parliamentary history page (digitising the content of what formerly was a book by political scientists about the biographies of former MPs) and he's a former member of parliament. It is ridiculous to claim that they are affiliated in that way as if it was a page about his business. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect - the source actually says "Source: Parliament of Tasmania Members Biographical Database, Tasmanian Parliamentary Library." (and "Additional Reference Material:" those two books you mention) "Maintained by Computer and Electronic Services, Parliament of Tasmania." . The subject was a Member of Parliament. "Business" is a straw man. It is a source with editorial control from an org he was a member of. It's incredible to dispute an MP is not a "member", or parliament is not an organisation (despite MPs being a special case of self-employed, they form a collective org). Indisputably, official sources like that are primary (with additional material). I will mark one of those 3 things to highlight how this could be improved. You agree with "bio with sourcing: 1. one source 2. source isn't fully independent 3. primary source ? Widefox; talk 07:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This is nonsense. It is an authoritative secondary source with absolutely zero conflict with the article subject, as with tens of thousands of similar articles globally. Attempts to tendentiously mark your territory on articles serve no legitimate purpose and amount to disruptive editing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't reason or acknowledge that the assertion it's a book source is incorrect, and just reverts [1] and stops discussion with assumption of bad faith. {{one source}} was my proposed least controvercial compromise. Are you disputing there's only one source? What compromise do you suggest? What does "zero conflict" mean (wrt WP:IS)? I ask myself the question - what is the role of WP articles if they are just a mirror of an official page? How can that content issue be best flagged up to a reader? The claim that this is a secondary is absurd - see WP:SECONDARY analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis none of which are in the source (synthesis is the closest, but it's not is it - it's just a photo and some details added, not synthesis). It's an official primary, that's an official historical record (similar to Hansard) with extra non-analysis material from elsewhere. As I have no time to just find a source and add it, I will leave it at this. There is a compromise but clearly it can't be had, and ownership has been raised. Widefox; talk 09:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Per Template:One source, "Citing only one source is not a violation of any policy. Consider not adding this tag to stubs, articles that are being actively expanded, or articles that have no apparent problems with verifiability and neutrality." These tags serve no purpose apart from stamping your mark wherever you can: you admitted the first tag was inappropriate and yet your response has been to continually grasp at different straws to enable you to leave a different mark. It isn't remotely equivalent to Hansard (an actual primary source), it's just a (obvious) secondary source about the biographies of politicians published by the Parliamentary Library. This continues to be a very short article with zero legitimate qualms with its referencing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Shooting down one of the three options without proposing a compromise doesn't help progress. No one editor has complete ownership and dictates as the definitive statement above asserts. I assumed incorrectly the NPOL didn't go down to this level of government, I stand corrected which is moot, as uncontested from the start. That we can't agree on the simple fact that this is a primary, purely factual official record without analysis makes me conclude we have to agree to differ. I'm fine to move on, noting the issue here. Shame we can't enlighten readers / direct editors for improvement, quicker even just add a source. I came here due to the issue of a redlink, not interested in the article but more WP:V, something that did not help me with the redlink, and indisputably should be improved but isn't urgent as a factual stub. The source is from a parliamentary database, so nobody is claiming it is exactly as Hansard, but factually incorrect to state as you did it's a book source. That's a misrepresentation which I corrected. Widefox; talk 11:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)