Talk:J. F. X. O'Brien

Misrepresentation of sources

If the article is sourced as alleged, could someone explain why he was MP in two different constituencies for a ten year period? Obviously that isn't sourced.....It seems certain editors would be better off sourcing unreferenced information to begin with, and not using unreliable sources they hypocritically reject when it suits them.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Explanation: a simple typo. Human error yes, but certainly not "misrepresentation". It's really sad to see people waste so much time over something as small as this.--Damac (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? You claimed it was common knowledge he was MP in those years (and you really should read that essay you linked to). Then, when you added sources you didn't correct what was obviously a mistake, so were you actually checking the information against what the source said? Doubtful. The moral of the story is put your own house in order first, don't start bleating about unreliable sources and unsourced information in other people's articles when yours are in a policy-ignoring state. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Look a the referencing formatt they are using? Were they not the ones who pulled me up on this type of formatt? I suppose its hypocritically reject when it suits them. --Domer48 (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you on about, Domer48? Who are "they"? I'm actually one person. I'm male, so you can refer to me as a "he".

Please point to where I made an issue of you using this "formatt". If I recall correctly, I and others may have questioned your over-peppering articles with the subjective opinions (as opposed to factual information) of particular authors.

One Night In Hackney has jumped on a clear case of human error (the dates for the years he spent as MP in the two constituencies were correct in the succession boxes) to make a point. He demanded sources; I provided them. I'll expect a similar response next time I remove unreferenced renderings of people's names from Wikipedia.--Damac (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thing is Damac, you hypocritically reject when it suits. Now I have adopted the format suggested, are you now saying they way I was doing it was right after all? --Domer48 (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that is misrepresentation. In that specific case, you failed to provide exact page numbers from Sean O'Mahony's book. You asked and were provided with a link on how to reference.[1]. We are supposed to provide provide page numbers for our sources, which you have failed to do in this specific case. Perhaps One Night In Hackney might take this up with you.

The references I have provided on this article are perfectly in order; one is an online sources with no page numbers (ODNB) and the other from the same page of the one book (Gifford/Seidman).--Damac (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll do what I like thanks, I don't take direction from the likes of you. You make the mistake of assuming I could really care less about Irish names, and it that you're wrong as I'm English through and through. What I object to is people who apply arbitrary standards in a clearly biased way, and I suggest you put your own house in order first, otherwise I'll be more than glad to do it for you. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you don't really care about the Irish names, any more at least. When I first stated tagging this unreferenced bits of information, I came under vicious attack from you and your friends (see User_talk:Damac#Francis_Hughes).

There are other ways of letting off pent-up anger, you know.--Damac (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Try reading what I said: "people who apply arbitrary standards in a clearly biased way". And I don't see any vicious attacks, just the logical and fair outcome you face for such biased actions. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get it. Concocting the claim that someone is an RSF member because he requested sources for unreferenced material is "logical and fair"? Of course, there was nothing arbitrary about that, nothing biased about it, and not vicious in any way.

I'm afraid I just can't take your seriously. What are you on?--Damac (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Other matters

I'd like to take a shot at some polishing here, turning some of these independent sentences into cohesive paragraphs, but it would help if I could fill in a few gaps. Anyone have any idea when he went to the USA? Ulysses Annotated doesn't say. (I was hoping there'd be something about him in a biography of William Walker I have, but it has no index, so it's hard to tell.) -R. fiend (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference for birth date

Could the reference be cited for his birth date. It is not the one I have? How can I check the source being used? --Domer48 (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC) The year he joined the Fenians is different also? --Domer48 (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC) The date of his death is different also? Will I just go and change this, or wait till I see the sources cited in the reference? --Domer48 (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could enrol at university, as all university libraries (and many public libraries) would have this source online.

I noticed the discrepancy in the date of birth, yet the entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a "a standard work of reference on notable figures", is a) the only source which includes an exact DOB (including date and year of birth as opposed to the 1831 in other accounts), b) the most detailed biographical account I've read on the subject, and c) is based on scholarly sources.

I would advise you not to change the DOB, as it is referenced information. (That should sound familiar).--Damac (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have put in a referenced date of birth, with page number. --Domer48 (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My source says different.--Damac (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

“J. F. X. O’Brien was born on the 13th October, 1828…” Fenian Memories, Dr. Mark F. Ryan, M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd, Dublin, 1945. Pg. 34. I'm therefore placing a citation tag. --Domer48 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, mate. The article I provides relies on the following published sources:

"P. Nolan, ‘J. F. X. O'Brien, M.P. (1828–1905)’, MA diss., University College, Cork, 1971 · J. O'Leary, Recollections of Fenians and Fenianism (1896) · private information (1912)"

and the following unpublished papers and archives:

• O'Brien's corresp. and papers, incl. draft autobiography
• William O'Brien MSS
• Harrington MSS
• corresp. with John Dillon
• William O'Brien MSS

What is Ryan's source? His book was published in 1945, so it's likely that he used the DNB[2] and got it wrong.--Damac (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You think so? Why not look up Dr. Mark F. Ryan first? --Domer48 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I said it's a possibility. I don't have Ryan's book. I've given details about my sources. Perhaps you might do the same.--Damac (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your source gives no details because your need to register to access it. Such references should be avoided as outlined in No.7. If you read it "Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers." Now since you have suggested alternative sources, use them. If you could address the issue of references which should be avoided it would be very helpful --Domer48 (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The first line of "Links normally to be avoided" includes the crucial qualification "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article". The link is to a page in a renowned source that is available to every university student and visitor to the NLI and others. The link I provided also contained a link to earlier version of the same source, which includes the DOB that I've inserted.--Damac (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not verifiable to the non university going editor.BigDunc (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the same apply for books that are kept in university libraries? I've no access to the Mark Ryan book, yet was not childish enough to remove the reference.

I've changed the ODNB to the DNB link that is freely available on the internet. It contains the same information.

What are you going to throw at me now? The behaviour of three people on this page today has been despicable, and its depressing that you're allowed to get away with it. I just hope your proud of yourselves at your failed attempts to keep the inclusion of scholarly information out of what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Bravo!--Damac (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I will be reverting back to the ODNB version, as this source is used extensively in Wikipedia: 385 times, according to this search.[3] If you think its wrong to include, take the issue up elsewhere, see if the community agrees and get back to me.--Damac (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the Link the subject of this article? No its not. Ryans book is accessible. You cited sources that could be used, you provided a link that could be used. Now if others are useing sites that are restricted, take it up with them. --Domer48 (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing referenced information. DNB material is available for almost all the 375 cases where the ODNB is used on Wikipedia. Go and start a campaign to have them removed and then come back here.--Damac (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You won't push me into 3RR, so I'm taking this elsewhere.

Domer48, you're not judge and jury in this case. Who do you think you are to rule that the ODNB cannot be used as a reference, when it appears in 375 places on Wikipedia. And for almost all of those articles, the DNB is also available.

You're completely out of line on this one. You cannot make up rules as you go along. I'm taking this elsewhere.--Damac (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Damac could you stop with the personal attacks in your edit summaries regarding editors as Luddites IMO is a personal attack. BigDunc (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please consider what I've had to go through today. Have you words to describe the behaviour of two other editors here today?--Damac (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's me but I cant see the point of reverting to a source that cant be checked when there is one provided that can be checked, it's not like they are two completly opposing refs. BigDunc (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't be checked by whom? Me? University users in Ireland and the UK? Users of Dublin City Library[4] and possibly other city and county libraries across Ireland? The principle here is integrating the most up-to-date research into Wikipedia. If you can't access the source, tough, but please don't deny those who can the opportunity.--Damac (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

reference Format

So I take it this type of format you are using is ok after all]. Just a yes or no should do. --Domer48 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already dealt with this above.[5] I've been using that format for ages, long before I ever had the misfortune of encountering you on Wikipedia. My point was and is that you used a book as a source but have failed to state exactly, by means of page numbers, where your references come from. Is it really that difficult to understand?--Damac (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes then. As for the other BS your peddling, not intrested. You juvenile petty little foot stomping always become evident when you are reduced to personalising your comments. We now frown on such antics and I will limit any interaction with you so as not to be tainted with such puerile behaviour. --Domer48 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is crazy. Domer48 (who now uses the royal we) asks a question, I answer it, he asks it again, and then gets upset with the answer. Yes, I did get personal, but my patience wears thin when I'm asked questions that I've already answered.--Damac (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

...the pot calling the refrigerator black... -R. fiend (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to keep ODNB off Wikipedia

I'm fortunate enough to have access to the online Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB, a subscription-based site, and used the relevant ODNB entry[6] to reference this article. Aware that not everyone has access to the ODNB, I also provided a link to the free (but older) DNB version,[7] which was written in the 1920s. In doing this, I believed I was offering both ODNB subscribers and non-subscribers direct links to information.

My efforts have, however, have been frustrated by User:Domer48, who first objected by referring to point 7, Wikipedia:External links, which point out that: "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content" should be avoided.[8] I countered this by pointing out that the first line of this guideline includes the exception "except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article", believing that the ONDB link fits this condition.[9] Another user, User:BigDunc then reverted this,[10] stating that the ODNB link was "not accessible to the non university going editor" [sic].[11]

After first deciding to leave only the DBD references in the article, I decided to one again use[12] the combined ODNB/DNB references when a search on Wikipedia revealed that the ODBD is used in over 385 articles.[13]

This latest attempt has been reverted twice by User:Domer48 using the following rule that he has obviously conjured up: "Do not add restricted sites when unrestricted ones are available". I wasn't aware that such a "rule" existed on Wikipedia. There is a history between myself and User:Domer48 and I think it's time to ask for third opinion on his determination to keep referenced, scholarly information off Wikipedia in this instance.--Damac (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography a valid reference on Wikipedia?

Is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography a valid reference on Wikipedia? I've encountered two editors who claim it is not.--Damac (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's a usable source. Is has a great deal of reliability (among the most reliable of encyclopedias as the authors are usually well established and attach their names). Accessibility? More accessible than most books published before the 1950s. The source verifies information per WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I don't think this can even be an issue. You have to pay for it? Sorry ... that's the way it is in the capitalist world of publishing. If you don't like it, move to Cuba. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources is not the issue. The source is one of the Links normally to be avoided, this one being No.7. Which states quite clearly "Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers...A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference." Now "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" is not the subject of the article. The source is "of limited use to most readers." As to your opinions, they are not relevant to this particular discussion, and are probably related to some other conversation perhaps? Now there was a source provided, which was not restricted, which contained the same information Free of Charge, and it was replaced? --Domer48 (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Those cover websites (and their links) that require registration. Most users using ODNB don't require registration, they'll access using their library or university library subscription. Moreover, ODNB is more like jstor than other websites. ODNB is a book that is available online, it's not merely a website. To suggest that ODNB should not be used in principle is just a nonsense. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If I'm wrong about this, no harm no foul! But I would like it explained to me how my rational is incorrect with respect to this. Thanks --Domer48 (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean rationale, not rational. There is no rationale for your argument if you read the last line of the section you referred to, which states: "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site ... is being used as an inline reference." I was using the website as an inline reference. The use of subscription-based academic journals is extensive throughout Wikipedia. Take a look at Cancer#References, for example. The guidelines you referred to are just that, guidelines. They are not policy and editors are asked to use common sense when applying them.

"No harm no foul" you say? For one, you've wasted hours of my time and that of others, just to make a point. Well done again!--Damac (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it does cost money, unless you can read it in print or online courtesy of your local library, but that goes for books too. WP:EL says: A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference. This is being used as an inline reference. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is. If we restricted ourselves to sources that were free online, we'd be in a sorry state. Most scientific and medical journals, for example, require subscription and even a single article purchase is stupid money. That doesn't stop them being heavily used as some of our best sources. And books aren't generally free or online. The External Links guideline does not apply to sources. Damac's sources is the ODNB, which is true whether he provides a convenience link to the online edition or not (and he should). If the 90-year-old DNB was all you had, then it would do I suppose. But if we have an up-to-date scholarly reference to draw on, why throw it away? BTW: the ODNB is freely available to many UK readers online using their library card number. Colin°^Talk 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I often use the Dictionary of American Biography that is available at most libraries. (This is an American version of ODNB.) I did have to complete a free registration to get my library card. I can access these books with no additional cost. To access online databases I have to pay my internet provider a monthly fee. If we were to limit reliable source to those available at no cost, the public library would win out over commercial internet access. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a valid source to use, as it is being used as a inline reference, as others have said. I paid for the convience of using it online, but it's available in print at a couple of local libraries near me. Probably not at a small local library, but a decent sized city should have it in print or a local college. Many local colleges and universities, at least in the US, offer "patron" or "friends of the library" memberships where you can access their libraries even if you are not a student. Sometimes it just requires a local library card, sometimes you have to make a donation. It's a very good option to look into if you're doing a lot of Wikipedia stuff, as they often offer JSTOR access also along with the ONDB. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is valid because:

1. It fulfils WP:RS in spades.
2. It is available free to everybody in UK/ Ireland.
3. It is online and great to use.
4. WP is not restricted to free sources because:
   1. To do so would proscribe all books (which have to be bought)
   2. All scholarly journals only available through JSTOR which only students/ academics can access.

If the response to point 4 is that they are available in scholarly libraries then so is ODNB.Cutler (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Note - most free sources struggle with WP:RS.Cutler (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Note - Is there an objection to referencing the print version? If not cite that. But then it seems mad not to include a link that millions of people can access for free.Cutler (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Note - I often use DSB but only have access via the print version in my Univ Lib but I can only access that because I graduated from there decades ago and have a reader's card. If I was Joe Public there would just be no way of me accessing that info. That's why I've transcribed the material into WP!!!Cutler (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Further note' Jimbo Wales said something like "If you believe in freedom of information, create some information and make it freely available." The implication is that it wasn't free before. I thought that was what we were all about, liberating information. ODNB is free to millions and hardly anything that meets WP:RS is free to everybody. If info is already free and WP:RS, what's the point?Cutler (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors appear to be confusing the External links guidelines, with issues of reliability and verifiability for the article itself. External links are the links presented at the bottom of the article: paid subscription links are to be avoided here. However, there is absolutely no need to avoid these in writing the actual article. The best sources should be used, and these might include books, newspapers, journal articles, all of which may or may not be available online, and could require a trip to the library or a bookshop to check. The ODNB is a thoroughly reliable source, and a courtesy link to the online version of article will be helpful to readers who do have access to this source. Others will have to take the library route, as they would with other books. Slp1 (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC Response: WP:EL is irrelevant to a discussion on references. The objective of external links (to take readers to other websites) is wholly different from the objective of references (to prove something is true), and the policy reflects that. In fact, dead tree references are generally preferred to online ones, as the Internet indeed is so transient. As someone mentioned earlier, a reliable source is a reliable source no matter where its found, and ensuring that every reader has access to it is not only irrelevant, but impossible. If the reader wants access to a source that they can't reach on their own, see the WikiProject Resource Exchange.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC Response: It is a perfectly valid source. If linking to the extranal website is causing difficulty then don't link to it. As a published reliable paper-based source the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography stands on it own, whether the online version is linked to or not. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC Response: Yes, of course the ODNB is a valid reference for the Wikipedia. Sony-Youth's remark is correct. It is remarkable that this is up for RfC, as the ONDB is a well-known and obviously excellent resource. -- Evertype·✆ 08:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC Response:IMO, I dont think it is disputed that it is a verifable reference but removing a reference that is able to be verified by all editors to one that is restricted to university students now what is the point in that if wikipedia is for everyone? Surely both should be inserted. BigDunc (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It was you and Domer48 who removed sources, so ask yourself that question. Both sources (free DNB and free/subscription ODNB) are included, despite your attempt[14] to remove both. And as I've already pointed out to you,[15] as have others, that this source is also freely available (in conventional and/or electronic form) in public libraries, including Dublin City Library. It is not restricted to university users; that should be clear to anyone who has read the above comments.

Mark Ryan's book is out of print, so if I want to access it I have to either a) buy from a book dealer or b) go to my local library in the hope they have it. But I live in Greece, so it's not available to me at this moment in time. I accept that and don't have a chip on my shoulder in that regard.--Damac (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I made one edit here when you said the link was the subject of the article and I put in a ref that is WP:V and WP:RS I then asked why was the ref being removed and replaced with one the requires login, what is wrong with that? It seems the one with the chip at the moment is yourself Damac not me. BigDunc (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are obviously ignorant of the difference between a web page and a web site. According to Wictionary, a web page is "a single page in a website".[16] A web site, on the other hand, is a "collection of pages on the World Wide Web".[17]

Now, when you've taken that on board, please consider this. The rule you referred to when reverting my edit, and which you clearly continue to have difficulty in understanding, states: Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article ... one should avoid ... links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content. If you had read and understood the rule, you would have noticed how it differentiates between a page and a site.

In line with the rule, I provided a link to a specific page, entitled "Oxford DNB article: O'Brien, James Francis Xavier" on a site entitled "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography". Please note the differentiation there too.

In light of the above, your edit summary of "Subject of article is not Oxford DNB"[18] is groundless. Furthermore, as you performed this edit using WP:TW, I view this as an abuse of your recently granted permission to rollback in that you offered partisan support to User:Domer48, who also shares with your the difficulty in understanding the rules he is so fond of quoting.[19][20]

As the discussion above shows, my sources are (and were) WP:V and WP:RS, and thus fully legitimate. By continuing to claim otherwise, especially considering now that you have had the opportunity to hear the views of other editors, you are engaging in nothing more than disruptive editing in persisting to justify your actions.--Damac (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you would read what I said instead of pontificating you would see that I made an error and after I reverted I asked a question on the talk page for clarification which has now be cleared up for me, I never once said any source provided did not meet WP:V or WP:RS so please climb down from that high horse you are on. If I had continued to revert after clarifaction that would have been a different matter. BigDunc (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today you repeated your unfounded claim that I removed a reference and replaced it with one that required login.[21] Please back that claim up with a diff or withdraw it.

I'm glad you seem to accept your share of the responsibility for this issue going to RfC; it remains to be seen whether the issue has been made clear to User:Domer48.[22]

I suppose the moral here is that next time something like this comes up, you'll take a closer look at the rules you claim to be upholding. By doing so, you'll be saving yourself and others lots of bother.--Damac (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also the edit I made was done before I was given the rollback tool so how can it be an abuse of something I had not got? BigDunc (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that, as WP:TW appeared on the edit summary,[23], it was carried out using this. It now seems that (TW) appears on all your edits going back to 20 January 2008 when you added Twinkle.[24]--Damac (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I assumed too and as you can see assume and you make an ASS of U and ME. BigDunc (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So if I have this right, this [25] at the end of a statement is an acceptable reference? Now as I have pointed out above WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources is not the issue. If there were doubt for example like the birth date, and I provide a quoted reference like I did above, as a matter of courtesy, if an editor has difficulty getting hold of a book, and which I have done numerous times can an editor request the same of the editor who use this [26]? Now while access to these sites for me in Ireland and England would not be a problem, what about the rest of the community? Like I said above, if I'm wrong about this, no harm no foul! I also noted editors suggest if there is a free accessible source available it should be used, so my question is, which is the more appropriate, of the two, if both are available? Would any of the editors not personally invited by Damac, like to comment? --Domer48 (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me what is the process after you login does it bring you to the book that is being used as a reference or does it give you a search option? If it is a search option would this not be the same thanks. BigDunc (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To the first question, yes it does, to the very article, which is just as well when we're talking about this. To the second, no it wouldn't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem stems from Damac’s misrepresentation of the issue. Look at this heading for example “Attempts to keep ODNB off Wikipedia” or this one “RfC: Is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography a valid reference on Wikipedia?” Totally untrue, and a little over dramatic, I think editors will agree. All they want is to cause problems. This is clearly illustrated by there own edit summaries. For example this one. Now I reverted it, and added this edit summary here. Then they open their RfC. Just petty mindedness. But I think the above questions I have ask are valid likewise BigDunc’s. --Domer48 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dunc's question was easy to answer, I'm not sure what yours was. If it was is the Oxford DNB a reliable source, the answer is yes. If it was is it ok to ask other editors for quotes for DNB articles used as references, the answer is yes. But whatever it was, asking it doesn't need for you to have a dig at other editors, does it? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As I have pointed now for the third time WP:Verifiability and as a Wikipedia:Reliable sources Oxford DNB is not the issue. My question is, is this [27] at the end of a statement is an acceptable reference? If there is a free accessible source available should it be used, which is the more appropriate, of the two, if both are available? --Domer48 (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no freely available alternative: the original DNB is an entirely different book written a century ago. The link is a perfectly good reference, although it's better yet if it is formatted readably. Either {{cite web}} or {{citation}} will do the job. The Dutch, French and German national libraries have the print ODNB in their catalogues, but none seems to have a copy of Ryan's book. Argentinian and Polish readers are really out of luck: their national libraries have neither. The answer isn't going to change: the ODNB is a good reference and the web link is a benefit for many readers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification Angus, another question how does one get access to this site?BigDunc (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple. You either pay a subscription[28] or check to see if your city/county/university library have it.[29]

Have you ever asked how one would get access to Mark Ryan's book if you didn't own one? You would take the exact same steps as above.

For people with no immediate access to the ODNB, the link at the end of the article isn't of much use. Yet it is a reference, as powerful and legitimate as the Ryan reference. That volume doesn't even have an ISBN. Do you think the following would help anyone who doesn't have the volume.[30]--Damac (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Damac a simple explanation would suffice as to how to gain access not another tirade, you seem to be under the impresion that I have something against ODBN, I was unaware of it until this situation arose. So could you please relax I am not trying to discredit your beloved ODBN. BigDunc (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cop on to yourself here is a book dealer for ye. Will you stop with the crying. In addition, I can quote any section, for any editor who asked! --Domer48 (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing, Domer, last time I asked you the specifics about a source, you said it was a personal attack. Now you're suddenly ever so willing to help. Rings sort of hollow. -R. fiend (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of how to buy books on the internet. It's poor old BigDunc who has to ask people for help in such simple tasks.

Judging by the price the dealers are asking for, it seems a month's subscription to ODNB would be cheaper. Not bad really.

I'm glad you have offered to quote out of the book. I asked you some days ago whether Ryan gave a reference for his birth date. I'm still awaiting the answer.[31] And I've already provided you with all the papers, books, articles that my source relies upon.[32]--Damac (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that folks stop taking digs at one another, and the consensus does seem clear in all of this. SirFozzie (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware how to buy books on the internet Damac. It seems to me that Damac is a little insecure with this whole RfC never once was the ODBN considered an invalid refernce and all he has done here is snipe at editors trying to assertain some facts about ODBN, never once did I ask any editor how do you buy a book this is all part of the vivid imagination of Damac. So could you please get over yourself and stop with the pettiness. BigDunc (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

NO problem Fozzie, but Dunc has outlined things quite well, Damac set out to to disrupt wiki and this is just another string to their bow. On your suggestion Fozzie I will stop dealing with this editors pettiness. --Domer48 (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I see consensus here that the ODNB is an acceptable reference for the Wikipedia. I also see Domer48 and BigDunc dragging out the discussion endlessly, to no good purpose. -- Evertype·✆ 10:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole RfC was a waste of time never once was it said that the ODNB was not an acceptable reference I asked for clarifaication and all I have got is snide remarks so how Evertype came to his conclusion is beyond me. BigDunc (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My "snide remarks" are based on my sober assessment of the tenor of discussion shown above. Perhaps it is time to move on. -- Evertype·✆ 11:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. BigDunc (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Union or Confederate ?

The article says "He was an assistant surgeon in the Union Army in the early stages of the American Civil War.", but according to the Ustiva article, New Orleans was on the Confederate side and "European Brigades were formed to defend the city". Which side did he join? Cjc13 (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Adjusted entry to Confederate Army for above reasons.Cjc13 (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)