Talk:José Sisto

WP:V

Please WP:V; what makes "guampedia" a reliable source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I direct you to this page which states that Guampedia is a government-funded project being developed by the University of Guam in cooperation with museums and government historical departments. It also states that its articles are peer-reviewed, and if you look at the ones cited, they are written by those with PhDs and master's degrees in the subjects. It would have been nice to have discussed this before the article was gutted. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is listed as a reliable resource by NOAA, the government of Guam, the Department of the Interior, the National Network of Libraries of Medicine, and others. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Several notes: some indication of birthdates in the lead would have helped me avoid my first mistake (thinking this was a BLP, for which I apologize); the entities listed above don't determine what is a reliable source on Wiki, Wiki policy does (just saying); and although this looks much better now, can you explain how guampedia is not a tertiary source (you describe it as an encyclopediea, and Wiki articles should be largely built around secondary sources)? That would help, and my apologies again for the BLP misunderstanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a tertiary source, which of course does not mean it is prohibited. Unfortunately, reliable sources on Guamanian topics can be limited; of the sources used in that encyclopedia article, I cited extensively from the one available to me, the Destiny's Landfall book. The other sources used in that Guampedia article, namely personal diaries of governors and offline government records, were unavailable to me. I will admit as well, that this is a short article that provides only an overview of the man's role in government, so I don't believe I have run afoul of the WP:RS command: "tertiary sources... may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Also, as far as the BLP, you only acted quickly in order to protect someone who believed still alive, so you acted appropriately and no hard feelings thee (I wish I had found a reliable source detailing his birth or death dates, but was unable to). かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and my apologies again. Two things led to my goof: I skimmed and found no talk of death, but missed other dates, and I hate webcitation because it doesn't take us to the actual source, and when I clicked there I actually thought I was at archive.org for a defunct 'pedia. All explained now! I'm very sorry I put you through the hassle and the extra clicks and work (but I'm sure Psychim62 was happy to have an opportunity to bash me again-- he hates FAC-- I make enough mistakes in good faith that he'll have to try much harder to embarrass me ... a clean conscious is a good thing.  :) Thanks for responding so well, and my sincere apologies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, no problems. I hate webcitation too, but ever since H3llBot has begun marking dead links in nearly every article I have written, I resolved to use it from now on. WP:AGF is a magical thing, and anytime someone makes changes in attempts to upload WP:BLP, even when mistaken, it means something is working. Also, you do fantastic work at FACs, even if you have not promoted one of my articles twice ;) かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you've gotta blame MuZemike for that :) Perhaps Fuchs will help you buff it up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)