 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
When dealing with WP:BLP you don't want to see the word "alleged," in an article. --Domer48 (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Your point is well-taken. But given that several sources make the allegation, including the Wikipedia article on Scappaticci, do you see a way around this? Thanks for your contribution. WH --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Removed various things sourced from the book. Given it's a lengthy book, I fail to see why certain aspects are being picked out by an editor as important. Also, why is the least reliable source currently being used? One Night In Hackney303 17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not picking out things to note that Moloney used primary sources. The reference to Scappaticci is consistent with the review by O Ruairc. Your edits reflect POV.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What does it mean to cite it to secondary sources? he uses primary sources, as you know.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, you're cherry picking bits from the book for no discernible reason. Use reliable secondary sources to cite them, and as they exist not The Blanket. If you don't know what a secondary source is, don't add the info back until you do. One Night In Hackney303 01:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not cherry picking to say that Ed Moloney employed primary sources. It is a fact. And who are you to determine that the Blanket is not an appropriate source? The Blanket publishes authors from a variety of perspectives. You're engaging in POV edits here. I asked a straightforward question: what do you mean by a secondary source? --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- A secondary source is a review of the book. Given that many more reliable sources than "The Blanket" have reviewed the book, they should be used yet aren't. It's a lengthy book, so why are you choosing to pick out certain aspects of it? You should include what other people have said about the book, not what you think about it. One Night In Hackney303 01:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, it helps a great deal to have an explanation. Thank you. Another reviewer has been added, from a mainstream newspaper. The Blanket is a reliable source, as much as any other.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- It certainly isn't "as much [reliable] as any other", and it certainly shouldn't be used exclusively when more mainstream and conventional sources are readily available. One Night In Hackney303 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
=Tags Removed edit
There are only two sentences that are not sourced, the lead one introducing the article and the sentence stating that Gerry Adams' role in the Republican Movement is a central theme of the book. The latter is supported by two sourced quotations. What specifically is original research in this article?
Also, having been told by One Night in Hackney "You should include what other people have said about the book..." it seems grossly unfair to now be tagged for too many quotations. WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- You don't need to use quotes verbatim, you are capable of rephrasing anything while keeping the same meaning? Right now it is a quotefarm, and is being tagged to match. --Domer48 (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the helpful comments. It should now be much less a quotefarm. WH--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)