From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
- If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
- If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
|
[edit] Removal of Sourcewatch link
Can you spell out how WP:EL requires removal of the link to Sourcewatch? It's a valuable resource that can often be used to find citations for various factual claims. The articles are mostly critical of course, and not all the material is well enough sourced to meet WP:BLP , but I don't see anything in WP:EL that requires that.JQ 09:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sourcewatch "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." If the material in it has value, it should be put into Wikipedia, and sourced to the original sources Sourcwatch used. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with the suggestion "If the material in it has value, it should be put into Wikipedia, and sourced to the original sources Sourcewatch used.", but I would prefer to do this first, then remove the external link. I note that the interpretation of this particular element of WP:EL seems to be pretty controversial, judging by the discussion there.JQ 01:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- In my experience, what little material is of value is almost never integrated into the article, and meanwhile the link remains for months or years. Deleting the link both satisfies WP:EL and gives the concerned editor an incentive to start integrating. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not really a concerned editor. The only reason this was on my watchlist was because I just reverted a bunch of deletions by a sockpuppet account User:142.150.205.36, and was surprised to find some of them being redone. Maybe you're right in general. But in this example, and the other one I looked at, the Sourcewatch article had useful material that wasn't in the Wikipedia article or the remaining external links. I've added it in this case, but I don't plan to spend a lot more time doing this. JQ 04:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- As regards the criterion "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." the one-para Harvard bio fails this much more clearly than does the Sourcewatch article. Leaving aside the question of whether any external link could pass this test, why did you delete one and not the other? JQ 11:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
