Talk:Venetian style shoe/References

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

None of these meet Wikipedia sourcing requirements, except the encyclopedia, and the French primary sources as to the official definition in French. The encyclopedia is marginal as to notability, but cannot really be used for content. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be difficult to see the "authenticity" of a source since this is a considered a subjective matter. I believe that is your concern correct? What is concidered not only authentic but more appropriately authorative on this matter. As for the Zappos.com link, I have left a comment on the main talk page of the article. But as for the rest of these sources, I believe it's important to take it within it's context. I believe that may also be the warning you are trying to give. I'dd like to point out that on the talk page for venetian style shoe, I have listed several references in Add hock form. Some or most of them consist of primary information. Take for example the Zappos.com link or the list of manufacturers. That list was poppulated with references from "commercial" websites that actually sell the products. This is primary information gathered from commercial websites which will need to eventually, I believe, be included within the article. (note: when I say included, I mean referenced somehow to support the idea of the existance of many manufacturers that produce Venetian style shoes and sometimes call them by different names) In short, I believe that these sources, including the most recents ones I added after you posted this comment, meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirements... they are verifiable. I too, believed that the encyclopedia article was marginal... however it plays an important role in localizing "loafers" within the 20th century. This fact need to be properly sourced, hence, it is important to have citation. --CyclePat (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)