Template talk:Bishops of Galloway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Modifications[edit]

Altered the template:

  • Removed Heathored (see that article for more info)
  • Title - the Northumbrian see was called Candida Casa in the earliest documents; later documents used that title or Whithorn
  • Corrected dates for the bishopric's lifespan

Notuncurious (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • You need to fix the link. Heathored shouldn't be removed from the template either, as there is a possibility he was bishop and he is widely cited as bishop (rightly or wrongly). Your rewritten article btw is entirely OR, since you're using only primary sources. And Candida Casa is just the Latin name for Whithorn; they mean exactly the same thing (White House), there's no chronological difference. Thus I'd say atm the entire edit to this template should be reverted.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Deacon, have a look at the articles on Beadwulf and Heathored; I think it covers your concern (if not please expand). Not sure what you mean by "fix the link" - I checked every change I made, I think, and they all worked. Re OR due to primary sources: if you look at the sources that were previously used, they simply cite the sources that I used (and used directly, rather than as in the Scottish annals from English charters 500-1286, where they are repeated in the text and then cited) ... so how is using the actual sources OR while the use of something that quotes the actual sources not OR? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see what was said and the sources used on the original Heathored article, and compare with now. The new article is full of unsupported primary source interpretation. That's a perfect violation of WP:NOR, specifically Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.. Re the link, check the big Red mess at the very top of the template. Re reading the articles, I've read them, and I already knew the issues before. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Deacon, I tried to do that ... the Oxford DNB is a subscriber-only site, and not available; I don't have a copy of the 2000 book by Orr at hand (? didn't you suspect as much? ). As for your OR claim, I read these sources, and are you now going to challenge everyone who cites these sources (citing the AS Chronicle is OR?) - they're sprinkled all throughout wikipedia. And by the way, I took pains to use sources and provide links so that anyone can check out what I say ... I cite books that are not universally available if necessary, but let's have open availability wherever possible - as little as possible of using what amounts to "private information".
And as long as we're on the topic - a dictionary or encyclopedia (such as the DNB) should be used as a starting point for research, not a solution. I accept that EB and DNB and others have been used to get wikipedia articles started, and when the issues are trivial research does not go further ... but the proper thing to do is to read the article, check out its assertions, and try to follow its cited sources. Then write an article. That includes the DNB article that was used in the previous incarnation of Heathored (which I understood to amount to a placeholder for an article stub, not really a reference). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)