User talk:Ellissten
Ellissten, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Ellissten! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC) |
Sourcing and unidentified descendants
[edit]Hi Ellissten. I received your e-mail and understand your frustration. I prefer to keep communications on wikipedia because I don't like to share my personal information. In regards to the recent changes at the Unidentified decedent article and your query, it is true that I could take time to identify sources and add them myself, and I may lend a hand at some point. However, I am in the midst of researching and writing several topics at the moment and have obligations both on (as a member of various WikiProjects) and off wiki (job, family, etc.), and may not do so for some time. I would point out that wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and its important to let editors decide how and when they can contribute under that guideline.
In the mean time our policies at wikipedia are pretty clear on sourcing, and ultimately WP:BURDEN requires the person adding material to provide sources. More presciently, this is a sensitive topic and out of respect for the people who lost their lives it is important that we adhere to our policies on WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, WP:GNG, and WP:CRIME closely. The use of primary sources such as government and law enforcement websites and the websites of The Doe Network, the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, and similar organizations should be avoided and only used in a minimal fashion (preferably not at all) per WP:PSTS and WP:NOTMIRROR. Likewise WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources such as blogs are usually considered unreliable and are not usable as sources, as well as websites like crime watchers which anyone can contribute to. Instead, article content should use secondary sources like journal and newspaper articles and books which are published by a reputable publishing house with editorial oversight. If those types of sources don't exist, then it is likely the topic isn't encyclopedic and shouldn't be written about on wikipedia.
I strongly encourage you to continue editing and to follow your passion for writing. Just remember that any articles dealing with sensitive topics like this requires rigorous sourcing and no original research. I know that with some effort you will be able to create a comprehensive list at the unidentified decedent article that is in compliance with our various policies. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Understood, thank you for your reply. I understand completely now, apologies for misunderstanding the reason beforehand. As for the Becca (decedent) page, is there a possibility that the page can be re-written if it needs to be deleted? Only reason I’m wondering is because this case is extremely mysterious & a major notable case in unidentified decedent history. I understand if this isn’t possible. Kind regards. Ellissten (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- If there are sufficient secondary sources for this subject to pass WP:GNG, then absolutely it could be re-created from scratch. The main concern in the current article is it was built entirely from primary sources and is therefore in violation of wikipedia's policy of WP:No original research. In my opinion, if secondary sources are located it would be better to delete the current article and begin again with the secondary sources per WP:TNT. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)