This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
After I created a referenced stub, this page was significantly expanded, with very in-depth information. However, the expansions are not cited, though an MA thesis has been added as a reference. Please add specific citations for every new piece of info added to this page. If need be, add a citation to the MA thesis in each paragraph at the very least.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I arrive here after being requested to help on my talk page: [1], after I made some style edits to clear one issue maintenance tag. Ironically, when one creates a stub and requests help expanding the article, that help just may arrive. If the added article content is expansion for the best, but yet, has flaws; such is Wikipedia. I have looked at the article with assisting in adding inline citations in mind. Sadly, unless one has access to the sources used, there is no accurate way to integrate these into the article. The only source that links through is a book review abstract of two pages that provides nothing tangible: it is simply a review. The MA thesis is more than likely out of reach, unless the author forks over a copy. If, as you say, you think the page looks terrible and nothing has been fixed, please feel free to add some wikilinks. Fylbecatuloustalk 14:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to be diplomatic, but to be frank I think the stub was much better--at least it was referenced. Now, what has been added could be true or completely false, as there are no inlined references. So, it is worthless in my opinion.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suppose you could be BOLD and revert to a better sourced historical version of your opinion. Fylbecatuloustalk 14:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought about it. I just thought it would be better to work with others to improve the page, with inlined citations...Zigzig20s (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very bold edit by User:Nikkimaria now, reverting it back to my original talk page. I suppose this may be for the best. However, the edit did not take the time to respond to this thread--perhaps are concerns are deemed too unimportant...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a very bold edit, a little too brash I think - it removes months of work, with no satisfactory rationale or comments on this talk page. I would agree that much of the material could be excised and the tone changed to suit wikipedia, but it is somewhere to start. There is not a need to have every statement referenced, nor sources to be available online. Wikipedia is not just the sum of all human knowledge as documented by some website. If statements are controversial, or contested as being unlikely to be true then we demand citation. If we don't personally have access to the source but have no reason to dispute the 'facts' we can't just delete on that basis. Neither can we call citing facts from a work that documents someones life 'original research', as far as I can see the editor is not interpreting the work but just using it as a source of facts. So rather than wholesale destruction how about a little editing. --Tony Wills (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, User:Nikkimaria wants to delete everything from Wikipedia except for information with secondary sources (not even with primary sources; so for example, if there is an inscription with Montgomery's name somewhere on the walls of one of those churches and one takes a picture and upload it here, that will be seen as a primary source and thus invalid...which makes no sense). I agree with User:Tony Wills that that is not OK or constructive behaviour. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, the rationale as explained in the edit summary was WP:SCHOLARSHIP/WP:OR - a particular editor copied much of his master's thesis into the article, citing himself, without adequate explanation of where the information came from previously. We do not generally consider theses to be reliable sources. Feel free to add in anything from that edit that can be sourced to reliable sources, but per WP:BURDEN not anything without. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if Nikkimaria indented their comment away from mine. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the indentation for you. This is generally acceptable per WP:TPG under fixing format errors. I will try to come back to this conversation to see what else can now be done. I now have this page on my watchlist, so I can follow. All the best! Fylbecatuloustalk 14:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
