A fact from Hasculf de Tany appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 February 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Hasculf de Tany,
castellan of the
Tower of London, was once involved in a lawsuit that ended with the other side being fined a warhorse?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
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
David X. Carpenter an expert so that this source qualifies as a
WP:RS? While I am of course excited at the concept of
the site, and I'm seeing
this, do we have a link to cover Carpenter's expertise to cover our butts for using a wordpress blog site as a source?
Ealdgyth (
talk)
19:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply
What is the concern precisely? I guess it can't be the website hosting because that has no connection to WP policy. One of the critical questions for WP:RS is whether a publication or author has been given the stamp of approval by others in a field. Typically speaking for example, if you get to be editor of a big project, that's by definition enough. OTOH maybe these help. I think they show him to be one of the relatively small number of people being treated as qualified to edit and comment on such materials at the moment for the big publishers:
It's more that someone outside the field will look at the website hosting (since it's highlighted by a frequently used script) and freak out unless it can be shown that Carpenter/etc are experts. It's all part of the fun of preparing for GA - you need to have the ability to answer "what makes X a reliable source". Pointing to the fact that he's edited works in this field put out by high-end academic publishers satisfies that problem in advance. In other words, CYA.
Ealdgyth (
talk)
20:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply
OK. Where I can help I will, but of course GA defensive work is sometimes hard to line-up with a concern about the content itself. In this case we have an uncontroversial-looking source (DD) which occasionally contains mistakes or awkward omissions and therefore sometimes needs to be complemented and compared to other sources. Arguably it is more like a tertiary source or even has something of the feel of an online project. While that is a bit awkward for us here, I think it is par for the course in this field. (Indeed Keats-Rohan has written about how she sees it as an on-going project, and supports the "Domesday corrections" website on FMG. My own article published by them was written in that context.) I think we found good solutions in this case, including also Stacey (recent) and Clay (old, but still probably the best explanation of some key points). For some 11th/12th century people there is difficulty to find much that is published. In any case I don't think there is anything very contestable once you lay it all out. Let me know if you see anything needing another source.--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
12:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)reply
A fact from Hasculf de Tany appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 February 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Hasculf de Tany,
castellan of the
Tower of London, was once involved in a lawsuit that ended with the other side being fined a warhorse?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
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
David X. Carpenter an expert so that this source qualifies as a
WP:RS? While I am of course excited at the concept of
the site, and I'm seeing
this, do we have a link to cover Carpenter's expertise to cover our butts for using a wordpress blog site as a source?
Ealdgyth (
talk)
19:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply
What is the concern precisely? I guess it can't be the website hosting because that has no connection to WP policy. One of the critical questions for WP:RS is whether a publication or author has been given the stamp of approval by others in a field. Typically speaking for example, if you get to be editor of a big project, that's by definition enough. OTOH maybe these help. I think they show him to be one of the relatively small number of people being treated as qualified to edit and comment on such materials at the moment for the big publishers:
It's more that someone outside the field will look at the website hosting (since it's highlighted by a frequently used script) and freak out unless it can be shown that Carpenter/etc are experts. It's all part of the fun of preparing for GA - you need to have the ability to answer "what makes X a reliable source". Pointing to the fact that he's edited works in this field put out by high-end academic publishers satisfies that problem in advance. In other words, CYA.
Ealdgyth (
talk)
20:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply
OK. Where I can help I will, but of course GA defensive work is sometimes hard to line-up with a concern about the content itself. In this case we have an uncontroversial-looking source (DD) which occasionally contains mistakes or awkward omissions and therefore sometimes needs to be complemented and compared to other sources. Arguably it is more like a tertiary source or even has something of the feel of an online project. While that is a bit awkward for us here, I think it is par for the course in this field. (Indeed Keats-Rohan has written about how she sees it as an on-going project, and supports the "Domesday corrections" website on FMG. My own article published by them was written in that context.) I think we found good solutions in this case, including also Stacey (recent) and Clay (old, but still probably the best explanation of some key points). For some 11th/12th century people there is difficulty to find much that is published. In any case I don't think there is anything very contestable once you lay it all out. Let me know if you see anything needing another source.--
Andrew Lancaster (
talk)
12:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)reply