Talk:Starborough Castle

Referencing discussion

Discussion copied from User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Verify_credibility_at_Starborough_Castle permalink. I haven't seen the verify credibility tag before and may be misunderstanding it but having spent two hours on library searches to find the information I'm a little frustrated by the tag. I'm not clear what the verify credibility is supposed to prove, but I feel I would be remiss to add it to every article sourced to a book that I do not have in my house. Would that be the right reading. I apologise if my tone comes across as intemperate, I am just becoming frustrated and starting to remember why I left Wikipedia, it seems it is even harder to than before. Before I succumb to the darkness in my soul and delete the article as G7, is it worth keeping it? Hiding T 17:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hiding

I just left a note on your talk.

Yes, the article is very much worth keeping -- most of it is fine, and you did great work in getting it that far. If you tried deleting it as G7, I'd object!

However, the sourcing of the assertion about demolition remains inadequate. I don't suggest deleting that point, because it is reported in enough unreliable sources that it is at the very least a persistent rumour, so one way or another it needs checking out.

You may not have the the time or energy or inclination to hunt down the history books in which it might be referenced. If so, that's fine, and please don't feel frustrated or put down by this. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and by leaving the tags in place the article is identified to other editors as one in need of more sources.

Hopefully someone else will be able to find a reliable historical source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair do and thanks ever so much for the reply. In my defence I removed the ref improve tag because I thought I had improved the reference. I'm currently suffering a broken foot so it leaves me fairly house bound. I will try and find better references, but all I turned up in a library search of newspapers I added to the article. I'm still not clear on what is supposed to happen when someone questions the verification credibility though. It seems like any source which is not online could have that tag applied to it, and then given some people argue that online sources are unreliable, we'd be left with no information at all. Also, I'd like to make a suggestion that we copy all our correspondence to the article talk page, along with that at the Did you know template, for future Wikipedians. I noted at the Did you know request that I was very disappointed not to be notified so that I could try and help, it seems like these things should be left on the article talk page where interested editors can find them. Hope you agree! Hiding T 17:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about the broken foot. That must be very frustrating, and I hope it heals soon, without too much pain along the way.

The {{verify credibility}} tag can be used in a variety of ways, but as I understand it it can ask one or both of two questions: a) has the editor who added this ref accurately represented what the source says?; b) is that source really a reliable way of verifying this fact?

I assume that you set out to report the source accurately, and since I can see that you have been very careful in reporting the sources I can check, I have no reason to stop assuming good faith. (It would be silly as well as rude).

So when I added it I was challenging the suitability of that source as a reference for those facts. The online/offline aspect made little difference. If it was offline, I'd just have asked you to explain more about it :)

In the case of The Times ref, I too have access to the paper's archive, so I set about burrowing, to save bugging you for all the details. It was a little difficult without the page number, but I got there ... and could see that this was, as I had feared, a brief mention on the property pages. Not my idea of a good source for history!

The options then are that either a consensus develops that it is a good source, or we wait for a better source. That may come through one of us finding it, or of someone else spotting the tag and digging something out.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Would this reference be suitable? Extract from English Heritage's record of Scheduled Monuments, "The castle was dismantled by order of the Parliamentary government in 1648, when it was feared that it could be used as a focus for Royalist resistance." [1] Road Wizard (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that's good enough. Not perfect, but a lot better than what we had so for. Please add it! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Kent or Surrey?

The article says it is in Surrey but the categories and project banner on this talk page say it is in Kent. Can this be clarified? Road Wizard (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• It did say Kent, someone may have changed it. Historically it was in Surrey, but with the border changes it went to Kent. Hiding T 10:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)