Talk:41st Parliament of British Columbia

4th session edits
Hi ,

You have the wrong source for the 4th session edits you recently made, specifically the budget bill 2019. You've listed the citation for the 3rd session.

I also think it's problematic to list all the changes these bills enact while simply citing the bill's text. First, the provided URL always redirects back to the progress of all bills that session (which granted is not your fault but makes it a very poor citation because it means someone coming in has to hunt-and-peck on the resultant page to find the relevant subpage). Second, and more importantly, you're relying on your interpretation of a primary text, which borders on WP:OR. Where you've cited secondary news sources for other claims in that section is a vastly superior approach and I would recommend that if those types of sources can't be found for the laundry list of changes in the budget bill, we just dump that statement as insufficiently sourced. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Is that why the links were all changed, because they were re-directing to the Progress of Bills page? For me, it works as a direct link to the bill, no re-direct. I agree that providing links that require further navigation can be problematic. I'll fix that budget one. Btw, WP:OR doesn't prohibit the referencing of primary sources, it prohibits inserting your own unattributable data or opinion (e.g. being your own source), like 'this bill will help everyone' or 'that measure will add a million dollars to the deficit'. I am conscious of carefully researching and reviewing to only make simple, descriptive statements of facts when not providing a citation at the end of any sentence...in general on Wikipedia (as a content contributor, I know the additions are always being watched and judged). Towards that end, given your comment, I will provide more refs to news sources here. Thanks. maclean (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)