Talk:Edward Thonen

Article creator's involvement in primary research
In their recent edit, suggested that "Ultimately" needs a citation. The possibility of WP:OR should be closely scrutinized, given the creator's involvement in primary research. I am that article creator.

As a first step, I have just removed the unsourced sentence ("Ultimately, Edward's role in the German revolutions is unclear; and while a political motivation is possible, there is little evidence that his travel to England was anything else but business-related"), and the tag that went with it. I believe that this sentence wasn't even necessary. I have tried to remain neutral when writing the article, but I agree that this statement was speculative, and that it lacked a source beyond our own research. In the preceding paragraph the article notes that the literature on Thonen is full of speculation, so I am in good company.

I support Animalparty's suggestion. If I can assist, just ping me. Renerpho (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Renerpho, if you are the author of any of the sources, please refer to WP:SELFCITE for guidance (if you haven't already). Looking at the sources themselves, I don't think citing an email is appropriate and could be classed as WP:OR as an email is not a reliable published source. I also have reservations about citing Wikitree as it is user-generated (see this post and this post for some previous consensus). Hope this is helpful  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  23:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks for the comment, and apologies for the late response.
 * Regarding WikiTree, I think there is a difference between mentioning a website that includes user-generated content, and using that website as a source. I don't think WikiTree is ever used as a source here. The article links to it in two instances. First, in a footnote from the lead section, where WikiTree is mentioned in the context of the role it played in the research. And then again in the "external links" section. The first isn't a source, but part of the article content; the second is the quickest way for the reader to find additional information, including primary and secondary sources. That second link may be removed without leaving anything unsourced, but that would just make it harder for the reader to find additional information. If the article Superpermutation can link to an anonymous 4chan post then we can link to WikiTree, too.
 * Regarding emails, I generally agree, but as I said, I also don't like obscuring references where it isn't necessary. We could just link to my published article instead; but which is better: Saying that there is an email conversation with the other historian, and that it is mentioned in a published but hard-to-access source, or just giving the text of the email directly? Renerpho (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Renerpho, thanks for explaining the Wikitree links. I think that's fine. As for the emails, I'd argue that the emails are a primary source and therefore WP:PRIMARYSOURCE may apply, which urges that only reputable published primary sources should be used. Your article explaining the research is a secondary source, and even though it is hard to access, it is better for a Wikipedia article. Hope that makes sense!  Unexpected lydian♯4 talk‽  14:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The email sources have been replaced. Renerpho (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

New source
A detailed article about Thonen, written by Anne Young and myself, has been deposited on 22 August 2023 at the Eureka Centre in Ballarat and at the Museum Industriekultur in Wuppertal, Germany. I make that article available via Google Drive, which I may replace by a link to an open access preprint server in the future. For the moment, I suggest the following citation format: D. Bamberger, A. Young: Edward Thonen. A forgotten Eureka rebel. WikiTree Germany Connector's Challenge. Zeitgeschichtliche Sammlung, Zentrum für Stadtgeschichte und Industriekultur Wuppertal. 2023. Renerpho (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)