Talk:Hall Carbine Affair

[Untitled]
I don't agree with SwisterTwister's notability tag, and I'd like to remove it. I've inquired about the issue at his user page.JerryRussell (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I've discovered a web page with a great deal of potential bibliographical information, at the Springfield Armory Collection. It's now listed in 'further reading'. This includes information on the weapon, as well as a variety of opinions on the affair itself. Some of the references seem to be rare books. Not sure if this web page would be considered a reputable secondary source in itself, or whether it would be necessary to verify the information provided against the original sources? JerryRussell (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Pursuant to ANI922

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#User:SwisterTwister.27s_reviewing_issues

and its follow-up at the ANI board, I'm removing SwisterTwister's notability tag. JerryRussell (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Pending further clarification and review about the reputability of the source, I've used information from the Springfield Armory Collection article regarding the allegation that the rifles could blow their users' thumbs off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryRussell (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Copied from an editor's talk page
Thanks DrChrissy. I will write a lead. There is only one item left in the 'further reading' section, and it's also called out in the references. So should I just get rid of that section? As to the 'last reference', are you concerned about the box of files at Yale Library, or about the Irvin book chapter, or both? Irvin's argument in the book chapter is based on the original source in the Yale document collection. In terms of Wiki's basic verifiability policy, can I argue that the best verifiability is provided by giving both the primary source, and the secondary interpretation, so that the interested readers can check for themselves whether the secondary source has correctly interpreted the primary? I can imagine someone claiming that Irvin is not a reputable author, John Rush is not a reputable editor, Atlantic Press is not a reputable publisher, and so forth. If there are any pragmatic editors left, I should hope that an appeal to the primary source might turn the tide.JerryRussell (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would simply delete the section - it can always be reintroduced.
 * Yes, my concern is about the "box of files" reference. My experience on here is science related, so might not be applicable here.  If you want further advice, you might want to post at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.  Regarding primary and secondary sources - I try wherever possible to use secondary sources, but very often these are not available in my subject area so I use a lot of primary sources.  As a scientist, we are trained to acknowledge the origins of ideas or data, i.e. the primary source.  So, if I use a secondary source, I very often back it up with the primary source.  This is not a policy or guideline, just an editing style of mine.  You might find that a rather zealous editor deletes the primary source because it is technically redundant, although this has not happened to me yet.  Hope this helps. DrChrissy (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * DrChrissy, thanks again for your comments. About the box of files, let me say that my own opinion is that Irvin, Rush and Atlantic Press are all perfectly reputable, at least as far as their ability to read the content of a box of files. And I agree with your style of reporting both primary and secondary sources when they are available.JerryRussell (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well leave the references as they are until further comment (if there is any). It's worth remembering that articles are always considered to be "works in progress" and they evolve. Happy editing. DrChrissy (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)