Talk:John Neilson (colonel)

Sourcing
Self-published sources like Find-a-Grave, genealogy websites, and Wikipedia are generally considered unreliable and should not be used, particularly where more reliable replacements are available. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Who is disputing this? Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In this revert (and previous), Find-a-Grave was restored as a source in place of a more reliable one. That should not be done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Find a Grave is not the only source. All the information has reliable sources that are not Find a Grave.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This series of edits replaced entirely reliable sourcing with a mix of unreliable and reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the problem here. If something is sourced to NJ bio AND Find a Grave, what difference does it make if NJ bio is an RS?   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to include poorer sources when better sources are available. What's your rationale for wanting to do so? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What is your rationale for making an issue out of this source when it is accompanied by an RS source? A Wikidata item can have any number of sources.  What possible difference could it make?  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're going to be including content here we need it to comply with our local policies and guidelines, and here we don't consider some of those sources to be acceptable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The policy requires that information is sourced to a reliable source. That policy has been satisfied.  That should be the end of the subject, but we're still talking about it and I have no idea why.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it remains unclear to me why in this case poorer-quality sources ought to be cited when better-quality sources are available. Again, do you have a reason to insist on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added better quality sources, including sources you yourself added to this article, to every relevant item in Wikidata. That should be the end of the matter. Why do you insist that it is not?   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 01:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, so we seem to be talking past each other a bit here. We agree that some of the sources supporting these details are reliable, which is why I'm not proposing removing the information entirely. The point of disagreement is why it is necessary, given that there are reliable sources supporting these details, that we also have unreliable sources supporting the same details. Perhaps I have missed it in your posts, but do you have a reason why you feel so strongly that this should be the outcome? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly about it at all, I feel that it makes zero difference either way. Once RS is satisfied, there is when my job is done and where my interest ends.  I'm not interested in cleaning up every statement on Wikidata.  If you want to remove Find a Grave from every reference in Wikidata, go for it, I'll vote support on your bot permissions request.  But it's not a mission that RS requires of me nor is it one I am interested in.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 01:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for clarifying that it makes no difference to you. In that case, I will restore the version that includes only reliable sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sigh. It's absolutely absurd to remove something that is properly sourced.  There's nothing in RS that requires other projects to remove Find a Grave, it only requires that information *here* be sourced to an RS-source, and it is.  You have no basis for removal and I will be reverting any removal that falsely invokes RS in this inappropriate way.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't feel strongly about it either way, on what basis would you revert a change to having information supported by fully reliable sources rather than a mix of reliable and unreliable? I'm not talking about changing what's on a different project, I'm talking about changing what's here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care about Findagrave being there or not being there. What I care about is editors removing properly sourced information on a flimsy pretext.   If there is an RS source for a statement in Wikidata, that should be the end of the matter.  Anything else is a ridiculous and non-productive waste of time.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, this is the change I'm proposing. No data is removed, it's just replacing the mixed sources with a single reliable one (and if you think additional reliable sources ought to be added I'm happy to do that). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, this edit is a ridiculous and non-productive waste of time. The information is currently sourced to an RS, so there is no valid reason to edit or change or remove it. Anything else is merely invoking WP:IDONTLIKEIT.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For my side, I do feel it's appropriate to use solely reliable sources to support our content when we have the ability to do so, and for that reason am happy to take my time to make the edit. I understand you don't feel this is a necessary change, but that is not in itself a reason to revert it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)