Talk:William Samuel Horton

Sources, references, ISBNs
I’ve received email about my comments atop the draft, about an earlier version. I shall neither identify the sender nor respond to all the points that the message raises; however, below are a few points, and my responses to these.

My comments weren’t on the non-existence of such sources. (I hadn’t started to look for them.) They were on the non-supply in the draft of such sources. (More have since been supplied.)

I’ve no reason to question the integrity of any relevant gallery or newspaper. But a gallery that deals in an artist’s paintings is not a disinterested source on that artist. Sources must be reliable, and one factor needed for reliability (as understood here) is independence from the subject. A dealer is not independent.

That’s a very reasonable reaction – but it’s a reaction to something that I didn’t say. I asked for an ISBN where it exists, but otherwise an informative “OCLC” (my careless mistake for “OCLC number”). See for example these lists in the article Teikō Shiotani, in which each item known to have an ISBN has the ISBN specified, and each that does not has an OCLC number (and also an NCID number, though this is of course completely unnecessary for Horton). – Hoary (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)