User talk:Br1t0n

September 2017
Hello, I'm 331dot. I noticed that you made a change to an article, British Exploring Society, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

What is needed for the article are third party, independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization says about itself, but what third parties state about it. If you have questions about this, you can ask them here, or on the article talk page. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi 331dot. I'm sure you can tell that this is my first time updating a Wikipedia entry.

Wikipedia certainly is interested in what an organisation says about itself - the link to what is a reliable source you helpfully gave me states "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

The Annual Reports I cited from 2015 is regulated by the UK Charities Commission, so even though they were published by the Society, it is fair to regard the 2015 report as an accurate source for the list of Expedition locations and the 1978 report is simply where I'm quoting that expeditions leader describing the Babcocks' roles from.

Nevertheless, I will endeavour to include more citations from sources that weren't published by the society in order to provide a much more detailed and accurate description of the society for Wikipedia.

Many Thanks,

Br1t0n Br1t0n (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It is good that you are becoming aware of the guidelines and policies. I would point out the policy on primary sources to you; it is true that reliable sources do not need to be unbiased, but Wikipedia only considers primary sources reliable in limited, specific circumstances- usually for things like addresses, number of members/employees, etc.; not usually things like mission statements or descriptions of the operations of the organization. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Great explanation, thanks! Br1t0n (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * When I say "promotional" what I mean is that the passage reads like literature put out by the organization itself describing how its operates and what it does- I saw that you cited the information to the organization's website. This is kind of related to what I say above- Wikipedia is much more interested in how outside, independent parties describe the organization and what it does. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)