User talk:Dalewell

We rarely used self-published books as sources
See WP:VERIFY and WP::RS. Please don't add it again. Note I wasn't the one who removed it although I would have if another editor hadn't beaten me to it. Doug Weller talk 07:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Doug

Thanks for the advice and your courtesy. Rather more than was apparent in your colleague, I have to say - so much for 'assuming goodwill' and 'not biting newcomers'! I can imagine you all get a bit tired of them crashing around in the undergrowth when you've got more important things to do - fair enough. Clearly I could have spent longer reading into the rules and asking round, and ignorance is no excuse. However I hope you will permit me an observation or two. The degree of ambivalence in 'rarely' seems also to be reflected in the references quoted and all the others I've managed to read. Nowhere can I find that self-published books are expressly forbidden out-of-hand. There is thus an implication of exception, though I can find nothing on that either. I have to say I don't find any of this very clear. Nor do I understand exactly what's so wrong with self-published books being referenced in Wikipedia in any case. You will appreciate of course my entry made no claim to add to objective knowledge on Pontius Pilate, merely that this novel now exists in modern literature and can reasonably be placed under that heading in context in the article. The arguments against seem to me laboured and labyrinthine, but perhaps that's just me. If I were browsing this article I would want to know about the existence of this book and any other novels on the subject and under such a heading, and I'm sure I wouldn't be alone. For information it's produced under the self-publishing imprint of a regular and reputable publisher, but why should that make it 'exclusively promotional' or detract somehow from its existence, which is objectively factual in its own right, and why in principle should it have to stand some test of time when it exists now? I do not ask for exceptional treatment, but I do question what I consider to be both a lack of clarity and coherence on this policy.

If it's the case that the reference would be allowed if the publisher produced it under their regular imprint, would you confirm this please?

With thanks for your patience Dalewell Dalewell (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)