User talk:Gary21sn

Welcome!
Hello, Gary21sn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page BSA Spitfire have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place   before the question. Again, welcome! Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

BSA Spitfire Mark IV
Dennis,

Thanks for the contact regarding my contributions to the above referenced article. Those numbers I included are not from any published documents, not will they ever be. I am the researcher that studied the original BSA factory production records in the UK (Burton on Trent) in September 2010. Those numbers I included in the changes to the article are the results of my research taken directly out of the original BSA factory production books. Gary Edwards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary21sn (talk • contribs) 16:48, 6 December 2013‎
 * Gary, original factory production records are an acceptable source, I think. You would have to provide a citation like this (example!):
 * That citation was generated by this markup:
 * This would (in theory) enable another reader to go read the same sources you saw. Sources don't have to be online to be allowed by Wikipedia, but they do have to exist and you do have to tell others where to find them.  Cheers and welcome to Wikipedia. — Brianhe (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, replying to myself... the policy on primary sources states "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia." If you're looking at original materials that were never published, this could be a problem. Maybe this is something you would want to take up at the reliable sources noticeboard before re-adding to the article? — Brianhe (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This would (in theory) enable another reader to go read the same sources you saw. Sources don't have to be online to be allowed by Wikipedia, but they do have to exist and you do have to tell others where to find them.  Cheers and welcome to Wikipedia. — Brianhe (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, replying to myself... the policy on primary sources states "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia." If you're looking at original materials that were never published, this could be a problem. Maybe this is something you would want to take up at the reliable sources noticeboard before re-adding to the article? — Brianhe (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It has to be said that the problem of unpublished records that the public cannot access is not one that Wikipedia can solve. There are other media, such as magazines, professional journals, books, and various online channels like news sites and blogs that can publish your research findings. If these records are important, I would seek an editor or publisher in another medium who can publish them. Even if Brian or I didn't delete the information from Wikipedia, sooner or later somebody else would because verifiability is a core policy that isn't likely to change. If it's impossible for another person to check the records themselves because they are in fact private, then the verifiability policy excludes using the records as a source. Hence, I would put my efforts elsewhere, not Wikipedia.There are many, many other areas where we do have verifiable sources on motorcycling topics that are waiting for someone to cover in an article. I'd focus my efforts there, and not on unverifiable records. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

BSA Spitfire Mark IV
The BSA factory production records are not private. They are open to anyone that wants to take a look. I wouldn't bother going to the trouble of getting a publisher to publish my research. I was only trying to correct a lot of bad rumors of about production numbers that have circulated for decades along with other false information about BSA motorcycles from the mid to late '60's.

Gary
 * If anyone can go there and verify it, then it should be fine. Cite the name of the document, date, author (person or entity) and what facility or institution holds it. The only concern I would see with WP:PRIMARY is if the primary source data is used to contradict the interpretation of secondary sources. If the statistics you're adding are consistent with what published historians and authors have said about BSA and the Spitfire, then I don't see a problem.In general though, I'd try to stick with published sources. With this kind of thing there's always going to be questions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)