User talk:Matthewdarce

Nomination of Jason Desmond Anthony Brooke for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jason Desmond Anthony Brooke is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Desmond Anthony Brooke until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Stalwart111 22:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Hi mate, I understand what you are trying to do at James Brooke but you really need to be more careful. Your latest edit has a 2001 source dismissing claims not made until the following year in 2002. That obviously doesn't make sense. I'm all for you trying to fine sources but do be careful of original research. I'll undo those particular edits until you can find a better source or present it in a way that doesn't contradict itself. Stalwart111 13:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, it's getting better! Thankfully I got the publication date wrong. The book appears to have actually been published in 2004 to coincide with an Arte TV documentary on the subject. http://www.nla.gov.au/harold-white-fellows/bob-reece

I shall redo the edits for the time being. Thanks

That's fine, but try to add a GoogleBooks link or something, otherwise it becomes much harder for others to verify your claims. Also, don't attribute the dismissal of an idea in one source to another source unless the author specifically does so. Just present each claim independently and let the reader work it out. Otherwise we're back into OR territory. I've re-added the dismissal of charges bit with a proper source. Stalwart111 13:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. The WP guidelines didn't seem to require the book be digitally available (it is still in copyright), so can a basic GB reference be sufficient? Like this?

I'll try to reword the text thanks.

Yep, that's fine and I've used that source to re-add the information on the basis of my commentary above. Please be careful with reverts and check what you are changing. You removed new information with a new source and replaced it with unsourced stuff. Never a good idea. Both the edits you wanted have been made now. Stalwart111 13:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, query you may be able to help with. If we have established that James' sexuality is at least 'inconclusive', should he be listed under the categories 'bisexual men' and 'bisexual royalty'. Surely this suggests the subject was openly bisexual, which isn't the case here...Thanks for any thoughts...