This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
While it is interesting that the source for the reason why the Liberals did not defend the seat seems to have been someone who was actually involved with this decision, I do really think that it meets Wikipedia standards to simply cite "Conversation between Peter Hulse and Albert Ingham (the Liberal agent in Preston in 1929) at the Liberal Assembly in Harrogate in the 1980s". While I am not questioning that this edit was made in good faith or that the editor thinks it is a reliable source, citing an unrecorded conversation over two decades after the fact raises serious questions of accuracy. Moreover this does not seem to be a source that could be verified. Given this I think (albeit with reluctance) that the material in the article that has come from this source should be removed. Dunarc (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
