Talk:H.P. Nielsen

Searching for more references

Still tracking down references for material I have documents for, but can't cite properly. These include: Ship manifests for Nielsen’s travel; a ship manifest listing Nielsen's occupation as Watchmaker; US Population Census sheets with Nielsen household information. FLRdorothy (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Slow down. None of that will be usable in the article, as it falls afoul of out WP:No original research rules. But good news -- see next thread. EEng 00:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the citations a lot, adding links and page #s except for the Alameda Times-Star which I don't have links for. I guess I am a bit confused about where the line is drawn on WP:No original research. I've always been under the understanding that the rule was about original experimental research (eg, science projects or personal flat-earth theories), not factfinding research (eg an afternoon in the stacks). There are citation templates for censuses and theses, after all. If I'm misinterpreting do let me know! I want to be bold without making waves.FLRdorothy (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOR tends to apply to information that you might have personal knowledge of, but which cannot be verified through an examination of published reliable sources. Often it applies to personal experiences, etc. which might be true, just not verifiable. If you went to the library and read published sources about Nielsen, then you can summarize what you read and simply cite the source as completely as possible. The source does not necessarily need to be something found online, but it does need to be something which has been published and which is accessible so that someone else might be able to go to the same library (or another library) to verify what it says if necessary. Online links just make things easier to check from anywhere in the world. Most citations templates have a "url" parameter, but it's only really required for {{cite web}}; templates such as {{cite news}} and {{cite book}}, for example, can be used without providing a url. In such cases though, you should provide as much information as you can about the source to make it possible for others to look it up if necessary; you should also be ready to explain the source if it's questioned by another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but it's important to keep in mind WP:PRIMARY. Ship's lists and census sheets are classic examples of what cannot be used directly; an intervening reliable secondary source interpreting them is needed, because they're too easy to misinterpret (and they're often just plain wrong). EEng 04:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You are correct in that primary sources do need to be used carefully. I figure that was covered in WP:RS, so didn't think it needed explicit mention. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Just barely notable

I raised a notability concern in a discussion elsewhere, but I've since reviewed the Tribune obit (1945) and the 1910 Tribune "airship" item, and I think the subject does qualify as notable. To save everyone trouble I hope you can take my word for it by now, 'cause I'm just not up to an AfD debate right now. I plan to work with FLRdorothy over the next months to put the article into more conventional shape, and as we do that I think notability will become clear. EEng 00:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)