Talk:Miriam O'Leary Collins

Use of familysearch.org

@Rosiestep: I notice that you reviewed some of my articles and looked at your user page. I am impressed with the articles that you have written and would like to congratulate you on these accomplishments. I have recently been criticized for not using WP:RS when using familysearch.org, and I notice this article you wrote uses it, which is listed as a source not use on WP:RSP. I wrote several women biographies that were actually deleted because they did not use enough secondary sources. One that is in draft mode is here: Draft:Mary L. Hamlin. So, please let me know your thoughts on this matter? Thanks. BTW, one that was deleted that I placed in my sandbox looks like this: User:Greghenderson2006/sandbox7 Greg Henderson (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Greghenderson2006 and thanks for reaching out. Don't use familysearch.org if it doesn't include a link to a WP:RS for what you want to cite. When it does include it, e.g., census page, death certificate, etc. that is a reliable source.

As for having some of your articles deleted because they ...did not use enough secondary sources..., I recognize that this is disappointing but it speaks for itself as reliable secondary sources are a policy on EN-WP. In the example of Draft:Mary L. Hamlin, I read through the comments and have to say that I agree with them. What is needed are additional secondary sources, e.g. newspapers of that era beyond the Carmel Pine Cone. I also agree that the article is confusing in that it appears to be a biography but contains a lot of content about an inn and a lodge.

Hope all this makes sense, but if not, I'd be happy to answer further. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

As for the use of familysearch.org in this article, all of the content related to this reference could be removed without affecting WP:N, e.g., names of siblings. (I should have mentioned this previously.) --Rosiestep (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rosiestep:, I don't particularly agree. What makes FamilySearch unreliable is that it's a self-published source where amateurs cobble together PRIMARY SOURCES like birth/death records. The connection between the primary source records and whatever they're used to support is not being made by a RELIABLE published source. If they're on FamilySearch, that connection is made by some random people. If the connection is made on Wikipedia, that connection is being made by Wikipedia editors. This is something that should be discussed on reliable sources noticeboard. Also, there is a difference between accurately verifying facts vs the contents being inclusion worthy. A surveillance video of a car hitting a house and posted on YouTube and talked about in neighborhood newsletter probably has no factual accuracy issue. Including anything about it on the history of the neighborhood based on this violates due weight. Graywalls (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls, I t-h-i-n-k we're on the same page, e.g., I don't particularly disagree with your point of view regarding familysearch.org. A bit unsure, though, how this ties in with your comments about Draft:Mary L. Hamlin and User:Greghenderson2006/sandbox7?

Also unclear regarding the example of a surveillance video of a car and this article regarding Collins, or does the video example tie in with the article about Hamlin, or maybe a different article, e.g. one that was deleted? --Rosiestep (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I was giving you an example of something that would reliably show that an event happened. Death certificates and social security records and such shows that such and such person died on such date. The connection to the article's subject though is not established directly by the record. If it's John Smith III Sr, it only shows that the deceased was named that, not that it's in anyway related to John Smith Sr talked about in article. Also, simply being able to reliably prove something existed, or something happened is not a reason for inclusion. Graywalls (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)