Template:Did you know nominations/John Hadley (philosopher)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by PFHLai (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
John Hadley (philosopher) edit
- ... that the philosopher John Hadley argues that the territory of wild animals should be considered their property?
Created by J Milburn (talk). Self-nominated at 17:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC).
The article is new (created on 28 May) and long enough. The article and the topic of the hook are really interesting. No copyvio or close paraphrasing was detected. However, neither the hook nor the section of the article that contains its text are verified, because only John Hadley's own works are cited. I suggest that reliable sources (which are independent of the subject of the article) should be cited to verify the hook (and the whole section).Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to have a look at the article. Could you please point to the part of the verification guidelines which you feel that the section violates? I fear that you are misinterpretting the guidelines' requirements, and would suggest that this is an appropriate use of primary sources. Secondary sources which are cited in the article which could be used to cite the hook statement include (but are not limited to) Palmer, Donaldson/Kymlicka, Cochrane and the popular press articles (all of which are cited in the article section in question). Josh Milburn (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Reliability in specific contexts: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Furthermore, if his theory had not been mentioned in peer-reviewed independent publications, we could not conclude that it is notable enough to publish it on the main page of WP. If my understanding is correct, the hook can be verified by independent sources. Borsoka (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with all of what you say in this comment, but I'm not sure what you're asking of me; I only have one paragraph fully-sourced to Hadley in the property rights section, and that's just a recapitulation of his view. I could perhaps source this material to those who comment on Hadley, but this would potentially be a little patchy. Alternatively, I could source it mostly to the book review (which I wrote), but (first) that's forthcoming and (second) I don't want to overuse my own work. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is not a problem if his theory is described based on a published third-party source. I suggest that a reference to a third-party source (I mean to those who comment on Hadley) should be added to the sentence in the article which verifies the hook fact. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ok- I've added a line cited to third party sources. Much of this is forthcoming, but that's because Hadley's book was only published at the end of last year, and, as I'm sure you realise, this kind of thing takes time! Thanks again for taking a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
, as per my first comment above. The hook is now based on a sentence in the article which is verified by a third-party publication. (Although I could not read the text of the cited book, but the parts of the text which can be read on Amazon suggest that it verifies the hook. I ignored the "forthcoming" sources, because they have not been published yet.) Thank you for the article. I have never read about this subject. Borsoka (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
