Talk:Charles Ellis, 6th Baron Howard de Walden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

There is an accreditation to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica at the bottom of the page. I am sorry all data that was included in the article that I put in was not from 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica but from my own research and books that I hold. I did not look at the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica or any other encyclopaedia when researching the information I put into the article. I am a genealogist and as such am very careful on copyright in this instance it was never an issue to be considered Laurie

Hi Laurie. Three points about this. First, the Wikipedia has a policy of not including original research. We're just not geared to it in any way, and people providing it are often just using the Wikipedia as free webspace.

As the policy states,

1. It's an obligation of Wikipedia to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable, and so we rely only on credible or reputable published sources...

2. Credible sources provide readers with resources they may consult to pursue their own research. After all, there are people who turn to encyclopedias as a first step in research, not as a last step.

3. Relying on citable sources helps clarify what points of view are represented in an article, and thus helps us comply with our NPOV policy.

4. Relying on credible sources also may encourage new contributors. For example, if someone knows of an important source that the article has not drawn on, he or she may feel more confident in adding important material to the article.

Your research may or may not be covered under this policy.

Secondly, we ask people to cite their sources. This wasn't done, so when editing the article I had to do my own research (rather than just checking with your original sources) to confirm points that were not clear in the original article. And that leads to...

Thirdly, whilst you may have used original research, I didn't when editing the article. I used the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica to check points and to collect some detail; therefore they really need crediting as a reference, so I did.

I'm sorry if any of this wasn't clear to you, especially the point on original research, but also that any articles you write here are likely to be edited, rephrased and re-researched by others, that being the nature of an Open Content/Open Edit Wiki.

If you are going to credit the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica perhaps it would have been wiser to ask were my research came from and given credit to that. My research was gained from reading read the original records in the British Library in Euston Road London. That I presume is were the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica got its records from? Living in London we do have The LIbarey and Kew Record Centre at out disposal. Laurie

I'll drop you a line on your talk page shortly with some useful links to policies and guidelines, but would encourage you contact me on my talk page (click "hello" in the signature that follows) if you have any questions about this article, my edits/editing or the Wikipedia in general. I'd hate to be the one to discourage you as we need you here at the 'pedia! Cheers ●REDVERS ^{HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS} 20:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Genealogical information for British peers is probably (ultimately) derived from Burke's or Debrett's, even if it's been extruded through someone's genealogy file. A lot of this is online at thepeerage.com, for instance, so this probably isn't original research; but a citation would be nice. Choess 00:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)