This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms 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.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Can editors removing sources please discuss their removal and at least offer alternative suggestions if only one source is quoted (in this case Cavila. I've used http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/bios/cadwagd.html - the Early British Kingdoms website as a source for this because a) the site has been used on other wikipedia articles, b) doesn't come across as original research to me, and c) best articulated the facts. By merely deleting the reference and marking up the site for improvement without initiating a discussion, the entry is exposed to unnecessary deletion and - more to the point - the original editor may not be aware of the change. Metabaronic (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Metabaronic, you're probably unaware, but in various discussions scattered about this site, concerns have been raised about the use of the Early British Kingdoms site (EBK) as a source for Wikipedia. Here, for instance. The consensus view emerging from these discussions is that EBK does not qualify as a reliable source. 'Fact', legend and speculation get mixed up, the sourcing is piss poor, and it's self-published by someone without academic credentials in the field. Some months ago, Cuchulainn, Dougweller, Enaidmawr and others had taken it upon themselves to remove the many EBK references, a very tedious exercise I can tell you and it would have been an impossible job had they been required to replace everything with sourced content. Please remember that the burden of evidence is on the person who provides the information. Cavila (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's useful to know. I accept the burden of proof argument, but have used EBK as a source because it is well presented and, as I say, had been in use elsewhere. I can add different sources/references where needed, but try to cite online sources where possible to make cross-referencing easier. A link to the debate you mention explaining the issues prevents reuse of the link elsewhere. My request only matters when there is a single source on an entry, as I wouldn't want to see hard work flagged for quick deletion when alternative sources can be signposted or provided quickly. Metabaronic (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
