Talk:Thomas Welles

message: On Sarah Palin's connection:
Ancestry.com was only printing the research results of three leading genealogical authorities: Tom Brown, William Reitwiesner, and Gary Boyd Roberts. All three researchers cited birth, death and census records, as permissible by law, pointing back to accepted printed earlier genealogies.
The material was compiled by Robert Battle and Michael Hurdle, and was extracted from Mr. Battle's webpages at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~battle/palin.htm and http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~battle/heath.htm.
Extensive source documentation can be found on those webpages.
--Dranster (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ingarp, two days is really not much time for anyone to comment, but the reason why I reverted you again is verifiability. Your arguement points to a book which at best could be called obscure. Is there any way to scan in the page in question so we can at least include it? Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi. The problem here is really not in explaining the error (and it's not "personal politics" - you should assume good faith). The problem is that Wikipedia relies on references from "reliable" mainstream sources (see WP:RS), not on truth, and not on individual editors' reasoning. And if you can not find such sources to support your assertions, then you can not add them (even if you are correct). So if an editor finds something that they have personally researched and can personally argue is incorrect, they can not add their own reasoning to an article, as that would constitute original research (see WP:OR), which is not allowed. On occasions that is unfortunate, but we just cannot accept individual editors' personal assertions as to their own authority - if we did that, we would have to accept everything claimed by people with much less honesty and integrity than your good self. What you would need is to get your own research noticed and quoted correctly by a source that is acceptable according to WP:RS, and then you could reference that source and correct the text. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

text: As a further comment, I've reverted your removal again, as it is necessary to gain a consensus here *before* you make a contested change, rather than engage in an edit war. Also, please note I have not offered an opinion on the issue itself, but when I have a little time I will examine it and offer an opinion here. I think what we need is to make a proposal here to remove the "Sarah Palin" connection, and then seek opinions based on Wikipedia policy - if we gain a consensus to remove the claimed connection, we can remove it then, but not before. I'll be happy to start that process later. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Boing! said Zebedee, you took the words out of my mouth. Ignarp, please understand that I'm not questioning your logic nor your sincerity. Can we agree to keep the discussion open for one week? That is, 12PM EST on 21 August 2010 so that there is plenty of time for people to weigh in on the subject. Markvs88 (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I did look at this again a few days ago but I guess my addition didn't add. Anyway, I agree that it is not a valid source and the removal is correct. Markvs88 (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancestry