[WikiEN-l] Edward Doran

[Andrew Gray]

2009/4/23 Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>:
> The other question to ask is why the other sources came up with 1892?
> Until you find that out, there is a nagging doubt. Did they find a
> different Doran, did they transcribe something incorrectly, or what?

This is why verbose discursive footnotes are great :-)

...was born in 1767.<ref>A number of sources (Smith 1847, Johnson
1892) quote a birthdate of 1771. However, much of the more recent
research (Wilson 1974, Stevens 1982) states 1767, without ambiguity;
instances where 1771 are used (the Public Domain Dictionary of
Biography) appear to be directly drawn from Smith. The reason for the
earlier discrepancy is unclear.</ref>

Hedges our bets (whilst still deciding on a "correct" answer); shows
our working; makes people aware the sources are slightly shaky and may
need to be treated with caution.

----

On a related note, an interesting issue I came across the other day is
where my limited primary research - a detail found when I was trying
to confirm something else - appears to *explicitly* contradict the
secondary sources. What d'you do there?

a) Leave it alone, and put a note on the talkpage?
b) Quote the standard interpretation of things, add a footnote about
the odd result?
c) Decide the secondary sources are wrong, quote the primary source?

I suspect the answer here is B - C is definitely a bit dubious from
the OR perspective, but B seems to strike the right balance between
the imperative to not present OR as valid and the desire to not
knowingly mislead the reader.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk