Guettarda stated for the record:
In the case of a discrepancy between what you can
find for yourself and what
the article says - I suppose the place to start is with {{fact}} or
something stronger. Obviously, if you have found the marriage certificate,
why haven't other people? Or is it that they just aren't famous enough to
have a real biographer? I'd say it is problematic. Personally I wouldn't
think twice about trusting Sean's veracity - but the truth is, we don't have
"trusted editors" and in theory, what stands for Sean should stand for any
anon.
Thank you for the complement, but I would never expect anyone to simply
take anyone else's word for any source. In this situation, I would post
a scanned copy of the certificate and detailed information about where
to see the original.
I maintain that mere difficulty of access should not be a criterion in
evaluating sources. If a source /can/ be obtained by any editor, be it
by Google, by using the public library, by snail-mail, or by traveling
by camel to Samarkand, then it is a valid source, IMAO. In contrast,
many of us have access to material that cannot be verified by those
outside our professions. There is, for example, quite a lot of
perfectly innocuous, unclassified, public domain data that only people
with .mil e-mail addresses would be able to verify.
By making restricting access in this way the material if effectively
classified. It is clearly a low level classification, but classified
nevertheless. The key question should be, "Is the material available to
anyone?" Can a stranger off the street have anonymous access
somewhere? Is a website valid if it is the only source of the material
but requires membership for passive access to the material.
Ec