Talk:Emma Primas/@comment-26890527-20180202172906/@comment-25898958-20180202182018

Although we operate a "no original research" policy, I think we should allow some discretion if we know that "reliable" sources contain false information. In this case, the news reports say "1905" but our own research suggests 1906.

There is of course a difference between a case which is unvalidated because we "haven't got round to it yet" and one which is unvalidated because research has proven inconclusive or suggests that they're younger. In cases of the latter, I think it's reasonable to put a question mark after the date of birth. Having said that, it's one thing simply to indicate that the claim is "questionable", but it's another to put conclusions of our own original research in to the article. So in this case, unless there's a reliable source saying 1906, I'd rather not put it in.

I suppose you could argue that there's a USPR document saying "1906" in this article, but I'm not too sure that document should be included at all. If we allow that to be cited, why not census records? Or birth records? In fact, why not just post the entire body of research in the references section? The answer is that would be original research.

I am, however, open to hearing other people's thoughts on this. Ollie231213 (talk) 18:20, February 2, 2018 (UTC)