User talk:Jkaharper/2021/December

On 1 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Marilyn McLeod, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article LaMarr Hoyt, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Charlotte Mailliard Shultz, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jolene Unsoeld, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Marjorie Tallchief, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article M. Sarada Menon, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Betty Tanner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Tanner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Theresa Greene Reed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montgomery, Maryland.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Robert Jervis, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not use the Daily Star as you did at

Hi @Robby.is.on:, thank you for your message. I am aware that the Daily Star is a depreciated source. I have been a user on here for 15+ years after all. However, at the time of her death, this was the only news source on Google that had covered it. I applied Wikipedia:Ignore all rules because to not use the Daily Star would've prevented the news of her death on Wiki. I think other users were appreciative of this as nobody removed the Star reference from either her page or the Deaths in 2021 page at the time, and indeed you're the first to raise it. The recent deaths page on Wiki is one of the most viewed pages on the web, and temporarily substituting the Daily Star source in the absence of anything else was the correct thing to do. The result was numerous constructive edits to her page, and further news coverage also followed. Replacing the Star reference was on my to-do list, and I see you have now done so with one by The Times of Malta. Whilst I appreciate you have left this message in good faith, I hope you agree with me that there is a huge difference between flat-out unreliable sources (some blogs, bot generated "news" sites, social media posts) and depreciated sources, such as The Sun and The Star. The latter are discredited on Wiki because their journalistic writing is often hyperbolic, and as tabloids they often twist the truth and can muddle details etc. However, in the case of a death of celebrity, I consider using them to be benign and sufficient as a temporary source, in the absence of anything else. I don't need you to agree with me, but merely to understand why I used the Daily Star, and why I will do so in future in the absence of other readily available sources. Kind regards --Jkaharper (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to write a detailed response, Jkaharper. I hope you agree with me that there is a huge difference between flat-out unreliable sources (some blogs, bot generated "news" sites, social media posts) and depreciated sources, such as The Sun and The Star. The latter are discredited on Wiki because their journalistic writing is often hyperbolic, and as tabloids they often twist the truth and can muddle details etc. I'm afraid I can't agree with that. On

WP:RSP

's four-point scale of reliability, "deprecated" sources are the worst. So whether we like it or not, these guidelines don't differentiate between deprecated sources such as the Daily Star and other, potentially worse sources. A source that is deprecated "is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited." – that's as absolute as it can get, if you ask me.

However, in the case of a death of celebrity, I consider using them to be benign and sufficient as a temporary source, in the absence of anything else. On the contrary: WP:RSP states that "Mundane, uncontroversial details have the lowest burden of proof, while information related to biomedicine and living persons have the highest." Also see

WP:BLPREMOVE

. We should not rely on an unreliable source to claim somebody has died.

The fact that nobody else removed the reference doesn't mean much. Few people know which sources are deprecated. I have come across plenty long-time and experienced editors who have used deprecated sources because they didn't know, often because they were from another country than where the source is published and read. to not use the Daily Star would've prevented the news of her death on Wiki Accuracy is more important than quickness. See

WP:RSBREAKING. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I can see you feel strongly on this matter @Robby.is.on:, and we're going to have to agree to disagree. For the record, this is the first time I've ever used it as a source, but I don't think it's as unreliable as you're making out. It is a 43 years old established newspaper, with a wide circulation and core journalist team. As I said, I believe there is a case for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules in such rare circumstances. There is a reason why an initial warning appears on edit previews, but it then gives us the option to submit it regardless. All the best. --Jkaharper (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

we're going to have to agree to disagree. […] It is a 43 years old established newspaper, with a wide circulation and core journalist team. You're not disagreeing with me, foremost, but with the evaluation many, many editors arrived at in four separate RFCs, the latest being from 2020. Whether I feel strongly about the Daily Star or not is beyond the point. We as editors should follow the community's policies and guidelines.

There is a reason why an initial warning appears on edit previews, but it then gives us the option to submit it regardless. The reason is a deprecated source "may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions" – that does not apply in this case. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Osagi Bascome, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Myrna Manzanares, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that 'Life and career' is not a standard section heading per the MOS. GiantSnowman 12:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GiantSnowman:, thanks for your message. I've used this section heading thousands of times on bios, and I must say, you're the first to ever flag it up! Can you tell me where specifically in the MOS guidelines it says "Life and career" shouldn't be used? "Career" alone, which you're punting for here, is pretty useless when that section on the Juan Norat page contains birth and death information in addition to details of their professional life. So to avoid an edit war, shall we agree to disagree on both of these and come up with a third option? I've never liked "biography" because as far as I'm concerned the whole page is the biography. I really do think "Life and career" adequately covers all the aspects of that section, but interested to hear what you can come up with instead. Thanks again! --Jkaharper (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS is Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. GiantSnowman 13:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the Norat article is so short, I wonder whether we need a section heading at all? If we do insist on a section heading I agree that "Career" isn't very fitting in this case so I'd lean towards an exception to the MOS rule… Robby.is.on (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a proposal, not Wiki policy @GiantSnowman:. You've ignored most of what I've written above. It's pretty clear that you're not interested in finding a compromise on this, but rather you're only concerned in being possessive about the footballer bios on here and getting your own way on layout, even when your suggested headline doesn't even cover most the content written in its section (like in the case of Juan Norat. If you have no wish to constructively reach a compromise, then please refrain from posting on my talk page again. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that you're not interested in finding a compromise on this, but rather you're only concerned in being possessive about the footballer bios on here and getting your own way on layout Where are you reading this? GS' reply from 13:39 (UTC) is a bit curt but let's

WP:AGF

.

We can talk this through civilly and exchange arguments. I gave some that came to my mind above. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was a response to GiantSnowman, who largely ignored every point I had to make. Your response was constructive and thoughtful. --Jkaharper (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a proposal, it's a 'live' WikiProject MOS. I didn't ignore your comment, shown by this where I keep the place of death in the prose. Like Robby says, your complete failure to AGF means any attempt to discuss further is largely futile now, as I've got better things to do with my time, so well done for that. GiantSnowman 14:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't discussed it in any detail at all, and by your comments and foul attitude (i.e. "I've got better things to do with my time, so well done for that"), it's clear you have no desire to. Not the first time I've noted that you have an awful attitude for others on here, a non-constructive approach, and a habit of always dismissing but never appraising other users. You're a textbook example of someone who was granted administrative rights in the more primitive days of Wikipedia, who should now have them revoked. Given that you're unwilling to engage in a proper discussion with me, I'm not interested in corresponding with you again. No further messages on my talk page please. --Jkaharper (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rogelio Sánchez González, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San José de Gracia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's best to wait, and I'll never use a tweet from a random account as a source, but when the official club historian/journalist makes a tweet, it's a source. The-Pope (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Shirley Bottolfsen, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]