This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve
New Jersey–related articles to
Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the
discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Self-published sources like Find-a-Grave, genealogy websites, and Wikipedia are generally considered unreliable and should not be used, particularly where more reliable replacements are available.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 12:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Who is disputing this?
Gamaliel (
talk) 18:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)reply
In
this revert (and previous), Find-a-Grave was restored as a source in place of a more reliable one. That should not be done.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 19:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Find a Grave is not the only source. All the information has reliable sources that are not Find a Grave.
Gamaliel (
talk) 19:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't understand the problem here. If something is sourced to NJ bio AND Find a Grave, what difference does it make if NJ bio is an RS?
Gamaliel (
talk) 23:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)reply
There's no reason to include poorer sources when better sources are available. What's your rationale for wanting to do so?
Nikkimaria (
talk) 00:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
What is your rationale for making an issue out of this source when it is accompanied by an RS source? A Wikidata item can have any number of sources. What possible difference could it make?
Gamaliel (
talk) 00:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
If we're going to be including content here we need it to comply with our local policies and guidelines, and here we don't consider some of those sources to be acceptable.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 00:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
The policy requires that information is sourced to a reliable source. That policy has been satisfied. That should be the end of the subject, but we're still talking about it and I have no idea why.
Gamaliel (
talk) 00:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Because it remains unclear to me why in this case poorer-quality sources ought to be cited when better-quality sources are available. Again, do you have a reason to insist on this?
Nikkimaria (
talk) 01:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I've added better quality sources, including sources you yourself added to this article, to every relevant item in Wikidata. That should be the end of the matter. Why do you insist that it is not?
Gamaliel (
talk) 01:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Right, so we seem to be talking past each other a bit here. We agree that some of the sources supporting these details are reliable, which is why I'm not proposing removing the information entirely. The point of disagreement is why it is necessary, given that there are reliable sources supporting these details, that we also have unreliable sources supporting the same details. Perhaps I have missed it in your posts, but do you have a reason why you feel so strongly that this should be the outcome?
Nikkimaria (
talk) 01:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't feel strongly about it at all, I feel that it makes zero difference either way. Once RS is satisfied, there is when my job is done and where my interest ends. I'm not interested in cleaning up every statement on Wikidata. If you want to remove Find a Grave from every reference in Wikidata, go for it, I'll vote support on your bot permissions request. But it's not a mission that RS requires of me nor is it one I am interested in.
Gamaliel (
talk) 01:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Okay, thank you for clarifying that it makes no difference to you. In that case, I will restore the version that includes only reliable sourcing.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 02:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Sigh. It's absolutely absurd to remove something that is properly sourced. There's nothing in RS that requires other projects to remove Find a Grave, it only requires that information *here* be sourced to an RS-source, and it is. You have no basis for removal and I will be reverting any removal that falsely invokes RS in this inappropriate way.
Gamaliel (
talk) 14:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
If you don't feel strongly about it either way, on what basis would you revert a change to having information supported by fully reliable sources rather than a mix of reliable and unreliable? I'm not talking about changing what's on a different project, I'm talking about changing what's here.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 15:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't care about Findagrave being there or not being there. What I care about is editors removing properly sourced information on a flimsy pretext. If there is an RS source for a statement in Wikidata, that should be the end of the matter. Anything else is a ridiculous and non-productive waste of time.
Gamaliel (
talk) 16:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
To be clear,
this is the change I'm proposing. No data is removed, it's just replacing the mixed sources with a single reliable one (and if you think additional reliable sources ought to be added I'm happy to do that).
Nikkimaria (
talk) 16:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
As I said, this edit is a ridiculous and non-productive waste of time. The information is currently sourced to an RS, so there is no valid reason to edit or change or remove it. Anything else is merely invoking
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Gamaliel (
talk) 16:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
For my side, I do feel it's appropriate to use solely reliable sources to support our content when we have the ability to do so, and for that reason am happy to take my time to make the edit. I understand you don't feel this is a necessary change, but that is not in itself a reason to revert it.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 16:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve
New Jersey–related articles to
Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the
discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Self-published sources like Find-a-Grave, genealogy websites, and Wikipedia are generally considered unreliable and should not be used, particularly where more reliable replacements are available.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 12:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Who is disputing this?
Gamaliel (
talk) 18:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)reply
In
this revert (and previous), Find-a-Grave was restored as a source in place of a more reliable one. That should not be done.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 19:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Find a Grave is not the only source. All the information has reliable sources that are not Find a Grave.
Gamaliel (
talk) 19:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't understand the problem here. If something is sourced to NJ bio AND Find a Grave, what difference does it make if NJ bio is an RS?
Gamaliel (
talk) 23:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)reply
There's no reason to include poorer sources when better sources are available. What's your rationale for wanting to do so?
Nikkimaria (
talk) 00:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
What is your rationale for making an issue out of this source when it is accompanied by an RS source? A Wikidata item can have any number of sources. What possible difference could it make?
Gamaliel (
talk) 00:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
If we're going to be including content here we need it to comply with our local policies and guidelines, and here we don't consider some of those sources to be acceptable.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 00:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
The policy requires that information is sourced to a reliable source. That policy has been satisfied. That should be the end of the subject, but we're still talking about it and I have no idea why.
Gamaliel (
talk) 00:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Because it remains unclear to me why in this case poorer-quality sources ought to be cited when better-quality sources are available. Again, do you have a reason to insist on this?
Nikkimaria (
talk) 01:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I've added better quality sources, including sources you yourself added to this article, to every relevant item in Wikidata. That should be the end of the matter. Why do you insist that it is not?
Gamaliel (
talk) 01:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Right, so we seem to be talking past each other a bit here. We agree that some of the sources supporting these details are reliable, which is why I'm not proposing removing the information entirely. The point of disagreement is why it is necessary, given that there are reliable sources supporting these details, that we also have unreliable sources supporting the same details. Perhaps I have missed it in your posts, but do you have a reason why you feel so strongly that this should be the outcome?
Nikkimaria (
talk) 01:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't feel strongly about it at all, I feel that it makes zero difference either way. Once RS is satisfied, there is when my job is done and where my interest ends. I'm not interested in cleaning up every statement on Wikidata. If you want to remove Find a Grave from every reference in Wikidata, go for it, I'll vote support on your bot permissions request. But it's not a mission that RS requires of me nor is it one I am interested in.
Gamaliel (
talk) 01:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Okay, thank you for clarifying that it makes no difference to you. In that case, I will restore the version that includes only reliable sourcing.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 02:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Sigh. It's absolutely absurd to remove something that is properly sourced. There's nothing in RS that requires other projects to remove Find a Grave, it only requires that information *here* be sourced to an RS-source, and it is. You have no basis for removal and I will be reverting any removal that falsely invokes RS in this inappropriate way.
Gamaliel (
talk) 14:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
If you don't feel strongly about it either way, on what basis would you revert a change to having information supported by fully reliable sources rather than a mix of reliable and unreliable? I'm not talking about changing what's on a different project, I'm talking about changing what's here.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 15:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't care about Findagrave being there or not being there. What I care about is editors removing properly sourced information on a flimsy pretext. If there is an RS source for a statement in Wikidata, that should be the end of the matter. Anything else is a ridiculous and non-productive waste of time.
Gamaliel (
talk) 16:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
To be clear,
this is the change I'm proposing. No data is removed, it's just replacing the mixed sources with a single reliable one (and if you think additional reliable sources ought to be added I'm happy to do that).
Nikkimaria (
talk) 16:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
As I said, this edit is a ridiculous and non-productive waste of time. The information is currently sourced to an RS, so there is no valid reason to edit or change or remove it. Anything else is merely invoking
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Gamaliel (
talk) 16:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply
For my side, I do feel it's appropriate to use solely reliable sources to support our content when we have the ability to do so, and for that reason am happy to take my time to make the edit. I understand you don't feel this is a necessary change, but that is not in itself a reason to revert it.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 16:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)reply