Talk:Duncraig, Western Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Duncraig, Western Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter source[edit]

Doesn't this meet the requirements of WP:ABOUTSELF? Steelkamp (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: My understanding is that WP:ABOUTSELF would allow Parker's tweets to be used as for uncontroversial statements in the article Matt Parker (i.e. about himself), but not in the article about Duncraig. It's possible I'm misreading the policy though. Modest Genius talk 14:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It says Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities. I think the key word here is usually. I believe the Matt Parker tweet meets all five requirements of WP:ABOUTSELF and I find it unlikely he would lie about something like this. Steelkamp (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt the claim is true, I just don't think there's a good argument for this being the sort of exceptional case that would justify going against the policy, which says Twitter should 'usually' not be used as a source. Modest Genius talk 15:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can find a source that meets WP:RS (e.g. a local newspaper, or a bio in a book Parker has written) then he should certainly be added to the article. A couple of tweets are not sufficient. Modest Genius talk 11:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Modest Genius: Which policy are you referring to, for the idea that Twitter should "usually" not be used as a source? The usually in articles about themselves or their activities quote from WP:ABOUTSELF is endorsing sometimes using Twitter as a source in articles which aren't mainly about the subject, which is what's happening here.
I'm really not seeing how a tweet confirmably written by Parker should be treated any differently from them making the same claim in one of their books, or saying it to a local journalist. If they've been doing an extremely slow burn joke for at least a decade and secretly never actually grew up in Duncraig at all, they could make the exact same claim in a book or an interview and you'd run it here. If your concern is that Parker just isn't as significant a figure as the billionaire or the racing driver and we need a reliable source to show that their connection to Duncraig is noteworthy, them making the claim themselves in a book or interview wouldn't do that either. -Belbury (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You quoted the exact phrase from the policy. To me, 'usually' in that context means 'unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise'. I don't see one here. Modest Genius talk 13:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a non-biography article has a dedicated section for a list of people, that seems like one of those unusual exceptions where it's okay to repeat a line from a biography, carrying over the self-published source. WP:LISTPEOPLE and Wikipedia's many Category:Lists of people by location articles appear to back that up. --Belbury (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference: Matt Parker himself has tweeted that it’s a good policy and [I] don’t think an exception should be made in this case. I might just see if my old school can write an alumni article about me.[1] Renerpho (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC) I myself still prefer sources published by third parties (be it a book, an article published by a journalist, or something similar) over anything published on social media. So if such a source can be found (or produced), that should solve the problem. I don't think anyone has argued that notability is the issue here. Renerpho (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly, the WP:LISTPEOPLE policy only asks that the person have an article and that a reliable source confirms them to be a member of the list. If Matt's own tweet is considered reliable for confirming their link to Duncraig on their biography, it doesn't become unreliable outside of that article. Full articles like List of people from Melbourne don't even seem to bother attaching references at all, if the connection is sourced in the linked biography. --Belbury (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury: True. Reliability isn't relative: If it's considered reliable for one article, it is considered reliable, period. Renerpho (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, we can still discourage using some sources (like social media posts) outside of certain areas. I think that becomes a question of style, not reliability. Renerpho (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think LISTPEOPLE is one of those areas where solid primary sources are permissible, so long as it's not a list where merely claiming to be on it would be "unduly self-serving", etc. I can get behind it for a list like Aphantasia#Notable_people_with_aphantasia, which uses some self-published blog entries and podcasts for its sources, and which would be giving less information to the reader if we were to cut those entries and wait for a book/interview that might never come. --Belbury (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Modest Genius: Regarding your previous comment, that My understanding is that WP:ABOUTSELF would allow Parker's tweets to be used as for uncontroversial statements in the article Matt Parker (i.e. about himself), but not in the article about Duncraig. It's possible I'm misreading the policy though: I think you were misunderstanding the policy. A "statement about himself" doesn't mean that it has to be in the article about himself. The reliability of a source does not depend on what article it is used in. Rather, the policy means that the statement must be about first-hand biographical information, no matter what article it is made in. This excludes Twitter as a source when someone posted about something else than their own biography (like, say, a tweet by Michael Brown used for the claim that Pluto is not a planet), but that's not what is happening here. Given that WP:ABOUTSELF establishes that Twitter can be a reliable source (see the previous discussion), I see no reason why we shouldn't use it in the Duncraig article. Renerpho (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think his tweets are fine as a source for a relatively mundane fact like where he grew up and I agree that WP:ABOUTSELF applies here. Reliability can be relative for certain subject areas like sources in medical articles, but that's not relevant to this case. Graham87 04:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duncraig,_Western_Australia&oldid=1201686238"