Talk:Stella Matutina: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:59, 28 June 2006

Merge

It cannot be merged with Ordo Stella Matutina. Material about the modern Ordo Stella Matutina from that orders website can ONLY be used if the article is exclusively dedicated to it. If this article is merged into it, that autobiographical self-published material cannot be used. That's why I separated all the articles in the first place: to comply with WP:V. Your suggestion countervenes that - it cannot be done while also abiding by WP:V. -999 (Talk) 17:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be (and already is) merged with Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn; it is my opinion that all the historical (i.e. terminated, defunct, etc.) Order for which all the sources are reliable (i.e. books) should be combined in a single article since this is allowed within WP policy. However, combining the modern orders in any way (i.e. with each other or with any histoical order) would prohibit the use of their website material. -999 (Talk) 17:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please clearly specify where in WP:V it says what you are saying. thanks. Zos 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already have on the other talk page. -999 (Talk) 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you never showed me where I cannot add informtation to an aricle. Zos 17:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you cannot add information. I said that you cannot combine the two articles about two different orders under a single title. -999 (Talk) 17:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would like policy to say that I cannot add to an article that has existing references to its main web site as being autobiographical. Zos 18:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it does not change the SUBJECT of the article, you can. You changed the subject to a defunct order with the actuall order the article is about reduced to a footnote. -999 (Talk) 18:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I started the section called "Modern Day", and put the revival under that. The history comes before the revival, or else, what is it revived from? Zos 18:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've been saying, these are NOT the same entity. The history goes in the article Stella Matutina, which is clearly indicated in the dab line. -999 (Talk) 18:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still want outside intervention. Maybe an RfC. So don't remove the tag until this is over. Zos 18:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to add an "Historical Background" section AFTER the details about the modern corporation, I would only object if it was intended to be the main article on the topic. Add a header, a link to the main article on Stella Matutina and keep the historical background to a summary and I should have no objection. -999 (Talk) 18:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I can add more information that you are allowed to add from your web site source. This is fact would be changed based on sources. This is not my intention and not my problem. Whatever happens to articles is of no issue to me, I only wish to contribute. Zos 18:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims

Claims from the Ordo Stella Matutina website cannot be used in this article, as self-published sources can only be used in a article about the publisher. If you have a third-party book reference then such a claim could be included, but you cannot include non-vetted claims which only occur on a modern order's website in an article about an historical entity that was closed for business by 1937. -999 (Talk) 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of policy. Per WP:V, "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." and "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves..."

So, this source is not acceptable in this article, but is acceptable in the Ordo Stella Matutina article.

It is important to note that this is a claim of Ordo Stella Matutina and not an established fact with third-party verification. It is not the place of Wikipedia to implicitly accept this claim by combining two different entities into the same article w/o a reputable third-party book or peer-reviewed journal as a source for the validity of the claim. -999 (Talk) 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{RFMF}}
 ==Merge==
 It '''cannot''' be merged with [[Ordo Stella Matutina]]. Material about the modern [[Ordo Stella Matutina]] from that orders website can ONLY be used if the article is exclusively dedicated to it. If this article is merged into it, that autobiographical self-published material cannot be used. That's why I separated all the articles in the first place: to comply with [[WP:V]]. Your suggestion countervenes that - it cannot be done while also abiding by [[WP:V]]. -[[User:999|999]] ([[User_talk:999|Talk]]) 17:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)