Talk:Mary Ellen Sigsbee

Sourcing

Find-a-Grave is not generally considered a reliable source for enwiki - see WP:RSP. As per WP:BURDEN, please don't restore material that is not supported by reliable sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed not generally considered a reliable source. Note that is generally, not invariably; in other words, there are exceptions. As per WP:CONSENSUS, please don't remove the citation in this case, which is such an exception, without consensus to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If you believe this to be an exception, please feel free to present arguments to that effect; by default it is not considered reliable, and therefore BURDEN applies. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

If you believe the citation to be inappropriate in this case, please feel free to present arguments to that effect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Given that community consensus is that the source is generally unreliable, the burden is on you to argue that this case is an exception. I've not found any reliable source confirming this claim - for instance neither her nor Fischer's obituary mentions the location of burial. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

If the information is going to be presented in the infobox while this discussion is ongoing, it should be appropriately tagged so that editors and readers alike can see immediately that this detail is in need of reliable sourcing. I also see no justification for removing the overlinking and creating a sea of blue - including a link to United States when the more specific jurisdiction is already linked provides limited benefit to the reader and is outweighed by the negatives. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

As there has been no response, I'm going to restore the tagging and delinking. Hopefully a reliable source for the claim will be forthcoming, or a rationale for why the general community consensus ought not to apply in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the duplicate tagging from the infobox, as we don't add citations or tags to infoboxes when the same statement is cited or tagged in the article body; an editor who has been around as long as you should know this. I've also restored the linking, as the style guide you link to does not preclude it. I didn't respond previously as I prefer to spend my time creating and improving content rather than dealing with such baseless irrelevancies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you don't feel participating in consensus-building discussions is worth your time. Given that you've not presented any rationale why this case ought to be considered an exception to the general community consensus around the reliability of Find-a-Grave as a source, I still feel this claim ought to be removed; unfortunately I have as of yet been unable to find a reliable source (one that is not user-generated) confirming the burial place. I'm going to request a third opinion on this dispute. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

And now you're putting words into my mouth. I said nothing about "not feeling participating in consensus-building discussions is worth my time"; indeed I'm very happy and wiling to do so. But consensus is not built by your making misleading claims about what style guides say, or inventing rules about which hoops you think I'm suposed to jump through. And you have still not made any argument why the citation is inappropriate in this case; indeed your comment confirms that it is the best available source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

My comment confirms that no reliable source makes this claim, as far as I've been able to find; that doesn't mean that this source is reliable and ought to be included. This source is user-generated - the only verification we have that this person was buried in that cemetery is that someone on the internet said so. I've struck my comment above re: discussion, with apologies for the misinterpretation, and will set aside my concerns about linking for the moment, in the hope that we can move forward on the more important issue of sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• From 3O, entirely concur with Nikkimaria. And, I am entirely unable to see Andy making any real effort to understand her concerns. ∯WBG^converse 18:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I was typing this anyway, so I will say that I agree. Find-a-Grave is not generally considered reliable, so the burden is on an editor who wants to use it to develop a consensus that in this case it is. Since that has not been done, the material should be (or remain) removed until and unless a consensus is formed that an exception is warranted here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both. There seems to be a consensus that in this case this source ought not be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)