This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mary Ellen Sigsbee article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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 within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists articles
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 edits14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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 edits17:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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 edits18:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
(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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
