User talk:Rusted AutoParts/Archives/2024/February
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Cardiac arrest and Alien Nation
Your recent reversion on Deaths in 2024 seems to have missed my point. It's not that I don't think Gary Graham went into and remains in cardiac arrest, just that it happens to everyone ever said to have died. If it doesn't, nobody says they're dead. Useless information to anyone looking for a cause of death, because it doesn't eliminate any possibilities or suggest one over another. I suggest you restore the version where it goes without saying, but if you don't want to, that's also fine! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Jesse Jane
Greetings. Commercial websites (such as for a funeral home) are generally not reliable sources for anything except themselves. They are examples of self-published sources per WP:USESPS: Almost all websites except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations), including [...] Business, charitable, and personal websites [...] Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view.
Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- (refactored from User talk:Sangdeboeuf) I would accept that rationale if the source was just about the funeral home itself. It's not. It's advertising the passing of a person that pertains to the subject in question with information that was presently missing. I have never encountered any umbrage raised over funeral home obituaries being utilized as citation for information on Wikipedia before, and personally I do not see how funeral home obituaries fall under the banner of self publishing. The obituary is not pitching their services, and it's not asserting a point of view on an opinion. It's a public announcement via family of a person's death. Rusted AutoParts 07:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's published by the funeral home itself. Hence it's self-published. It would be usable only if it were about the business itself. See WP:SPS:
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people
(in this case it applies to recently deceased people as well). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)- @Sangdeboeuf: Sorry, but how can you tack on "it also applies to the deceased" when that's not specified in SPS? The entire purpose of an obituary is to make public the news of someone's death, I find it rather absurd to refuse the ability to use obituaries on the basis it is hosted by the funeral home's website, especially when the rationale "businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view" is not being communicated in the obituary. No promotions, no POV pushing, just announcement of a passing. This effectively makes citing passings of people that would be initially missing in a first report more difficult to cite if follow-up info that doesn't get reported on is in an obituary that we can't apparently use. Rusted AutoParts 07:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLP applies to recently deceased persons. Businesses have commercial motives whether they are explicit or not. However, the main reason to avoid self-published sources is their lack of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. See WP:USESPS:
One characteristic of self-published material is lack of reviewers who are independent of the author
. Beyond that, the obituary doesn't even mention the subject of the article, who is the actress Jesse Jane. So this entire argument is pointless. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)- It was utilized because she died alongside her boyfriend, the man whose obituary this is. Since it was citing the 24th as the DOD, it seemed to stand to reason this would apply to Jane as well, given them dying together and all. As for fact checking and accuracy…how does this apply to an obituary? They aren’t just pushing out random details, obituaries are published in accordance and cooperation with the family or estate of the person in question. Rusted AutoParts 08:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Contents of Wikipedia articles have to be verifiable, meaning there has to be a reliable, published source that directly supports the material in question. "It stands to reason" is insufficient and WP:OR, especially for BLPs. It doesn't matter if the funeral home is acting in accordance with the family, the Pope, or Santa Claus himself. We can't just take some random company's word as gospel. If anything, the family would have their own interests to promote here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- That feels very badfaithed? "the family would have their own interests to promote here", they're announcing the death of a family member, I'm not seeing the self promotion being made here. They aren't advertising their businesses or their personal services, they're announcing they lost a loved one. "We can't just take some random company's word as gospel" is equally badfaithed. A standard that is appropriately applied to the likes of charities or commercial businesses shouldn't be getting applied to a death notice, regardless if said death is being posted via the funeral home the family chose. The funeral home's services were already solicited to the family, so they aren't utilizing a death notice as further promotion. Rusted AutoParts 17:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Your accusations of bad faith are unfounded and unwarranted. In this case, the obituary doesn't mention the circumstances of the death being a drug overdose precisely because they want to portray the deceased in the best light possible. Our mission, by contrast, is to summarize knowledge about a subject that has been accepted by reliable, independent sources as true and relevant. Families of deceased persons always have a conflict of interest when it comes to portraying the subject accurately and fairly. That's the problem here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Obituaries rarely if ever include how the person died anyway, natural or otherwise, so that isn’t an acceptable counter in my opinion. Rusted AutoParts 17:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Your accusations of bad faith are unfounded and unwarranted. In this case, the obituary doesn't mention the circumstances of the death being a drug overdose precisely because they want to portray the deceased in the best light possible. Our mission, by contrast, is to summarize knowledge about a subject that has been accepted by reliable, independent sources as true and relevant. Families of deceased persons always have a conflict of interest when it comes to portraying the subject accurately and fairly. That's the problem here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- That feels very badfaithed? "the family would have their own interests to promote here", they're announcing the death of a family member, I'm not seeing the self promotion being made here. They aren't advertising their businesses or their personal services, they're announcing they lost a loved one. "We can't just take some random company's word as gospel" is equally badfaithed. A standard that is appropriately applied to the likes of charities or commercial businesses shouldn't be getting applied to a death notice, regardless if said death is being posted via the funeral home the family chose. The funeral home's services were already solicited to the family, so they aren't utilizing a death notice as further promotion. Rusted AutoParts 17:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Contents of Wikipedia articles have to be verifiable, meaning there has to be a reliable, published source that directly supports the material in question. "It stands to reason" is insufficient and WP:OR, especially for BLPs. It doesn't matter if the funeral home is acting in accordance with the family, the Pope, or Santa Claus himself. We can't just take some random company's word as gospel. If anything, the family would have their own interests to promote here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- It was utilized because she died alongside her boyfriend, the man whose obituary this is. Since it was citing the 24th as the DOD, it seemed to stand to reason this would apply to Jane as well, given them dying together and all. As for fact checking and accuracy…how does this apply to an obituary? They aren’t just pushing out random details, obituaries are published in accordance and cooperation with the family or estate of the person in question. Rusted AutoParts 08:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLP applies to recently deceased persons. Businesses have commercial motives whether they are explicit or not. However, the main reason to avoid self-published sources is their lack of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. See WP:USESPS:
- @Sangdeboeuf: Sorry, but how can you tack on "it also applies to the deceased" when that's not specified in SPS? The entire purpose of an obituary is to make public the news of someone's death, I find it rather absurd to refuse the ability to use obituaries on the basis it is hosted by the funeral home's website, especially when the rationale "businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view" is not being communicated in the obituary. No promotions, no POV pushing, just announcement of a passing. This effectively makes citing passings of people that would be initially missing in a first report more difficult to cite if follow-up info that doesn't get reported on is in an obituary that we can't apparently use. Rusted AutoParts 07:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's published by the funeral home itself. Hence it's self-published. It would be usable only if it were about the business itself. See WP:SPS:
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Seven years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
March 2024 GAN backlog drive
| Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive |  |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. | |