Talk:The Political Graveyard

Logo
The logo is badly distorted for me, perhaps because of the stippling and being resized into a thumb? Ewlyahoocom 23:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Not defunct!
The web server that hosts Political Graveyard went down this afternoon at approximately 3pm EDT for as yet unknown reasons. It will be up again, I hope, shortly. It is not defunct, and changing the article to past tense is completely unwarranted. Kestenbaum 21:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, I tried both external links, & neither worked. If this is in fact temporary, then please feel free to revert my edits. Just called it like I saw it. :) --Cheese Sandwich 22:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'll go ahead & do it... --Cheese Sandwich 22:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's back up now. Based on the http logs, the server was down from 16:15 to 23:34 EDT. Kestenbaum 04:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've already reverted my changes. Sorry for the mix-up. Bad timing, eh? :) --Cheese Sandwich 04:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Political Graveyard.gif
Image:Political Graveyard.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, keep it as a reference

 * Keep it appears reliable and properly curated.

No, delete all the references

 * (Add opinion here)

Previous discussions include:
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_134 (2012)

RFC vs. Noticeboard
This RfC belongs at the reliable sources noticeboard. This talk page is for discussing the article, not the use of the website as a source in other articles. Please open an RfC at the correct place (where you already had started a discussion about this anyway), and close this RfC as invalid. Fram (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. This should be closed, and the discussion continued at WP:RSN where it started. Reyk YO! 14:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * RFCs have binding rulings and official closures, the past discussions at WP:RSN did not lead to any binding ruling or even a closure. --RAN (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Then turn that discussion into a RfC. Fram (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

So, if scholarly books and others cite a website, doesn't that say something about the site?
I ask because an editor mass-deleted the following:

Use as a source
The Political Graveyard been credited as a source in books such as The Marcus Garvey and Universal Negro Improvement Association Papers, Volume XI, The Negro Southern League: A Baseball History, 1920-1951, The Worst-Case Scenario Almanac: Politics, and The Millers and the Saints: Baseball Championships of the Twin Cities Rivals.

The website has been formally credited as source by The Politico,  and The Suburban Times.

Conversely, The Blade reported on an error about the first mayor of Toledo that propagated to books published in 1895, 1898, to The Blade itself in 1958, to Toledo's One Government Center, tp the Arts Commission of Greater Toledo, to the cemetery where he is not buried, and furthermore to politicalgraveyard.com. XavierItzm (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * What about all the people who have discarded it because it is not reliable (including Wikipedia). Even the site's creator has said it contains errors. Your stuff is undue weight and tediously unnecessary. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)