User talk:Jkaharper/2022/February

Help
I started an article about John Aloysius O'Mara. He served as a priest for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Thunder Bay, Canada, and as bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Saint Catharines, Canada. I am having problems with the spelling of his name. The spelling is correct in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Saint Catharines article but not in the Toronto Archdiocese and the Thunder Bay Diocese articles. I try to correct spelling in the later two articles and have been unable to correct the spelling. However, the spelling of John Aloysius O'Mara in the Saint Catharines Diocese article is correct. What am I doing wrong? Thankm You-RFD (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
Hello, I'm Neo the Twin. I noticed that you recently removed content from Riky Rick without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You are removing important information. Neo the Twin (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , actually, you're in the wrong here. You shouldn't have blank reverted my edit with no explanation, not even a single word in your edit summary. Use the edit summary; that's what it's there for! --Jkaharper (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Richard Shepherd
Hello, just wanted to let you know if you haven't seen that the Guardian has indeed updated its date of death for Richard Shepherd... but they corrected it to 1 February, meaning it and the Telegraph's articles are still in conflict.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for this. I emailed them last night and they responded this morning acknowledging the mistake, and stated that the family had in fact released their own death notice with a specific date (I'm guessing that they're referring to this). 1 February must be a typo. I'll ping them again! Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hopefully it will be corrected soon. I suspected as much re: a typo, but as with the last error, I figured all we can do is take an RS at face value.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to a single date on his page given that it should be changed on the Guardian obit again within a few hours. My own view on this is when an RS is blatantly wrong (and is not backed up by any others RS's), it's more damaging keeping the misinformation on the Wiki page as it perpetuates it and then it spreads further afield online. --Jkaharper (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , Guardian obit now corrected, again. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Daily Star reference at Veronica Carlson
Hi. Please do not use the Daily Star as you did at Veronica Carlson. It is not a reliable source. See WP:DAILYSTAR. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's in fact a deprecated source, and in the absence of anything else, it can justifiably be used, particularly in short-term gaps until another source appears. I only ever use the Daily Star and The Sun for that purpose, and I make a note to go back and replace it later. I see no harm in doing this whatsoever. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * in the absence of anything else, it can justifiably be used, particularly in short-term gaps until another source Absolutely not! That stance is very concerning and contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
 * WP:DEPREC states for "deprecated" sources: "The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliable secondary sources are still preferred." The death of a subject is not close to being an "uncontroversial self-description".
 * Biographies of living persons states: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Few claims are more contentious than claiming someone has died.
 * I probably should have reverted all changes indicating Carlson's alleged death but I trusted you would find a better source. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * At current there is no other source retrievable via a search engine. The Daily Star are most certainly 100% correct as the news was confirmed by Carlson's official Facebook page, and by Talking Pictures TV's Twitter account, though ofc we cannot use social media sources (something which I'm more stringent on personally, as you are with deprecated sources). You could wipe the information, though then the bio wrongly implies she's alive and it's just more work for us going forward. I imagine another source will appear within a day or two, but if that's the Sun and the Mail, then we're left with the same problem. This is the exact type of situation where I apply WP:IGNOREALLRULES to because ignoring the hard facts over source deprecation stops us from improving the article. I understand that other users feel differently on this and hence I'm not going to revert your removal of the source but that's my opinion on the matter. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The very reason crappy sources such as the Daily Star are quicker to report things is because they're less strict about fact-checking – which is something that contributes to them being deprecated.
 * though ofc we cannot use social media sources Is there a policy or guideline that explicitly states this? I find it hard to imagine there's a blanket ban on social media sources.
 * If it's been confirmed by Carlson's official Facebook page you can use that per WP:FACEBOOK: "As a reliable source: Sometimes. The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." Robby.is.on (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)