Talk:Baden-Powell grave

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Resources for further expansion[edit]

  • "DEATH OF CHIEF SCOUT Lord Baden-Powell". Morning Bulletin. Rockhampton, Qld. 1941-01-09. p. 6.
  • "Kenya: The Funeral Of Lord Baden-Powell". Reuters. 1941-01-08.

--evrik (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilimington Morning Star Ref problem[edit]

Current reflink #8 seems to point to a different url. It purports to be a newspaper article from Wilmington NC about BP's death, but instead links to a blue-tinted Reuters video. Not sure what's intended here?  JGHowes  talk 13:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC) This one?[reply]

"Baden-Powell, 83, Claimed by Death". Wilimington Morning Star. Wilmington, NC. AP. 1941-01-09. p. 3. Funeral Services For Founder Of Boy Scouts Will Be Conducted Today

and this link:

"Kenya: The Funeral Of Lord Baden-Powell". Reuters. 1941-01-08.

I see you fixed some of the issues. I think I sorted out these two references. --evrik (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • update: The AP dispatch from the Wilmington NC newspaper which instead linked to a Reuters video has been fixed, by replacing it with the AP dispatch clipped from the Richmond Times Dispatch via Newspapers.com. The Reuters cite has now been accurately re-labelled as such.  JGHowes  talk 14:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External link reinstatement[edit]

Can I ask why you reinstated this edit without any explanation? The link fails WP:EL in that it's not about the grave site of Baden-Powell, nor does it have any connection to it. It may be fine on the Scouts page or the main Baden-Powell page, but it has nothing to do with the grave article. Canterbury Tail talk 13:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Canterbury Tail:, hello, the reason I added them back is that both links related to his death, which is broadlay represented by his grave. --evrik (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But his death and his grave are not the same thing. The article technically has nothing to do with his death. There is nothing about that message on the link that is about his grave. It doesn't appear on his grave, and in fact it was written quite some time before his death. It's quite clearly not about the specific article subject. Canterbury Tail talk 11:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How? How is the link relevant to the encyclopedic understanding of the subject which is a grave? It's relevant to the scouts article perhaps. It's relevant to the article on the person, but would be as likely to be removed as any other link to a single letter. It bears zero encyclopaedic understanding and relevance to their grave, which is what this article is about. Canterbury Tail talk 17:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject ..." I suppose those two links could be used as references to expand the article. --evrik (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thanks for that. Relevant to an encyclopaedic understanding of the subject. A link linking to a letter he wrote well before his death is not relevant to an encyclopaedic understanding of his grave site. Canterbury Tail talk 14:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links are neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an understanding of his death, burial and resting place. --evrik (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way is the specific link at issue relevant to an understanding of his burial place? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • B-P knew he was dying, selected where he was to be buried. This was his last message released after his death. There is no article on the death of B-P. An external link to wikisource makes sense. --evrik (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The linked message gives no information about where he was to be buried. What makes it relevant to an understanding of the subject of this particular article, as opposed to the article on the man himself? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell there's no connection with that letter and the site of his grave, and therefore it fails WP:EL. Canterbury Tail talk 21:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're both reading WP:EL a little too narrowly. --evrik (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with evrik. The grave is closely linked to his death. As we say in Australia - "Blind Freddy can see that!!" --Bduke (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Blind Freddy doesn't get a say in the matter, per WP:ELBURDEN the link should be excluded until consensus can be found for its inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We encourage readers to use WMF's sister projects; this belongs in the {{Sister project links}} template, not as a separate EL. Have updated template accordingly.  JGHowes  talk 13:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it does not. {{Sister project links}} should only be used when a corresponding page for the subject exists; as detailed above, the link at issue is not a corresponding page for this subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not have a consensus here for your continued reversions. Perhaps the article should be renamed "Funeral and grave of Baden-Powell" since there's a section in this article dealing with that.  JGHowes  talk 14:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome to seek consensus for renaming the article as you choose. However, disputed external links require a positive consensus for inclusion, not exclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two points. Strictly speaking, sister projects are not external links, but part of WMF. Per this, placement need not even be in an article's EL section, if there isn't one. A section in this article discusses the funeral and one of the cites there links to the same farewell letter "in event of death", but in a less clearer version than the Wikisource OCR version. Secondly, WP:ELMAYBE states (#5) "Links to Wikimedia sister projects with relevant material". This states, "Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers". So the consideration should be, is it "useful" and "relevant"? If we're counting !votes here, inclusion of the wikisource version as relevant to his death, burial, and epitaph (including his own farewell to be read upon death) has consensus 3-2.  JGHowes  talk 15:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to include it as a sister project link instead of a "regular" external link, it would need to be a corresponding page for the article subject - but as the subject of this article is not the letter, it is not. What leads you to believe the link is useful or relevant to the subject of the article as currently framed, which is the grave itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still advocate the the letter fits under the definition of what goes in EL.We can leave i as it was at the start of this discussion and focus on other things. --evrik (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the letter should be mentioned because some readers may not know about it and will be delighted to find out about it from this page. It is strongly linked to the interests of readers of this article.--Bduke (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The letter is mentioned here: Baden-Powell_grave#Legacy, which is why I think linking to the actual letter in El is appropriate. --evrik (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That mention doesn't really belong in this article either. I've removed it, unless/until the scope of the article is changed as suggested above. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're kidding, right? At least three other people support the inclusion of the information. I'm not really sure what your goal is here, but your work is diminishing the content of the article. --evrik (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, not kidding. The article as currently framed is about the gravesite. If that changes, great, but at the moment the letter is not relevant. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're kidding, right? I just restored an earlier version. Go ahead and tag the sentence again if you want, but your efforts here are confusing. --evrik (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for page protection so this can cool down. --evrik (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Organization[edit]

@Evrik: Could you please explain your rationale for this revert? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did in the section above. --evrik (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You restored an earlier version why? You've removed sourced information and undid organizational changes that have nothing to do with the issue under dispute in the discussion above. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appeared that you eliminated text. It also appears that the organizational changes had some editorial impact. I restored the deleted content. --evrik (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What specific editorial impact is of concern to you in the change? The organizational structure you've reverted to is problematic because it includes content in the lead not reflected in the text, and confusing because it puts most of the content in a Background section rather than dividing it in a logical manner. Thank you for restoring the sourced text, but again, organizational issue: it's in a section titled Funeral but has nothing to do with the funeral. As to eliminating text, what specific text was removed that you feel was not covered by what was left? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went back one more time and tried to create a hybrid version of what you did and the earlier versions. --evrik (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you've again stuck most of the article's content in the Background section, you've still got content in the lead that's not reflected in the body, you've added an external link despite active consensus against it at ELN, and you've not answered my questions. Additionally you are actively canvassing for others to support your position. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have answered all your questions. If you want to propose reorganizing the content further, I don't object. I object to dropping content you don't agree with. I think the only fact in the lead not in the article is Olive's ashes. Feel free to fix that. There is a space in the infobox for findagrave - yes, I did utilize it. Yes, it's not an EL. You didn't want it as an EL. Now you object to using it in the infobox as well? As for canvassing, no. Another editor flagged this conversation in the Scouting WikiProject. I responded there. --evrik (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my proposed organization. What is your specific objection to it? What information do you feel was "dropped" in that version versus what was previously present?
    Another editor flagged this conversation in the Scouting WikiProject. I responded there Yes - specifically advocating a particular position.
    Yes, it's not an EL Of course it's an EL - it's a non-reference link to an external source, regardless of where it's placed. Given the very clear consensus at ELN that this link should not be included, please remove it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC.
  • Regarding organization, I like the way it looks right now, especially with the recent changes, thank you @JGHowes:. I doubt that recommending maintenance of the status quo in response to a query counts as canvassing. As for the infobox, why does the template have the option if it is not meant to be used? --evrik (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be used when there's consensus to do so; in this case there is consensus not to include that link. Please remove it. Do you have a rationale other than liking it to prefer the current organization to what is proposed? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus here to not include it.--Bduke (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Active consensus against it at ELN, meaning exclusion as per WP:ELBURDEN. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not included it in the section of the article that deals with external links. However there is a place for another template, as such I have put it there.--evrik (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again: there is a consensus that this is not an appropriate external link for this article. Putting it at the top of the article rather than the bottom does not change that. Please remove it. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a spirit of compromise, I removed the EL. In its place in {{Infobox_cemetery}} I have placed {{Find a Grave}}, which I believe is an appropriate use of both templates. --evrik (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you include the external link in one template vs another, again, does not change the fact that there is consensus against its inclusion. What you are doing is not compromising but gaming. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the other discussion that was had about findagrave, it was because at first, the website was used as a reference. You removed them as references, okay. When they links were in the EL section, you removed them, and we had a discussion about that. I disagreed with your position. However, seeing as the site is not blacklisted, does offer information on the graves, is not in the EL section but part of the infobox (calling on wikidata), I think it appropriate to use the resources available to us to offer more information to the reader. --evrik (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you think it's appropriate, but the consensus on this particular link is that it is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly no such consensus. I support evrik's edit. --Bduke (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bduke, the discussion at ELN had five editors opposing the link and only Evrik supporting it. You're welcome to go post there if you think you can sway the discussion, but at this point that is a very very clear consensus against its inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Find a Grave was very clearly shot down as an inappropriate link because it added zero that wasn't already in the article or in linked articles. The letter link, it's clear we're not going to have a consensus here, so it should also go to the External Links Noticeboard. Canterbury Tail talk 21:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was very clearly in reference to using the links as references or in the EL section, and not as part of another template. --evrik (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, I agree with evrik. Second, I support having the link in because it allows the reader to quickly go and find other graves that they may be interested in. Third, it does no harm. Forth, this is just another example of how editing wikipedia becomes so toxic. --Bduke (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not using it in another template? WP:EL covers all external links, not just those in the External links section. Placing it in another template is, forgive the language, just trying to game it. The link is, quite frankly, useless on this article. Finding other graves they are interested in? Not our job. It's adds nothing we don't already have, nothing. As a link on the article it would only be there to have the link, not to serve any encyclopaedic purpose, just because. Everything in an article should serve a purpose, that does not. Canterbury Tail talk 21:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Canterbury Tail, Bduke, and Evrik:, there is a clear, rather global (and re-established for this case at WP:ELN), consensus that findagrave external links should be avoided and only be included if there is a clear consensus for inclusion. Multiple people, including me, agree that this link does not add to the document. Bduke, we are not link to material because 'it does not do harm', and we are not the place to find other graves people may be interested in, we include links because they add something that enhances this page.
Note: WP:EL applies to all the external links in a document with only exception the references. So that includes links in infoboxes, the prose, in tables, ánd in the external links sections. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree with you. I just think that adding it where evrik added it, would enhance this page. However, there clearly is no consensus to add it.--Bduke (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, without getting too far into the minutiae, before you weighed in here, more of the people commenting felt that the link to findagrave added to the article, this has gotten lost in this discussion. In truth, this whole discussion has metastasized, from the original discussion about links to a letter, to the organization of the page, to the inclusion of findagrave. For now, I like the idea that we let this sit for a while. --evrik (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Evrik, no, you agreed to stop editing until there is consensus or MOS ruling. This is the place to get that consensus. The global consensus and the specific ELN consensus was not that findagrave added to this article. I suggest that you start an RfC here and advertise that in the relevant places (WP:ELN/WP:ELPEREN etc). Dirk Beetstra T C 04:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about nobody edits the page until there is some kind of consensus or MOS ruling? Everyone here is an experienced editor. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the section completely. This is a huge waste of time. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is quite confusing. I don't see why the strong effort to keep out the material. Folks are trying to posit a far more stringent degree-of-relevance than is the norm in Wikipedia articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, WP:ELBURDEN. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the only "reason" for leaving it out then that reinforces my previous post. BTW there was a pretty strong consensus that when people invoke wp:burden they should accompany that with their arguments for leaving out the material. North8000 (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, yes, and those arguments were given, and fully in line with the arguments that were given over and over for this site. The material is failing our inclusion standards over and over. It does not substantially add anything. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which inclusion standard is it failing? My opinion remains the same, here with the missing word fixed. I don't see why the strong effort to keep out the material. Folks are trying to posit a far more stringent degree-of-relevance standard than is the norm in Wikipedia articles.North8000 (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with the article topic. It may be relevant in another article, but a link not about the grave in an article on the grave isn't relevant (on the topic of the Letter link.) As for the Find a Grave link, it adds zero, zero, information not already in Wikipedia and has been discussed on the External Links Noticeboard. Encyclopaedia wide consensus on Find a Grave are that it generally shouldn't be used except on rare circumstances as it has no editorial oversight and generally adds nothing to articles. It's 100% not a reliabls source and rarely a valid or useful external link. All the arguments are above. Canterbury Tail talk 13:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually done weighing in on this. At this point I am mostly curious what inclusion standard Dirk Beetstra is referring to. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, WP:EL. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baden-Powell_grave&oldid=1205604069"