Talk:Thomas Stapleton (paediatrician)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas Stapleton (paediatrician) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
 | This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help! |  |
Invalid reversions
editMy addition of:
According to the website "The Peerage", his parents were Ruth Jane (née Friel) and Bryan Stapleton.[1]
has been reverted, twice, by the same editor, without any talk page discussion being opened.
The most recent edit summary referred to WP:RSP, but there is nothing on that page prohibiting the use of thepeerage.com to cite an indisputable factual statement about what thepeerage.com says.
Indeed, the edit notice trigged by the citation says "Note: There are limited exceptions to this rule (such as when the source itself is the topic being discussed)."
Accordingly, I have restored the original text.
I trust that I will not be reverted again, without consensus for the change on this talk page.
References
- ^ "Thomas Stapleton". ThePeerage.com. Retrieved 2 April 2021.
-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- This source has been deprecated by community discussion. The source itself is not the topic of this article, and adding an in-text attribution to the factual claim made by this source does not result in circumstances warranting an exception to that community consensus. It no more warrants inclusion than would an equivalent "According to Wikipedia User:XYZ..." claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- The decprecation is with caveats, as noted. No consensus for your edit has been shown on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- The community consensus is that the source is deprecated; no consensus for an exception to that has been shown for this case. As already explained, the caveats do not apply here: attributing a factual claim inline is not sufficient to make the source the topic of discussion. Both WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS indicate that consensus would be required for inclusion rather than exclusion. Perhaps an RfC would be an appropriate next step, if no better source could be found? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just noting that I've requested a third opinion to get more input. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- The decprecation is with caveats, as noted. No consensus for your edit has been shown on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
3O Response: If a source has been explicitly deprecated by the community, it should not be used with or without attribution, especially if someone objects to it. The burden of developing consensus for an exception would lie on the editor who wishes to use the source in an exceptional case. If better reference material is not available to confirm the fact, then absent such consensus to make an exception, it should not be put into the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)