Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:21:11 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Well, last I checked the information was still excluded from the article on that basis, so I'm reassured to find at least one spot where we're on the same side here. Makes it less likely that one of us has simply gone loony.
What, you mean Angela freely states that she was born on X date in X hospital, and we have the record, and they still won't let it in?
Not quite in that level of detail (I don't think she's identified what hospital she was born in and I haven't registered for an account with ancestry.co.uk to view the details it gives), but along those lines.
The removal was here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angela_Beesley&diff=112748679&... And the reasoning was given on the talk page: "The register of births and deaths is not an acceptable source for Ms Beesley's birthdate for the reason that it confirms only that _an_ Angela Beesley was born in the year given. Please find a source that gives _this_ Angela Beesley's birthdate."
The source where Angela gave her own birthdate was previously rejected because it was an edit she made to Wikipedia itself, and therefore either "self-published" or a "reference to Wikipedia". Detailed discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Angela_Beesley#For_Bramlet
I decided it was totally not worth getting involved in this argument since I don't really care all that much, but this is the sort of legalistic nitpickery that makes me really hate having a detailed RS guideline. If Angela were to have given her birthday in an interview that got published on some other webpage I doubt there would have been any complaint about using it even though it's no more reliable.