Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:21:11 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)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.