Talk:Elizabeth Burns (poet)

Removal of sourced and cited facts

Please do not remove sourced and cited information from article. Antonioatrylia (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Potential Information Loop

After consultation with Wikimedia Foundation, as a precaution I am removing an item that is a potential 'information loop' until it can be verified as factually accurate. Spillerjzy (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That is not how this works here. We go by what reliable sources are saying, not some nameless person at WMF. First it is the family told you, and now you talked with the WMF? And verified by whom? You are talking in a loop. We go by the reliable sources say here. Antonioatrylia (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Spillerjzy talked to me (of WMUK rather than the WMF). If I may, when reliable sources may be in error Wikipedia editors can use their discretion. Mistakes happen, so the question is how to deal with them. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources report that the article subject is a descendant of Robert Burns. If you are instructing a new editor at an editathon on how to properly edit an article, it seems quite irregular to teach him that if he thinks reliable sources may be in error it is okay to unilaterally remove sourced and cited information from an article. We go by what reliable sources are reporting. Maybe help him to find some reliable sources that say she is not a descendant and then we can remove the item from the article. As a courtesy to you and your editathon, I am asking you to explain to this new editor that he has violated WP:BRD by removing the sourced and cited information while a talk page discussion was underway. I would encourage you to have him or yourself replace the sourced and cited information back into the article until we may reach a consensus, or until you or he can show a reliable source that disproves the fact. Thank you. Antonioatrylia (talk)

It is quite straightforward for reliable sources to make honest mistakes, and for those mistakes to be repeated elsewhere. Tackling it is more complex. I think a safety first approach of leaving the information out of the article until it can be confirmed is a reasonable approach, especially since Burns' family are themselves unsure about whether the link is true or not. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it is a quite unreasonable approach. Do the editathons encourage new editors to contact families of article subjects to run the article by them for their approval? That seems quite out of the ordinary. This whole situation is totally against the guidelines of Wikipedia and the principles of verifiability. The information is CONFIRMED in reliable sources. I really would hate to report this new editor for edit warring and violating BRD for repeatedly removing sourced a cited facts from an article while a discussion is ongoing. He removed it and put it to his preferred version. That is not allowed. Anyone could say that they think some information is a mistake. To heck with what reliable sources report. If everyone did that, what state would the articles on wikipedia be in? I guess several different journalists have each separately made a mistake. Hmmm? If the sourced and cited information is not replaced, I will have to file an official report. Antonioatrylia (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand that "verifiability not truth" is a well-know trope, but when the family themselves are unsure of the link it seems like perhaps we should be cautious ourselves. In such circumstances I feel they're likely to know better. And yes, good faith mistakes can be propagated and can happen. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation is here. This does not sound like a mistake.

Elizabeth Burns was born on December 17, 1957, in Wisbech, Isle of Ely, in Cambridgeshire. Her mother Muriel (Hayward) was from Bristol, her father David Grieve Burns from Kirkcaldy. David was directly descended from the 18th century bard through Rabbie's uncle James, who helped pay the great poet's debts before he died. From http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/obituaries/13634357.Elizabeth_Burns

That is really a quite detailed mistake. Antonioatrylia (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Would a 'direct descendant' be a father–son relationship rather than via an uncle? That might be what's causing the issue? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Direct would mean it can be traced back to the original person. Father- son ot whatever. You could leave out the word direct if you like. That article was published at the death of the subject. It was intricately detailed. I am pretty sure the family had to have told the paper that information down to exactly how she was related and through whom. It is not derogatory information. It is a notable fact. I don't understand why the family was even contacted? Antonioatrylia (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Antonioatrylia Jo, just as a courtesy, notified the family to let them know that Elizabeth Burns now had a Wikipedia article. They came back to her to say that they were uncomfortable with the reference to Robbie Burns because it was not fully verified by the family and would rather it was taken out. The information we had was that it wasn't included in any published bios of Elizabeth Burns and was included in one article (a story so good as not to be ignored) that it was then requoted. So the suggestion is that this maybe an erroneous fact 'information looped' either from the BBC to the Herald or vice versa. So Jo said she would remove it until it could be properly verified. As Jo wrote the article, I see no compunction with her doing this when the 'fact' is in dispute for the moment. At the very least the article should perhaps reflect that the family have disputed the claim. On a secondary point, I put the 'editathon template' on this talk page precisely to avoid the kind of exchange Jo has experienced. You could have put your point a good deal more respectfully. NB: Threatening to report a new editor is not on. This is 'biting the newbs'. Jo has acted in good faith all along the line. Can I, respectfully, ask you to moderate your comments to put your points across in a more helpful manner? Stinglehammer (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There was no template on the talk page about the editathon until after the editor removed sourced and cited information from the article two times. I asked her to go to the talk page for a discussion. If there had been a template up about an editathon or class I would never have even touched the article.

Regardless of that, it is wrong and against the principles of Wikipedia to allow some third party or a family member to say they want some information removed. We are not exactly talking about some fly by night news organization, one of the articles was from the BBC who has excellent editorial supervision. It all seems a bit incredulous that someone would contact the family of an article subject after writing an article. So despite several, not just one or two articles, state the connection between Robert Burns and the subject, the fact gets removed from the article anyways. I stood up for what is the right thing. Like I said, Inever would have even touched the article if there had been a template up when I first looked at the article. The reason I had the article on my watchlist at all was because the first rendition on the article was a pure copy violation and got deleted. Not sure if that was done by this same editor or not. When the article was recreated with an edit summary that the first draft had been composed in haste that did not look like a new editor to me since I knew it had not been composed in haste, but was copy pasted from a source. Again at that time there was no template about an editathon or class posted. I was acting in good faith when I tried to stand up for the principles Wikipedia was founded on. I am taking this article off my watchlist. Antonioatrylia (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we remove the unpleasant nature of this exchange from the talk page of this article please. It has soured what should have been a well-meant tribute to a talented poet. Spillerjzy (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way Stinglehammer the newbie editor you mention has been a registered editor since 2014. Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

more sources

From the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/34475571 A huge banner displaying what is believed to be the UK's largest printed poem has been unveiled on Edinburgh's Royal Mile.

Spiral, by Elizabeth Burns, has been reproduced on a 25 by eight metre sign to mark National Poetry Day and will stay until next summer.

The poet, a descendant of the Robert Burns family, died in August aged 57. Antonioatrylia (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)