Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Matsu Temple

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Over a month without having dealt with issue

Grand Matsu Temple

(

)

The incense burner at the Grand Matsu Temple

... that Tainan's Grand Matsu Temple was built as the palace of a Ming prince fleeing the Qing conquest of China?
- ALT1:... that five concubines of the Prince of Ningjing hanged themselves in the rear hall of Tainan's Grand Matsu Temple?
- ALT2:... that Shi Lang convinced the Kangxi Emperor to convert a Ming palace into the Grand Matsu Temple to win support for the Qing conquest of Taiwan?
- ALT3:... that Tainan's Grand Matsu Temple honors the deified form of a medieval Chinese shamaness?
- ALT4:... that Tainan's Grand Matsu Temple was the first in China to honor Mazu as the Empress of Heaven?
- ALT5:... that Tainan's Grand Matsu Temple was almost privatized under Japanese rule but was spared at the last minute?
- ALT6:... that singles looking for love in the Taiwanese city of Tainan visit the altar of the Old Man under the Moon at the Grand Matsu Temple?

Reviewed: ~~Will do~~ Tank steering systems
Comment: @Reviewers: Don't worry. You only need to verify the hook(s) you are most interested in. If it's ALT3, I can bring over cites from the Mazu article if necessary to support the point.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 02:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC).

The article is new enough and long enough. It does not seem to have copyright violations. It uses inline citations. I assumed good faith for the offline sources. But the "Tainan City Guide" source does not seem very reliable. According to this page, "This blog is a one-man operation done during my spare time. I have no editors or fact-checkers." The content citing the "Tainan City Guide" source needs to be removed or edited to use citations to reliable sources. The image is freely licensed. The nominator says "Will do", so the QPQ requirement will be met when they do the review. The article needs some more work to be eligible. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

With respect, you have confused WP:RS with WP:BLACKLIST. You're absolutely right that you shouldn't use a hook sourced to something that isn't up to WP:RS standards; that's part of the DYK process. All the same, we don't just blank information because the source isn't perfect. If there's any actual material you find questionable, I'm more than happy to deal with it but it's better to have some source than no source and it's better to have some information than no information.
You're welcome to find a well-sourced hook or to hand the review off to another reviewer. — LlywelynII 08:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "confused WP:RS with WP:BLACKLIST". The blacklist is a list of spammers that prevents external links from being added. While it may sometimes be acceptable to have unreliably sourced material that is not related to living persons, I don't think that is acceptable in articles for DYK. WP:DYKRULES states "Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources". I did not say that the material must be blanked; I said that they need to be removed or edited so that it is based on reliable sources. Gulumeemee (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

That rule is to keep us from having nonsense articles on Trump's endorsement by the pope, not to require editors to blank perfectly valid information irrelevant to the hook to process the nomination, followed by adding it back once the process is complete. If the information being cited were germane to a hook or dubious, you'd have a point; but it's not and you really don't. That said, it's an honest mistake and you're more than welcome to stand by your guns and claim it as a QPQ. — LlywelynII 22:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: After thinking about it, this is my opinion. It is OK if you don't agree. Wikipedia:Verifiability requires content to be attributable to reliable sources. Even if something is true, if it cannot be attributed to a reliable source, it should not be in Wikipedia. The DYK rules force you to prove that the content really is verifiable. Blanking the content is not the only way to adhere to the rules. You can also remove the citations to unreliable sources and add citations to reliable sources. It may be true that English sources on this location are mostly informal, but per WP:NONENG, while English sources are preferred, reliable sources do not necessarily have to be in English. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I got it that it's your opinion that you look down on the source. WP:IAR trumps obnoxious rule thumping and pushes us back to thinking about why the rule exists. It's there to remove bullshit. Howevermuch you dislike the source, none of the items cited to it are actually dubious and noone (at all) is actually well-served by removing the information or cites to where it came from. If other editors come by and think that I'm wrong about that, I'll blank the material for the DYK process and add it back later. In any case, you really don't have to keep repeating yourself. It's a good-faith mistake and you're welcome to use this for QPQ purposes. — LlywelynII 20:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This conversation continues on my talk page. For the record, I used strongish language above but absolutely understand Gulumeemee's GOODFAITH objections. I happen to think it's not productive here (few English sources, non-dubious information, non-POVy reporting by someone who visited the temple and is presumably repeating on-site information) but am perfectly willing to remove it if editors feel GLMM's objections are well-taken in this case. The article is still long enough, removing all of the material from that source. — LlywelynII 04:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Assuming the admins don't really need me to blank three lines of text of perfectly valid info from a quasi-reliable source—which I can do to process the nomination but consider a disservice to our readers and not an improvement—this still needs a new reviewer. — LlywelynII 22:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This nomination has been lingering too long. I see the discussion above about the reliability of one of the sources but think the matter not a deal-breaker. I find ALT1 much the most interesting hook, and the hook facts are confirmed by other sources used in the article. The article meets the criteria of newness, length, neutrality and policy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

LlywelynII, I'm really surprised by how you berated the first reviewer. I, too, would remove a wordpress source as non-RS. I added a book citation for ALT1, but I don't see anything in the article about the hanging taking place in a rear hall of the temple; you wrote that they hung themselves in the palace bedroom. Yoninah (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, reread what was written and none of it is terribly surprising on either side, except for how you came to consider respecting the first reviewer's good faith objections "berating". Thanks for your own once-over and the additional citation. As the article clearly states the palace is the temple; its bedroom is its rear hall; but you're right that if that's our hook I should specifically note and source that aspect of it. On it. — LlywelynII 02:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

LlywelynII, it's been over three weeks, and you still haven't edited the article. Please take care of this very soon. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No action after another four days, during which time the nominator was active. It's now going on a month since the changes were noted as being necessary, and there's been no movement, so I'm declining this. As for the "berating", the "strongish language" was profoundly unhelpful. That was not an example of civil disagreement. It should not happen again. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)