Talk:Jack Pithey

message: What happened to him after 1963? Is he still alive? When not, when did he died ?84.134.121.12 (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In all probability he died, but there is no reliable source. Note that Wikipedia used to have for some time an unsourced date of 16 September 1987, which has then predictably found its way into all kinds of other places, from which it is periodically copied back here. This even includes an Oxford DNB list, which is NOT a reliable source, as this proves they are using Wikipedia even as sources for articles, certainly even more so for lists. A credible source for 1987 would have to date from before 2009, when it was added to Wikipedia. Mewulwe (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps start a discussion on RSN? I'm not quite sure that we can assume with 100% certainty that the info came from here. It baffles me however how there seems to be nothing else on the date online... – Connormah (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we can't assume that with 100% certainty. Why should we need to? You have it quite backward - we need to be almost 100% sure it did NOT come from here. Mewulwe (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Mewulwe, as you've been told before, making assumptions that sources borrowed information from Wikipedia without any proof is a violation of WP:OR. The fact that one Oxford DNB article uses Wikipedia cannot be used as evidence to assume that all, or any other, articles did that. By that logic, we can no longer use the New York Times as a reference, because sometimes they take material for Wikipedia. Furthermore, according to the entry used to cite Pithey's 1987 death, it was from the October 2005 version of the publication, which predates the 2009 addition of the DOD on Wikipedia. In any case, the best way to sort this out is, as Connormah suggested, at WP:RSN. Consensus is king. I'll start the discussion there and link it here. Canadian Paul 23:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are ignoring the very thing I said right above. I make no "assumptions"; I conclude certain probabilities. Such evaluation of the reliability of a source is not OR, but a crucial part of the editing process. The fact that one Oxford DNB article (and you can find more of those) uses Wikipedia and openly cites it as a general source like any other proves that there is no editorial rule against it there. I am not aware the NYT ever admitted to and defended using Wikipedia as a source without giving appropriate warning (e.g. describing a specific fact "according to Wikipedia"), but even the NYT should not be used in the same situation, i.e. to cite a fact that was previously in Wikipedia - in such a case one should always need an older source or one where Wikipedia derivation can be totally ruled out. Any other practice will inevitably lead to a certain amount of circular sourcing of plainly false, often made-up pieces of information, which I find unacceptable. Furthermore, there is no evidence the page was there in 2005; it says "online edn, Sept 2013" and it does include death dates (Smith, Muzorewa) after 2005 so it has definitely not been unchanged since 2005. These lists are essentially navigational tools for the online version (with links to those people having biographies); they are not in the print version; so the editorial standard no doubt is lower than for the biographical articles and it would be an absurd assumption on your part to think they would have avoided Wikipedia for those. Mewulwe (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

text: And here is the link. Canadian Paul 23:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

text: We can't reject a reliable source from a reliable publisher based on nothing but conjecture.  The fact that they cited Wikipedia as one of a number of sources for a particular entry is no reason to dispute the accuracy of another unrelated entry.  Gamaliel (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in a case like this (information was in Wikipedia before and no pre-Wikipedia source can be found). I am not saying the source should never be used. Mewulwe (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Based on the reasoning above I've restored the 1987 year of death. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Well done Mewulwe! Even more surprising the said person wouldn't notice the mistake as that link says he died "at the age of 66", obviously inconsistent with the 1904 birth date. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  After 1963 

message: This Facebook page, for Zimbabwean/Rhodesian expats, says - citing (or claiming to cite) Pithey's granddaughter (or someone claiming to be her) - that he died in 1984. "Jack William Pithey GOLM ICD CBE ( born 1903-12-30, died 1984-11-20)"
(archive.org choked, but I stuck it on archive.is.)
How useful this is, I dunno, but it's a start. DS (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Photo of Pithey at Gov't House in 1979, so we know he died after 1979. DS (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

text: There is a Zimbabwean government gazette explicitly indicating death date 1984-11-20 Cheney123 (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So there is; good work! DS (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Another source of debatable quality