Talk:Lucca (dog)

Source for death

Since when has Facebook been a reliable source? Has this been reported anywhere else?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

In the news Discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I spent much time looking for any news source on her death. And I only posted it when I found the Facebook page, which well antedates the death and reports the death in convincing detail. I quoted it. Given the pictures, the videos, and the text, this is certainly Lucca's facebook page. It has sufficient earmarks of reliability that it could be used. I only became aware of the death become another wikipedia editor put it into our article, and then I added sources and went on a quest. Finding a newspaper or mainstream media on the death of this remarkable dog may be a vain search. But if you choose not to run it, it is your and Wikipedia's loss. A little bizarre that there's no coverage at all of the dog's death. In its totality, this is convincingly Lucca's facebook page, being maintained by her care giverns/owners. Read it before you say it is unreliable based on "policy." I think the FB post passes muster under WP:SELFPUB, and is convincingly reliable on the date of death.

So I put back the date of death and the source. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source, anyone could have posted that. And the article is contradictory, as the body text has not been updated, yet the death date is in the infobox. If you're accepting Facebook for the death date, then at least bother to update the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

No, did you actually read the article? "LuccaK458". January 21, 2018. Retrieved January 22, 2018 – via FaceBook. It's with a heavy heart that I tell you that Lucca passed away yesterday. Juan was able fly in to spend some quality time with her in her last few days and we were both at her side as she took her last breath. And the whole of that Facebook page? I understand policy and general rules. Your claim is misdirected and has no application to this posting on that particular facebook page. See WP:SELFPUB The Wikipedia article is fully referenced and was updated as you requested. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

For the last time: Facebook is not a reliable source. This dog has no capacity to use Facebook, so WP:SELFSOURCE does not apply, what applies is WP:UGC and that states this type of source cannot be used. As you have no consensus for your re-addition of this content (3 of us now have told you not to do this), I will be reverting your addition. Either find a source, or leave the article at the status quo. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You have been quick to template But have not bothered to address the specifics of the face book page. Your claim that only the dog can speak through its facebook page is a Straw man fallacy. Nonsense arguments ill behoove you. 15:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Selfpub requires that a self published source be self published. This would require specifically that the dog publish the source but a dog can't type. @Coffee: in this case we should consider WP:IAR. The owner of the Dog is apparently behind the facebook account. WP:SELFSOURCE should be considered beside WP:IAR. With specific emphasis on there being reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. This seems a reasonable application of policy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

If the dog has died a news story is sure to pop up somewhere soon. Wikipedia is not the news but if anyone feels impassioned enough to need to get this into the article quickly, I suggest writing a news story over at WikiTribune so we can use that as an actually verifiable source. Until then, the article can remain in the status quo state. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not impassioned at all. I honestly couldn't give a flying flip because its just a dog. I was interested how ever in discussing policy. This is an interesting situation and worth an objective discussion. Certainly the Dog didn't write the facebook comment so Selfpub wouldn't naturally apply. Facebook isn't a reliable source naturally but in the case of SelfPub it can be when it meets the set criteria. However in the case of a dog or some other famous beastie it maybe reasonable to apply Selfpub in a case like this. It is just a dog and it may not get that eventual report. I could go thru the pedantic process of publishing the story thru Wikitribune to simply assuage your concerns but that would be to asinine for me to personally consider. Applying Selfpub thru IAR in more reasonable. If this is the official facebook page set up by the Dogs owner for the dog it's announcement of the dogs death is reliable. The only reason for exclusion is an inflexible application of policy. But there are no hard and fast rules. Anyway, if you do not wish to discuss this fine. It just seems like an interesting discussion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I was discussing policy. You are being obtuse. Sometimes general rules should be applied with common sense. You can bludgeon your way through this. And you can eliminate reference toto LuccaK458 and the death notice (which in its totality is reliable on this issue), but eliminating the text and the irrefutable fact of death won't resurrect the dog. And the triumph of rules over sanity only makes this article (and the encyclopaedia) less accurate. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not a verified facebook page even... so how exactly do you know this is in any way reliable? We'd possibly accept it with a blue check mark next to the page's name... but there's no sign that it's even an official page. I'm not following your logic here at all. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not under stand the phrase "verified facebook page".

Nevertheless, the contents of the page and its many and varied postings go on for years and are detailed, copious and convincing. Putting aside entirely the number of persons who are active regarding that page, the contents make sense. To analogize, even though evidence may have some problem (e.g., hearsay, there are many exceptions that look at the intrinsic and overall reliability of the statement, and allow it in legal proceedings.

Who better to know that Lucca died than its caregivers?

I would also say that being the recipient of the Dickin Medal – not to mention her accomplishments – takes Lucca well outside your putative response of "just a dog."

I know you are relying on general statements of policy, and I am not arguing about that.

I also know that if you looked at the facebook page in total and you are not convinced, than you are beyond persuasion.

So telling you about it again will only bore or further irritate you (you've said as much), and will just waste my time.

Perhaps other editors will see this differently, so that we can get a consensus that will restore the text and reference.

Perhaps the media will pick this up so that I can put in a WP:RS.

Meanwhile, WP:Dead horse 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I said Lucca was just a dog. Coffee did not. She is just a fucking dog. These are my views on the subject. You are not required to agree with this. The rest of my comments were promoting the possible use of this source under selfpub standards. Selfpub requires that there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. A verified facebook page is a facebook page is a page that has been verified by facebook for authenticity to show that is an official page. It's the simplest way to verify the authenticity of the page. We need to verify the authenticity of the page so that we can reasonably justify that this is a reliable source.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)