Talk:Posy (given name)

Posey (name) and blog as reliable source

The politicalstrangenames.blogpot.com source by Andy Osterdahl cites newspaper articles with dates, posted clippings, and other historical documents. One lists an obituary for a judge, Posey Kime, who got his first name from his mother’s maiden name. In my judgment, it is a reliable source and certainly is for these factual statements. As both Posey and Posie are listed as male names here, I don’t have a problem with deleting Posey (given name). Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Your edit summary said "The ban is not absolute. As noted here ‘ it may be used only with caution and for non-controversial material’ Discuss on the talk page." "Here" isn't linked, and the text doesn't seem to be present in WP:RS. Fram (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s listed in the automated warning that shows up when you try to post something from blogspot or one of the other similar sites. My comments stand. I looked up the guy and his obituary and the various census data, the death record for his teenage sister, etc., all list Effa Posey as his mother. But these are clippings posted on genealogical sites and original sources and I don’t know that he’s notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If so, someone else should write it. The information that he was given his mother’s maiden name as a first name and that there were other men named Posie is factual and uncontroversial. No ban on sources is absolute. I have exercised caution, judged this a reliable source and appropriately cited it as such. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Blogpost should not be used unless the author is a recognised expert or e.g. the blogpost is by the subject of the article and used to illustrate this. That's what "use with caution" means, not "but it looks good to me". Fram (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

For factual, innocuous information that is verifiable from multiple sources? Again, no ban is absolute. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I explained when the "ban" doesn't apply. In this case, it does. The question is not "is the information verifiable", the question is "is the source used for it reliable", and no, it isn't. And as it is of very limited value here anyway (a disambiguation article for first names doesn't need the info that someone not even included in the disambiguation may have gotten the same name by another route), there is no reason to include it. Fram (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Note that the first of the male Poseys didn't have a mother with the surname Posey, and that it is unlikely that all examples in that blog post had such a connection: what may just as well be the case is that Posey was a normal (though unusual) male given name at the time, and that for that reason the parents of Posey Kime saw an opportunity to give their son a normal name which at the same time honored his mother, instead of "inventing" a name. We shouldn't try to find evidence for etymological origins from common sense, blog posts, ... but just leave out such speculative information unless we have more authoritative sources like the Oxford books on names. Fram (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t necessarily agree but I don’t have time to scroll through microfiche at the library to find all of the old newspaper articles about this particular guy for the one factoid that it was a transferred use of the surname. The name is listed as female in the various naming dictionaries I have and not as male. The surname dictionary says it was a surname with different origins. It was far more common in the 19th century for boys to be given surname names as given names than it was for girls, also per the sources. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

As an addendum, all statements in the article are sourced with reliable sources. Statistics from the U.S. Social Security Administration are sourced. The artwork illustrating the article is entitled The Posy. Posy refers to flower, singular, as well as to a nosegay. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The statistics from SSA aren't sourced, you've just linked to the general site, and the information you're drawing from there is WP:SYNTH. THe image is exactly that, referring to the flowers, not the given name.Gugrak (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary Collegiate Edition, which I have cited, says exactly the same thing, that it is a single flower as well as a nosegay. Furthermore, one definition of the name is a flower and the painting depicts a woman with a flower and is called “The Posy.” You are also deleting other sourced information. Enough. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, the image is referring to the flowers, not the name, as is clearly shown by the use of the definite article in the title.. it's purely decorative and adds no value. Gugrak (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It illustrates the subject, which is encouraged, and is clearly related to the meaning of the subject. You do not have consensus to remove cited material. Unfortunately, this is turning into edit warring. I have added sources which should be more than sufficient for an article of this type. I object to removing the material.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not “SYNTH” since the material is in the cited source — The Social Security Administration website and the other site I cited that broke down the listing. I explained above why the portrait is appropriate. This is getting out of hand but I do not accept your arguments here. The material needs to be restored and you need to stop reverting the cited material. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

but you're not citing the material - the links you're providing do not explicitly include the information you say they do. As presented what you're doing is exactly WP:OR. There's no need for an image in this article - it's purely decorative and adds no value. Gugrak (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not “Synth.” Every single item that has been added is sourced and says exactly what it does in the citation. There is no reason whatsoever not to provide an illustration with a naming article. This one and the previous one both are related to the meaning. Stop reverting sourced information. It’s probably time to take this to dispute resolution. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Not it doesn't. You link to the General SSA website and a non RS aggregating site that may be pulling reliably from the SSA it or may not. There are two objections to you using the blog. There's no reason TOO include an image if it's purely decorative, which this is since it's not illustrative of the name. Gugrak (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This keeps going round in circles and has become an editing war. I am willing at this point to take this to dispute resolution because I think you’re flat out wrong about the image on this and other articles and on the other points. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I also invite you to take another look at the page Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bookworm857158367 I came here from the posting on the WP:3O noticeboard, and would like to share some thoughts:

• Two of the sites you added citations to (to politicalstrangenames and appellationmountain) aren't allowed to be cited - they are blogs, no matter how well-researched or professional-looking. The relevant guideline here is WP:USERG. You may use those blog entries to collect primary and secondary sources to add to this article, as long as those sources themselves pass the criteria of WP:RS (just don't run afoul of copyright violations); but you can't link to the blogs themselves.
• I don't think the image you've tried to add should be in this article. Moreover, I don't think this article needs any image at all (at least, not in its current state). The second sentence at MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE states that images are meant to aid understanding of a topic - I don't see how an image helps anyone understand what this name is. The article does a fine job of that already with text. That guideline also reminds that "not every article needs images." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Unrelated to disputes above... based on my quick scanning of sources and articles, I think it may be a good idea to combine Posey (surname) with Posy (given name) (along with Posey (given name) and Posie (given name)). I'm not seeing that there's a large disparity between the origins of the surname vs the given name, or between the various spelling variants. The 3 articles/redirects on the given name could probably be combined, and need to have a bit more good sourcing, but if they were such improved, I could see myself supporting a Merge proposal. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I don't object at this point to deleting the Posey (given name) article as all of the spellings were used for males as well as females. I've already added the relevant content to this article, which could certainly benefit from other people adding to it if inclined. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is wild to me - regardless if the website is "approved" or not, it is not the source being used. It is the repository. The source is the actual news clipping. That is clearly a valid secondary source. Putting the information back. --Trödel 19:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

PS - I agreee with PhotogenicScientist that this could be merged with the other variations of Posy/Posey/Posie --Trödel 20:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

---

References