3 ms·

Change the Wikipedia page for Excalibur if you have better info.

• shakna 2y ago
  That was rejected a few years back for using written references that weren't digitised as they're hundreds of years old. Wiki couldn't validate them.
  • card_zero 2y ago
    Hmm? Nah, you can do that, references that only exist on paper and have to be sought in physical libraries are perfectly fine. What edit do you refer to that was rejected?
  • philipwhiuk 2y ago
    Yeah sadly you need an academic paper on the written reference and then a WP:RS on the paper to make a definitive statement on Wikipedia survive.
    • card_zero 2y ago
      "Definitive statement", what? If an old manuscript says something about excalibur (or Caliburc or whatever), you can say the old manuscript says it. This is not a problem. If instead you want to say "Excalibur definitely was of Irish origin because this old manuscript said so", you're using Wikipedia to promote your own original research, which will conflict with the next wingnut's original research about how Excalibur was in the Old Testament ... and doing that would obviously be a problem. There's no "sadly" about this. "Sadly, guidelines discourage the cranks from fighting over fringe theories in article space".