Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 119

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115 ← Archive 117 Archive 118 Archive 119 Archive 120 Archive 121 → Archive 125

3D University

I have a close personal/professional connection with the 3D@Home Consortium, which publishes the 3D University site to educate consumers on 3D televisions. They are a non-profit trade organization (topic experts) focused on educating consumers on 3D televisions, but are funded by the manufacturers and thus - I believe - potentially bias. We discussed adding information to Wikipedia (including academic reports and information from other sources) to fulfill the company's mission to its member organizations to educate consumers on 3D televisions.

My question is:

  • Would the 3D University site be a reliable source for non-controversial information, like descriptions of different types of 3D formats or historical information?
  • Would it be a reliable source for information "likely to be contested" where it may be used to present one of many minority or majority viewpoints on an issue?

Thoughts? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Slang terms

No discussion of sources occurring. Please see the top of this page for how to discuss specific sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A editor at Talk:Saint_Patrick's_Day#Patty.27s_.28Sic.29_and_sick appears to be insisting on inserting WP:SLANG terms into an article [1]. No serious academic reference calls it either of these names and it seems inappropriate to do so on the article per WP:RS and WP:SOURCE. The editor also argues that wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the masses and insists that whether a source is "serious" or not doesn't necessarily come into it. Comments? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not "an editor", it's an ongoing discussion among a number of editors. Slang or not, "Paddy's Day" and "Patty's Day" are both in wide use, in reliable sources, as nicknames for St. Patrick's Day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Serious sources don't use the term, we shouldn't be using WP:SLANG terms in the article to refer to the day. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Those discussing this issue might want to look at WP:Encyclopedic style, from which this is an abridged quotation: "Wikipedia articles ... should be written in a formal tone ... while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner." Of course, reliably sourced slang terms for the topic of an article may well deserve mention, and they may occur in verbatim quotations, but our style requires not using them in our own text. Andrew Dalby 13:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Currently it is being used in the wiki tone: see the "also called" part of the infobox Saint_Patrick's_Day. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
One of the suggestions made at the Talk page was to remove the "slang" terms from the infobox, and to create a new section "Names" where alternative names and usage can be mentioned. This can be achieved using a "formal" tone. Is this closer to what you have in mind and would it be in keeping with an encyclopedic style? --HighKing (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
If the name has due weight for being discussed and no original synthesis is required in the article then that is fine. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Much as I dislike the term it is a common name in America. Tone is about how the encyclopaedia is written, not about removing cited content. In headbutt a Glasgow kiss is slang term for it and both we and the OED are happy to list it. If the OED isn't scholarly then what is? It is perfectly all right for it to list slang terms and it is perfectly all right for Wikipedia to do so too. Dmcq (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The differences here is that we have the equivalent of "A headbutt (Glasgow Kiss) is... IRWolfie- (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
You just took out something expressly labelled 'nickname'. Dmcq (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
What the template is named when editing is irrelevant, in the article is appears as "Also called", not "Nicknames". IRWolfie- (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This "slang" is reliably sourced and is occupying a field in the article infobox specifically designed to record nicknames. The purpose of Wikipedia is to record what names are in common usage, not to talk down to its readership and tell them only what names should be in use. The real problem here is not that it is "slang", but that a fair number of people don't like this usage. That is not a reason for it to be removed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it not more a colloquialism than a slang term either way? WP:SLANG as far as I can make out refers to the style of writing as opposed to what should not be mentioned in an article, do not use slang forms in an encyclopeadic manor, but this does not forbid the including of such in mention. Gazza and more extreme The Edge, both nicknames or slang form, yet both considered encyclopeadic for thier merits, The Edge a common name and Gazza a common name but not prevalent. And why then to the RS board? Murry1975 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
They are so named due to WP:COMMONNAME. St Paddy's day and St Patty's day are not the common names; they are slang variations. Slang being defined by google as A type of language that consists of words and phrases that are regarded as very informal. I notice for example the Christmas article does not use slang variations in its list such as "crimbo". IRWolfie- (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
So what names have you got that are slang besides Xmas or Yule or Noel or Nativity? Would you please check what you are referencing; WP:COMMONNAME is a part of the policy for deciding the title of articles. It is not for names used in articles. Dmcq (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes that's exactly the point I was highlighting with WP:COMMONNAME, the two articles he mentioned have the nicknames as the titles. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Crimbo is slang for christmas. Xmas, Yule, Nativity of Jesus and Noel (according to disambig from the 14th century) aren't slang. (If you want to see sources that use crimbo I have as many as you wish). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyway my main point is that we shouldn't list slang names as alternative names. If reliable sources discuss slang usage then it is acceptable to discuss this in the actual article content but it should not feature in an infobox as an "also called" name. Serious sources do not use these slang names to describe the day in either case. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
From the lead of your own example. "Xmas" is a common abbreviation of the word "Christmas"". St Patty is a common abbreviation of "Saint Patrick". Your reference to WP:SLANG is plain wrong (no matter what you arbitrarily choose to call slang). That essay (not policy, not even guideline) is in regarding the tone of the writing, it does not (and cannot) dictate that Wikipedia should not recognise informal usage when documenting article subjects. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
St Patty is a slang term, Xmas is not. Xmas as a term is notable and has an article named after it and is discussed by serious sources. An abbrevation is not necessarily a slang term. Serious sources use Xmas, yuletide etc, serious sources do not use St Patty's day. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Having checked Crimbo I think Christmas should probably have it in the other names section. Possibly Chrimbo too, not sure about Crimble which was used by the Beatles. Dmcq (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe part of the problem is that there isn't really any sources that discusses usage of "St. Patty", whereas there's a number of books written about "St. Patrick's Day" that mention "St. Paddy's" as an alternative. We've been trying to address this on the Talk page, but we've had difficulty finding sources discussing the term itself from a historic or etymological point of view. We can find headlines (typically US newspaper headlines) from newspapers and websites. I can see both points of view. It *is* widely in use and by and large people know that it refers to St. Patrick's Day. But I'm puzzled as the absense of good sources. --HighKing (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
This does not seem to be a question for this board. If there is some proposed text, and a source proposed as supporting that text, please let's see it, and we can discuss the reliability or otherwise of that source for that text. If not, please take this discussion elsewhere. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe I phrased it as a question - lack of a question mark is a clue. It's an observation, in the context of the discussion above, specifically in relation to usage of the term and lack of sources. It's relevant since the example of "Xmas" has scholarly/academic sources and the example of "St. Paddy's" has scholarly/academic sources. "St. Patty's" does not appear to have scholarly/academic sources. --HighKing (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
We do not require 'scholarly' sources for Wikipedia. The best sources are scholarly, there is however no implication that something has to be puiblished by Cambridge University Press or Springer to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are tons of sources saying St Patty's Day is when Americans say they are Irish, have a parade,, and drink green beer. Dmcq (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I abhor the name St Pattys, but it's obvious from many sources that it's what many of those strange Americans call the day. That fact must be in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Which is where the discussion at the article Talk page had reached before ending up here, where quite frankly, it doesn't belong. Which I think is the general consensus here. That, and the fact it should be mentioned in the article. --HighKing (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

lalate.com

Lalate.com is being used as a reference in articles about Dog the Bounty HunterDuane Chapman & Duane Lee Chapman, II. A quick review of the site(http://news.lalate.com/2012/03/21/duane-lee-chapman-leland-chapman-leave-dog-the-bounty-hunter-exclusive-details/) shows bad editing and misattributed quotes. I notice that this website was brought up some time ago but no real concensus was arrived at. It appears that this website is an amateur blog but I would like other opinions. I personally would say it is not a RS.Daffydavid (talk) 04:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Abdullah Jalghoom research on Quran

This article relies entirely self published books and lesser sources as references. I was hoping for input on whether there are sufficient sources here to construct a decent article. Polyquest (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking it over, I think I'll nominate it for deletion. It basically looks like Koranic numerology. Sources consist of three separate references to the same book and a translation. Searches for "Abdullah Jalghoom" turns up wikipedia first, followed by facebook and other user-generated pages. Google books turns up 3 results, none really useful (unless someone can read what looks like some form of Bahasa). Based on the content and the results in google and google books, this does not look reliable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Fr. Tomislav Vlasic

I submit the article I made, Fr. Tomislav Vlasic, for review of verifiability. Oct13 (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Oct13 (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This page is for answering questions on reliability of specific, usually individual sources. It sounds like you might want a copyedit or proofread of the page (the page does seem to need a fair bit of attention). I might get around to it, but it would be helpful if you clarified what exactly you were asking for. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Book reviews and reliable sources

Hi, guys! Just as a reminder, it is good to use book reviews to determine accuracies or possible controversies related to a book and keep notes on them in the talk pages.

I started an article on one book. When the book reviews alleged errors of fact, I took notes of those allegations at Talk:Deng_Xiaoping_and_the_Making_of_Modern_China#Alleged_inaccuracies - It will help people later in determining which pieces of info stated in the book are okay to include. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Balochistan conflict

In this edit[2] user:Shrigley seems to be of the opinion this[3] letter to the editor may be used to support statements of fact. I disagreed and reverted his edit[4], he then reverted me[5]. I am also of the opinion that the second source used in this edit may not be used for statements of fact. Pakistan: A Hard Country Public Affairs; 1st (2011)ISBN 978-1610390217 by Anatol Lieven as this source is not from an academic publisher and thus should be attributed to Lieven as his opinion. I base this on the fact the book is entirely written from the perspective he gained during his travel in the region. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I never expressed such an opinion about what, incidentally, is not a letter to the editor but an opinion piece by a journalist of a mainstream newspaper. If you had not erased paragraphs of otherwise well-sourced information along with your revert, then I would have had time to make the proper attribution, which I just did. I'm interested in hearing what basis your assertion about academic publishers has in policy. The author is a professor of international relations at King's College, and a former South Asian correspondent for the Times. The book is not only based on his extensive travels and anthropological approach, but also on his amply cross-referenced research. The content issue here—of targeted killings of ethnic minorities by Baloch nationalist groups—is amply documented by journalists and by human rights groups; I added some new sources, including a whole report by Human Rights Watch, to help establish this. Shrigley (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Christians for Democracy

[6] is being used in our article Homs by two editors (maybe). See [7] and the earlier edits [8] and [9] (we may also have COI issues here). I'm not sure how or if we can use this, and it would be nice to avoid an edit war. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look to be reliable, the source isn't used anywhere else on wikipedia [10], the only news sources that discuss the organization seem to be in Dutch (?) [11], it doesn't cite any sources on its own, and an editor placing the source is including contact phone numbers and e-mails in their edit summary in an effort to, I guess, make it more convincing? [12]. I would agree that this source is not reliable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about the events at Talk:Homs#Expulsion of Christians from Homs. The whole things seems a little off as I haven't seen it mentioned in any mainstream sources. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
There are numerous independent sources, pre-established sources, that confirm these events are happening. As for "syrian-christian.org", remember, anyone and their dog can easily set up a website and fill it with all manner of material. It is not a credible source until a reasonable amount third-party evidence exists to indicates it is a credible source. Meowy 20:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Rupert Gerritsen, Batavia Online Publishing, Archaeopress, Hydrographic Journal, Fremantle Arts Centre Press

Hi all, I recently noticed that Robert.johnson27453 (talk · contribs) has added material to several articles citing Rupert Gerritsen as a source. Several of these cites e.g. [13][14][15] reference "Rupert Gerritsen (2011) Beyond the Frontier: Explorations in Ethnohistory, Batavia Online Publishing".

I was concerned that BOP might not meet sourcing requirements; I tried Googling but for an online publishing company, its web footprint is vanishingly small - it doesn't even seem to have its own website. The only references I can find to BOP are in connection with Gerritsen, and one PDF published by BOP appears to give Gerritsen's personal website as BOP's:

Batavia Online Publishing

Canberra, Australia

http://rupertgerritsen.tripod.com

Published by Batavia Online Publishing 2011

Copyright © Rupert Gerritsen

This leads me to think that BOP is Gerritsen's private press. His website also lists another publication (not via BOP) in quite a different field: "A Conjectural Preon Theory and its Implications has just been published... This publication proposes a new paradigm in particle physics." Copy available via his website. Among other things, it offers to overturn the Standard Model with a theory stating that "There is only one fundamental particle, and its antiparticle, the neutrino". While I'm not a physicist, I get a bit dubious about claims of this sort...

Another source cited by Robert is "Rupert Gerritsen, Australia and the Origins of Agriculture (2008)". According to the 'publications' section of Gerritsen's website, this was published by "Oxford: Archaeopress", confirmed on their website. It's not clear from their website whether their publication process involves editorial oversight that would satisfy WP:RS. I'm not a historian either - hoping somebody here could provide an informed opinion on whether this is a source that should be cited.

Robert also cites two articles by Gerritsen in the Hydrographic Journal at Wouter Loos and Hutt River (Western Australia): "Rupert Gerritsen 2007 ‘The debate over where Australia’s first European residents were marooned in 1629 – Part 1’, Hydrographic Journal 126:20-25" and "Rupert Gerritsen 2009 ‘The debate over where Australia’s first European residents were marooned in 1629 – Part 2’, Hydrographic Journal 128-129(2009):35-41". The Hydrographic Journal does seem a bit weightier than the other publishers mentioned above, but I'm not sure whether it would qualify as a RS on a historical topic.

In addition, Ring of Stones has a couple of sections about Gerritsen's work, cited to his book And Their Ghosts May Be Heard, published by Fremantle Arts Centre Press. Again, I don't know whether FACP has editorial oversight that would satisfy WP:RS. This material was added by Bill Woerlee (talk · contribs), who is also mentioned with thanks on Gerritsen's website.

All in all, I have doubts about how much of this material should be cited on WP, but I'd like feedback from editors with more expertise in these fields. --GenericBob (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Archaeopress is a serious academic publisher; I have several examples of first-rate research published by them. Otherwise this question is difficult. I'm 99% you are correct that "Batavia Online Publishing" is Gerritsen's own label as some major Australian catalogues don't list any outputs without Gerritsen's name. I don't think it meets WP:RS. Zerotalk 12:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
As to Archaeopress, I agree that a lot of good academic material is published by them, but that doesn't prove that everything they publish is reliable. Their website suggests that they offer a publishing service; it doesn't suggest that they do any peer review. I'm not saying they don't: I'm saying that we don't know, and can't assume their whole list to be reliable in our sense.
As to Batavia Online Publishing, that looks like self-publishing to me. I suggest we need to know that Gerritsen has published in peer-reviewed journals (e.g. Hydrographic Journal) in the specific subject areas on which we want to cite him. Andrew Dalby 17:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew about Archeopress. They publish good material that makes its way into a hundred or so academic libraries, and less valuable material found in none. They publish a great many Ph.D. theses and site reports. But I think the 3 citations given are acceptable. One is straightforward, the other two frankly present it as an alternative theory, not the standard view on the subject. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The Archaeopress BAR monographs are very well regarded - they couldn't get away with charging those prices if they were not! Meowy 20:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
True :) I know some very good books in that series. I'm just not sure we can assume that they are all good. Andrew Dalby 09:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Jesus as King of the Jews" Unification Church article

Hello, I tried editing the Unification Church article on something that i deem offensive. It was written there that Jews admitted Jesus as king of the jews. My edit was undone, and the person who did it cited a "reliable" source: http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1932.cfm The article is called "REV. MOON - A "JOHN THE BAPTIST" FOR ANTICHRIST?" and cuttingedge.com says that aliens are the antichrist, mormons are satanic, that catholics and the illuminati have a plan for world domination in 12/12/2012 among other things. You can also see the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unification_Church . Thank you for your time!--Albertlberman (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No Jew in his right mind would call Jesus "King of the Jews". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Easy mistake above, it's cuttingedge.org, a woowoo site and definitely not an RS. Also used at the moment is [16], clearly not a reliable source, and a comment on a blog at [17], also clearly not a reliable source. I'm deleting the claim from the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

kriyayogashyamacharan.org - reliable source

Akash 2011 (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this a question, or an assertion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
...and assuming it is the former, I see no reason to see it as a reliable source for anything other than its own opinions. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
In any case, what is it being cited as a reliable source for - there is no such thing as an abstract 'reliable source'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


Kriya yoga is the ultimate science of spirituality. Now a days, there are several websites on this subject itself. Many of them cater wrong info though. Just for name and fame, they have created their websites with more focus on alluring people to their websites, rather than educating people on the subtle subject of Kriya yoga. Among all these, very few are still there who are reliable and upholding the true, unmodified knowledge of Kriya yoga.

Over a certain period of time, I have noticed Kriyayogashymacharan.org is one such website which has maintained that sanity. It’s the official website of Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission. Founder-director of this mission is Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee, World Kriyayoga Master.

He is disciple of Yogivar Sri Satya Charan Lahiri Mahasaya, grandson of Yogiraj Shyamacharan Lahiri Mahasaya. Lahiri Mahasaya is the greatest Yogi who revived Kriyayoga. Satya Charan Lahiri Mahasaya only, asked Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee to write one authentic biography on the life Yogiraj Lahiri Mahasaya, based on the 26 personal diaries scripted by Lahiri Mahasaya himself. This book is ‘Purana Purusha’. On a later date, another book ‘Who Is This Shama Churn’ was written, based on the same 26 diaries, again by Dr. Chatterjee. Till date, ‘Purana Purusha’ is indeed the most authentic book on ‘Kriya yoga’.

Thousands of soul seekers across the globe are getting benefitted through this website, every year. Thousands are getting initiated into Kriya yoga every year.


http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ is the official website of Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission. I would request Wikipedia to sincerely look into the matter. Considering this as a reliable source would certainly help Wikipedia readers hugely. As this website hosts loads of important data and provides careful guidance to all the soul-seekers across the globe. I would request Wikipedia to have a look into this site and its topics.

  • As far as we know, the mission doesn’t believe in publicity and promotion. They don’t even have a wikipedia page like other such spiritual organizations, although catering spirituality to the mass since 1991. Neither have there been any concrete initiative to create wiki pages for Dr. Ashoke Kr. Chatterjee or 'Purana Purusha'.

But, of late, it was felt, that among huge dilution of proper knowledge in Kriya yoga; it’s high time that the exact info should be propagated to everyone. And hence, some info (which were already there) were amended in the ‘kriya yoga’ page. And http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org has been given as a reference.

Akash 2011 (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. So, if an website says - "Sun rises in the east" .. is that an opinion or a reliable source ?? !

Akash 2011 (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So, ignoring all the promotional waffle, are you going to tell us what we are supposed to be citing the website for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Absoultely. When we are talking about Kriya yoga, the assertions of the great yogi who imparted this knowledge of Sadhana - Lahiri Mahasaya has to be supreme.

Now, isn't it bewildering if we say the Yogi who imparted Kriya Yoga is giving opinions only ??!! Lahiri Mahasaya is the fountain-head of Kriya yoga. and http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ is that very site, who's info are based on the 26 confidential diaries written by Lahiri Mahasaya !!

Akash 2011 (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just putting the site as a reference in the Kriya Yoga page. Nothing more than that !!

Akash 2011 (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any other source than this website that states that "Lahiri Mahasaya is the fountain-head of Kriya yoga"? To be honest, I can't make head nor tail of the Kriya Yoga article anyway - it seems to tell us a great deal about a lot of things, but nothing whatsoever about what it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Right you are. The article is not that equipped. Well, Lahiri Mahasaya is that person who imparted Kriya Yoga.

A simple google search "Shyamacharan Lahiri Mahasaya Kriya Yoga" would reveal this fact

Akash 2011 (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the site http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ has already been referred in the article. I was just trying to modify the article. And, hence, was putting the website as reference in some places.

Regarding Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission, Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee and Kriya yoga :

Information put over there are best to their knowledge, while sticking to truthfulness - this I believe firmly.

Furthermore, other reliable resources, which I had earlier provided to substantiate the facts about http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ :

are quite famous platforms for spirituality from all the avenues.

  • Yogacharya Dr. Chatterjee's article in The Times Of India [India's most famous english daily news paper]:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-23/science-of-spirituality/29447692_1_infinite-creation-science-religions

  • Another, one of the most famous daily news paper "The Hindu" reports an event on Degradation of Human Values :

http://www.hindu.com/2008/01/22/stories/2008012250630200.htm

Akash 2011 (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, one final time. What are you asking us to say? What is it that you are attempting to cite the website for? We aren't going to be able to say whether it is 'reliable' or not, unless you can explain what it is you are trying to include in the article. This is all explained at the top of this page. We don't make abstract declarations that a source is 'reliable' without an explanation of what it is they are being cited for. So far, you have told us nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The site was already used as a reference. I was recently further modifying the article 'kriya Yoga' and hence used this site as reference.

admin Ronz deleted the portion and asked me to have a discussion on this page on whether the site is reliable resource or not !

Akash 2011 (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The portions which were added, and later asked to verify on this page :

Inside Practice section : ---------------

According to Purana Purusha by Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee -

"The sastras have similarly noted thus Niscalam Brahma ucyate—the static or still state is Brahma."

The Yogasadhana to reach that static state of Prana is Kriyayoga. The aim of kriyayoga is union with the Absolute, the Ultimate. It is science of the soul, or Atma-vidya.[9]

Dr. Chatterjee opines on this Sadhana as -

"The one and same Prana exists in humans, all living creatures, trees, earth, rocks, fire, water, air, sky, planets all are bound by the same discipline, it is the Prana-pervaded universe. Everything evolves from Prana, again after death reverts to Prana"

Inside Lineages Section : ----------------

Sri Satyacharan Lahiri the grandson of Lahiri Mahasaya authorized[22] his disciple Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee[23] to initiate in Kriya yoga. He also authorized him to write a biography "Purana Purusha" on the life of Yogiraj Sri Shyamacharan Lahiri from his 26 confidential diaries.[24]. On a later date, another book Who Is This Shama Churn was scripted by him based on these 26 diaries, revealing the divine identity of Lahiri Mahasaya.[25] In both the books, Dr. Chatterjee describes vividly on the science of Kriya yoga.[26] Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee has founded Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission on Sept 30th 1991[27]; headquartered in Kakdwip, West Bengal, India; to spread worldwide awareness about Lahiri Mahasaya and his sacred teaching - Kriyayoga. The Mission also its temples in Degaon, Pune, Maharashtra, India and Bankura, West Bengal, India.[28]

References used :

http://www.crossandlotus.com/Masters/lairi_mahasaya.html http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/pithysayings1.php

http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/akc-spiritual-lineage.php http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/Kriya_Yoga/The_science_of_soul22010.asp http://www.kriyayogashyamacharan.org/yogacharya.php http://www.wpsconnect.org/speakers http://www.kriyayogashyamacharan.org/yss-mission.php http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/yssm-centers.php


Akash 2011 (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


This is what admin Ronz had to say in the talk page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kriya_Yoga

Akash 2011 (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that maybe someone who can figure out what this is all about should take over here - I've no idea what this is about, or why we should have an article about it anyway, if it can't be explained in something approximating to the English language. While I appreciate that the Indian subcontinent has a deep and complex history of spiritual philosophy, and of contemplating the unknowable, we can't actually write useful articles about things nobody is prepared to describe except in words that we don't understand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for your opinion Andy.

As against the quoted portions above, my simple agenda was to know - on what basis was the site kriyayogashyamacharan.org called not reliable on that particular context.

If an admin has already mentioned that, then there has to be certain reasons behind calling it non-reliable. For which, I was asked to discuss the matter here !

Akash 2011 (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, Kriya Yoga is not a subject which is confined in Indian subcontinent only. It's followed and practiced religiously by millions of people all across the globe. Yes, the origin is from India only. But, it's for all - regardless of the cast, creed, religions, colors etc.

In fact, awareness about Kriya Yoga is more in Europe or USA now a days!

Akash 2011 (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"Among all these, very few are still there who are reliable and upholding the true, unmodified knowledge of Kriya yoga." - Am I right in understanding from this that you're saying only a small number of yoga practitioners adhere to the teachings of Yogacharya Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee? --GenericBob (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
This article could use help from someone able to translate its in-universe prose into straightforward encyclopedic writing. I placed a link at WikiProject Yoga. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, No. What I'm trying to say is :

Lahiri Mahasaya is the fountain-head of Kriya Yoga. Hence he is the authority. His teachings and ideals are only to be followed, when it comes to Kriya Yoga. Over the years, Kriya Yoga, which was imparted by Lahiri Mahasaya was diluted for some known/unknown reasons. There are still few of the enlightened Yoga masters who adhere to the unmodified/exact Kriya Yoga of Lahiri Mahasaya. Yogacharya Dr. Chatterjee is one of them. That's what I tried to mean.

By the word Yoga, I mean to say, the mergence of individual consciousness into cosmic consciousness. This only is Kriya Yoga as mentioned in the 1st sloka of Yoga Sutra of Maharshi [[Patanjali]. This only happens through Kriya Yoga Pranayama. Pranayama as expatiated in Gita Chapter 4, Sloka 29.

Akash 2011 (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And I absolutely agree with you when you say that the subject should be properly understandable in english/readable and understandable version. Yoga, Pranayama, Prana are typical Sanskrit terms and quite prevalent too, I guess.

I believe, the website kriyayogashyamacharan.org is organized by professional and responsible people, who took care of this fact while writin the contents. I would request you to have a glimpse of that.

Akash 2011 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

All of the above reads like one huge advert! It is obviously not a request for advice and maybe the whole thing should be deleted. Meowy 20:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
If the question is whether or not kriyayogashyamacharan.org (which identifies itself as the website of the 'Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission', and declares that "This is the one and only way", etc.) is a source of impartial, objective information about what Kriya Yoga is, I would have to say no. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. It seems reasonable to treat it as a reliable source on the beliefs of Chatterjee's specific branch of Kriya yoga. But since the OP seems to be saying that only a few yogi (? - apologies if I have the terminology wrong) adhere to this specific branch, then we need to consider WP:WEIGHT: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." So even if it's a RS for describing Chatterjee's branch, it may not be appropriate to cite it for that purpose - certainly not to make heavy use of it.
It seems pretty clear from what the OP's said that it does not reflect a consensus agreement on what Kriya yoga is - it looks as if many other yogis disagree with it. Maybe Chatterjee is right and all the rest are wrong, but that's not a judgement for Wikipedia to make. Without that consensus, it'd be inappropriate to treat it as a RS for the views of Kriya generally.
To the OP: Wikipedia is not a place to settle disagreements about spiritual truth. All we can do here is describe the disagreements that exist (and the rare occasions where people have already settled them!) and it sounds like what you're looking for goes well beyond that. --GenericBob (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear all,

Just few things to clarify :

  • There's nothing called Dr. Chatterjee's branch of Kriya Yoga. Kriya Yoga doesn't have any branch. The only source is Lahiri Mahasaya.
  • Dr. Chatterjee doesn't opine anything of his own too. He only re-iterates things which are earlier expressed by Yogiraj Sri Shyamacharan Lahiri Mahasaya. Hence, there's no minority-majority. Simply, all the Kriya Yogis follow Lahiri Mahasaya's teachings only. Absolutely no division there.
  • When I say - "Very few follow exact/unmodified Kriya Yoga of Lahiri Mahasaya in today's world" - I mean to say :
    • 1. Yogiraj Lahiri Mahasaya left his mortal frame in the year 1895. Till then many have followed the path of Kriya Yoga. Due to the subtleness of the subject - Kriya Yoga, may be slight deviations in their ideas are observed. But, the main source has always been/will be the same - Lahiri Mahasaya.
    • 2. Lahiri Mahasaya scripted 26 confidential diaries during his most exalted Yogic Realizations. These were revealed later too. Purana Purusha is one such book which is directly based on those 26 diaries directly. Now are they Dr. Chatterjee's opinions ? precisely NO. They are assertions of Lahiri Mahasaya himself. And I believe there's no second thought about that too. However differences there may be, this is/will be truth. And truly, everyone adheres to that too.
    • 3. Through the above 2 points, what I just tried to convey is that - there's nothing called Dr. Chatterjee's branch/way of understanding. Things are already in place, scripted by Lahiri Mahasaya. Dr. Chatterjee only re-iterated that. Someone else, who is not following Lahiri Mahasaya's Kriya Yoga, is his/her personal issue. The site kriyayogashyamacharan.org only conveys the teachings of Lahiri Mahasaya. There's no right or wrong case. As Lahiri Mahasaya himself is the fountain-head of Kriya Yoga. And millions across the globe is following him only.

Akash 2011 (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. But without verifiable evidence from independent sources, Wikipedia won't. Not a reliable source for anything except opinion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Andy,

Evidence for what ? While modifying the page Kriya Yoga, not only did I quote http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/, the following sites were also given as reference, which absolutely have no connection with Yogiraj Shyamacharan Sanatan Mission; I believe :

I would request you to please be specific, what more do you want as evidence ? As I have already quoted from eminent websites and Newspapers.

Regards.

Akash 2011 (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, There's no agreeing-disagreeing or minority-majority inside this subject of Kriya Yoga. Kriya Yoga doesn't have any branch or division either. It is exactly as imparted by Lahiri Mahasaya. Dr. Chatterjee or http://kriyayogashyamacharan.org/ has nothing to opine on his own. It's just re-iterating the words expressed by Lahiri Mahasaya, like many others do. That's it.

May be, the way I expressed the things were not proper and hence this miscommunication. I sincerely apologize for that.

Regards. Akash 2011 (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Something like this is more in keeping with our reliable source standards for content. Ideally we want religious beliefs described by a disinterested third party who is not pushing any particular path or technique. When you wrote "Kriya Yoga doesn't have any branch or division", I remembered seeing a disambig at the top of Kriya Yoga that says "This article is about the Kriya Yoga taught by Lahiri Mahasaya. For other uses of the term Kriya Yoga, see Kriya." Someone more familiar with the subject of yoga would have to explain why this one particular branch or aspect of Kriya Yoga that now dominates the article is more notable (according to Wikipedia standards) than another. Earlier versions of the article appeared to have a much broader focus and included info about the other 'branches'. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you LuckyLouie. Thanks for your time and reply. And I need your help to sort this out.

I just want to add - Kriya Yoga is only One path. To be honest, there's nothing like 'Kriya Yoga of Lahiri Mahasaya'. Simply because Kriya Yoga is of Lahiri Mahasaya only and none else.

The book that you quoted as Something like this shows the name of Paramahansa Yogananda. His Guru is Sri Yukteswar Giri. Now, Lahiri Mahasaya is again the Guru of Sri Yukteswar Giri. Hence, the source is always the same - Lahiri Mahasaya. Fact is - Kriya Yoga was imparted by Lahiri Mahasaya only and several other Masters/Gurus followed that later on through Guru-shishya tradition. We can confirm this from the existing Wiki pages itself.

Regards.

Akash 2011 (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Number of the Beast

In Number of the Beast there are two sentences which read "A leading exponent of the Maometis interpretation was Charles Walmesley, the Roman Catholic bishop of Rama. He falsely claimed that the name Muhammad was spelled Maometis or Moametis by Euthymius Zygabenus and the Greek historians Zonaras and Cedrenus.[56]" The first sentence seems fine, but the second sentence is sourced by an anonymous review in an 1883 issue of The Gentleman's Magazine - [18]. Also, although you only discover this through the edit history, in the sentence "Gematria has also been used with the Greek word Maometis; which scholars have described as a dubiously obscure Latinsation of a Greek translation of an Arabic word." the bit about scholars describing it as dubiously etc comes from someone called David Thom who wrote a book called "The Number And Names Of The Apocalyptic Beasts " [19] in 1848 (although the editor who added this thinks it was 1923). Are either of these sources reliable sources? I just removed something about Thom as I don't see his work as significant enough for the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

And with [20] my edits have been reverted, with Thom restored and the claim that "Sources indicate that Euthymius Zygabenus and Zonaras wrote the name as Maometh and Cedrenus wrote the name Mouchoumet none of which is the "Maometis" in question." cited to the anonymous review from The Gentleman's Magazine. The editor has responded on the article's talk page but doesn't seem to understand our guidelines for sources and what 'significant' means. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the book of Brady is the only reliable source currently in use in that paragraph. Since Brady's book considers the issue over several pages, it should be enough by itself to cover the topic adequately. Zerotalk 03:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Using Ghost Adventures as a source for hauntings

There are a fair number of places which are categorized as being considered haunted on the strength of having appeared in an episode of Ghost Adventures, e.g. Old Idaho State Penitentiary. I've never seen the program, but I'm dubious about using it as an authority for this. Mangoe (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I could see a TV show being useful for saying "People consider X to be haunted, and an episode of GA was spent investigating" or something similar. Couldn't be used to day "ghosts are real and they are at X". I would say in most cases it's worth referencing the fact that the site appeared on the series, and possibly using the series to describe who the alleged ghosts are. My natural inclination though, is to use the fact that it appeared on the show as a springboard to look up further references like [21] and [22]. Though definitely reliable for saying "X has appeared on GA" (unless the editor in question is lying), it's almost certainly better to find something in a more reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
IMO the Field Guide thing is too overly credulous to be reliable. The author states in the intro he has 'verified' each listed location as being genuinely haunted. But if used, I'd employ specific attribution ("According to The Ghost Hunters Field Guide, the Penitentiary is haunted by the spirits of past inmates") rather than vague attribution ("People believe the Penitentiary is haunted by the spirits of past inmates"). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The thing that concerns me is the possibility that this is a Charles Berlitz-style popular work in which otherwise unremarkable mysteries/occurrences are amplified into Paranormal Happenings because there wouldn't be episodes otherwise. I mean, if they were doing this Right there would be some external source that the show's producers were using which said "people claim that this place is haunted by thus-and-so", but if they don't ever refer to any sort of specific claim, they could also make episodes about places that they judge to be spooky but about which there aren't any actual claims of haunting. The wouldn't be lying if they double-talked around that, but they also wouldn't be testifying that the place was thought to be haunted in that case. Mangoe (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
It's case-by-case of course, I'd personally use the PDF from the Idaho Historical Society. My gut instinct is that any place showing up in the field guide that is also notable enough to be on wikipedia probably has better sources to the claim it's haunted, and those sources should be used. In general, the issue of whether people think a building is haunted or not should probably be sourced to mainstream books whenever possible.
Mangoe, perhaps best practice would be to note that the location appeared on a notable TV show (for all the merit that idea has) but rely and insist on better sources to flesh out the specifics of the actual haunting. Really, unless a place is famous primarily or only for being haunted, the fact that some people consider it haunted would in most cases be barely worth a half sentence. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
That's mostly what I'm seeing, so I'm not inclined to push too hard on removing mention. The issue that brought this on is that we have Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the United States, which is already being pruned for other reasons; many members are included solely on the basis of having been a subject of an episode of this show. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Carm.org - a one man "Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry"

I notice that this is used as a reference in a number of our articles.[23]. It describes itself as a "CARM is a 501(c)3, non-profit, Christian ministry dedicated to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and the promotion and defense of the Christian Gospel, Doctrine, and Theology. CARM analyzes religions such as Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Universalism, Wicca, etc., and compares them to the Bible. We also analyze secular ideas such as abortion, atheism, evolution, and relativism. In all our analyses we use logic and evidence to defend Christianity and promote the truth of the Bible which is the inspired word of God." It's actually a one-man band run by one Matt Slick[24]. This reliable source [25] comments "In Slick's version of reactive countercult evangelism, potential apologists need not even understand what they are saying, let alone comprehend the questions to which they have been asked to respond. Rather, their "evangelism" requires them to do nothing more than cut, paste, and repost the prepackaged responses provided by Slick. They become "instant experts" in the very worst tradition of the World Wide Web.". I presume that there is very little that we should actually be using this site for as a source? Help would be appreciated in dealing with this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This appears to fall under WP:SELFPUB, so it is only a reliable source for information about CARM, the webmaster or, possibly, a topic where the webmaster can be shown to be a noted expert. FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
It's particularly problematic to use it for any contentious information given it's spotty record and criticisms in other sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Cowan is not a neutral commentator. That said, while a quick survey of his heresy articles hasn't identified anything egregiously wrong, some of them do admit as to the sources used, and we're talking works like Encarta and other encyclopedia-like works. I can't see why we should use him when there are surely more scholarly sources for pretty much anything he's used for now. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of YouTube as source for snooker article

Hi,

I have recently joined wiki and my posts have been removed to my dismay!

I understand the objections to YouTube as a source - that it is user uploaded and maybe subject to spoofs etc. however in the case of bbc or Eurosport coverage of a snooker match this objection seems to be of no concern - it seems unlikely that a user would go to the trouble of faking this. In this case first hand footage of the match seems more reliable to me than a 2nd had journalistic account of this. I recently tried to add to an article on ronnie o'sullivan saying that he had won the masters in 2005. I posted a clip of the final frame with Eurosport commentary. This was disallowed. - see below.

My request is that in the case of official sporting coverage - a YouTube link is deemed firsthand and admissible as a reference.

[edit]YouTube vs 2nd hand journalism

Are you seriously suggesting that articles from the bbc or from the guardian are more reliable than YouTube footage of the actual event? This is a ridiculous assertion. journalists make mistakes whereas YouTube footage of the match is uncontestable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.80.214 (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2012‎ No-one is contesting that he actually won the Masters, which is what that Youtube link seems to show. There is certainly no video footage of Neil Robertson saying what he did, and the other source about Steve Davis is not reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC) According to WP:NOYT: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website." This makes Youtube unreliable source. The BBC and the Guardian websites have "editorial oversight", and this makes them reliable. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 21:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. It's clear you have a higher respect for the bbc and guardian journalism than I have! They make mistakes all the time - especially in a minority sport like snooker. It's a fair point about neil Robertson, it will be hard to find in print but there may be ... YouTube footage of it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefr (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 April 2012‎ Youtube footage is still not reliable. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 21:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


  • Individuals randomly uploading copyright violations to YouTube have no reliability in terms of retransmitting the original material "intact, complete and invariant". As such they are not reliable. The original television broadcast is citeable, its reliability would depend on the reliability of the broadcasting station, producers, network, hosts, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources in David Michael Jacobs Article

I recently added a factual and sourced edit to the page on David Michael Jacobs. Subsequently Mistereyuz (talk · contribs) removed my edit and added unsourced and libelous statements about one of Jacobs' former research subjects. I undid Mistereyuz (talk · contribs)'s edit, and posted on the talk page to explain that they must not add unsourced and libelous material about people. Mistereyuz (talk · contribs) once again removed my factual and sourced edit and reinstated their unsourced and libelous statements in the article. I then took the matter to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#David_Michael_Jacobs). On the noticeboard Cusop Dingle (talk · contribs) responded by removing Mistereyuz (talk · contribs)’s unsourced and libelous edit from the article in accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, and said that such material must never be added without being supported by independent reliable sources and that it must be discussed, and consensus obtained at Talk:David Michael Jacobs first. I subsequently posted information about the sources for my factual and sourced edit on the talk page, but Mistereyuz (talk · contribs) responded with unsubstantiated personal attacks, and no consensus has been reached. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Michael_Jacobs#Reversed_Edit)

The opening sentence of the David Michael Jacobs article is:

David Michael Jacobs is an American Historian and recently retired Associate Professor of History at Temple University specializing in twentieth century American history and culture. Jacobs is also well known in the field of Ufology for his research and authoring of books on the subject of alleged alien abductions.

My edit was the following sentence about a major controversy over Jacobs’ work in the field of Ufology:

His work caused controversy in the field of Ufology following the public release of recordings of hypnosis sessions that he conducted with a research subject of his known by the pseudonym "Emma Woods".

I provided nine sources for my edit which were the following:


1) An article in the False Memory Syndrome Foundation Newsletter about Jacobs’ work which referred to the controversy.
Title: When Does “"Oral History Data Collection" Under Hypnosis Become Facilitation of False Memories and Confabulations of Personal History?
Author: False Memory Syndrome Foundation
Source: False Memory Syndrome Foundation Newsletter (Spring, 2011, Volume 20 No. 2), pp.8
Web url: http://www.fmsfonline.org/fmsf11.407.html
The False Memory Syndrome Foundation is a longstanding organization which has addressed the contentious issue of false memories created by hypnosis, including cases of false accusations of sexual abuse and the creation of false diagnoses of Multiple Personality Disorder, resulting in law suits. They would have to be extremely careful to fact check everything that they published.


2) An article in UFO Magazine about Jacobs’ work that referred to the controversy.
Title: Aliens vs. Predator: The Incredible Visitations at Emma Woods
Author: Jeremy Vaeni
Source: UFO Magazine (Vol. 24, No. 1 #154), pp.34
Web url: http://ufomag.com/ufo-magazine-archive/volume-24-2010/vol-24-no-1-154.html
UFO Magazine is a long standing leading magazine in the field of Ufology. The editor, Dr. Bill Birnes, wrote in a publishers note that Jacobs had threatened to sue the magazine if they published the article about his work. Nevertheless UFO Magazine published the article. They were obviously careful with what they published and went forward with it in confidence that it was accurate.


3) An article in Paratopia Magazine that contained a large section about Jacobs’ work that referred to the controversy.
Title: Priests of High Strangeness: Co-Creation Of "The Alien Abduction Phenomenon"
Author: Carol Rainey
Source: Paratopia Magazine (Vol. 1, Issue 1), pp.11
Web url: http://paratopia.org/?p=358
The author of the article, Carol Rainey, is an experienced and reputable documentary filmmaker who has made award-winning documentaries for PBS, cable, and commercial distribution for over two decades. She is also the former spouse and research collaborator of one of Jacobs’ colleagues. The publishers of Paratopia Magazine say that they checked all the facts in her article to cover themselves legally.


4) An interview with Jeremy Vaeni, the author of the article on Jacobs’ work that was published in UFO Magazine referenced above, on the Dreamland radio show, about the controversy.
Title: Dreamland - Special Interviews - A Difficult Problem: The Hopkins-Jacobs Controversies
Radio Show: Dreamland
Host: Whitley Streiber
Web url: url=http://www.unknowncountry.com/special/difficult-problem-hopkins-jacobs-controversies
The Dreamland radio show is a long standing show in the field of Ufology, that has a large audience. The host has had experience with a law suit in the past and would be extremely careful to fact check what is broadcast for legal reasons.


The remaining sources were a series of episodes of the Paratopia radio show that addressed Jacobs’ work and the controversy over it. The hosts, Jeremy Vaeni and Jeff Ritzmann, were careful to fact check what was broadcast to cover themselves legally, and they aired audio from Jacobs’ hypnosis sessions with his former research subject:


5) An episode of the Paratopia radio show that played audio from a hypnosis session that Jacobs conducted with his research subject known as “Emma Woods”, as well as audio from a phone conversation that he had with her.
Title: Paratopia 57: The Emma Woods Tapes
Web url: http://www.cyberears.com/index.php/Browse/playaudio/8804


6) An interview with Jacobs’ former research subject “Emma Woods” on the Paratopia radio show about the controversy over Jacobs' work.
Title: Paratopia 60: Emma Woods: The Interview
Web url: http://www.cyberears.com/index.php/Browse/playaudio/9015


7) An episode of the Paratopia radio show about the controversy over Jacobs’ work.
Web url: Paratopia 62: Threatened By Hybrids
Title: http://www.cyberears.com/index.php/Browse/playaudio/9119


8) An interview with Jacobs’ former research subject known as “Brian Reed” on the Paratopia radio show about the controversy over Jacobs' work.
Title: Paratopia 94: Brian Reed Vindicates Emma Woods
Web url: http://paratopia.org/?p=317


9) An interview with the editor of UFO Magazine, Nancy Birnes, on the Paratopia radio show, which included the controversy about Jacobs' work, and which aired audio from three of the hypnosis sessions that Jacobs conducted with his former research subject “Emma Woods”.
Title: Paratopia Episode 162: Nancy Birnes Strikes Back
Web url: http://paratopia.org/?p=850


My edit is factual and informs readers of an important controversy over David Jacobs’ work. I believe that it is sourced by reputable sources, and that it should be included in the article. I would appreciate it if you could you look into the matter for me. Thank you. Michaela181 (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Arguments about whether the editors might or might not have checked for libel are beside the point. We need evidence as to independence, reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Are they peer-reviewed? Do they have an independent editorial board of scholars? My initial impression is that none of these sources would qualify. FMSF is an advocacy group, UFO Magazine is a fringe publication, Whitley Streiber is a fringe author. I have never heard, or heard of, Paratopia. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Additional: citing interviews with a named person are equivalent to citing that person. Are they a recognised authority on the subject? Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

AAT MEDRS

Does the following book look like a reliable source for medical claims? Becker, Marty (2002). The Healing Power of Pets: Harnessing the Amazing Ability of Pets to Make and Keep People Happy and Healthy. New York: Hyperion. ISBN 0-7868-6808-2. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Link to googlebook [26]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
What are the specific claims? Which article? TimidGuy (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Here was the original text it was being used for [27]. Specifically the medical claims were: Animals may be able to assist persons with physical disabilities including cerebral palsy, epilepsy or seizures, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, or spinal cord injuries.Psychological disorders including panic attacks, posttraumatic stress disorder, and others may also benefit from AAT.Animals can be aware of internal states, and so they can alert individuals of an impending epileptic seizure, diabetic seizure, or a manic episode. also It is currently being used for the following text: Equine therapy has been effective in treating people with a wide spectrum of problems: physical, behavioral, social, cognitive, and psychological.
I was also concerned about it's usage as a reliable source as it appears to be a Pop med book which advocates the use of animals. The individual does not appear to be involved in the actual research on the issue. Rather he appears to be a minor tv personality and a practicing vetinarian rather than a researcher. Currently the source is used here: [28]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
In the first instance, I don't see that it's making a medical claim, since it's using the word "assist." I would think that this source could possibly be used to simply observe the range of instances in which animals have been used by therapists or studied by researchers. Perhaps the wording could be adjusted even further: "Animals have been used with persons with..." I think the second assertion claiming benefits is more problematic and could be adjusted, as suggested. The third assertion, regarding equine therapy being an effective treatment, must comply with MEDRS and be based on research reviews. So that's my compromise suggestion: use the book to make an observation but explicitly avoiding medical claims. If necessary, you could add a qualifier, "Although research on effectiveness isn't yet fully established, animals have been used with persons with....." How does that sound? TimidGuy (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The major point behind our sourcing guideline is to get things right. Do you have any reason to believe that any of the material here is actually wrong (e.g., would be contradicted by a better source)? If not, then getting a "perfect source listed is essentially a cosmetic issue. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is TPRF a valid source for claims that someone is an Expert?

In the Prem Rawat article, an editor wants to insert additional material about a supporting quote, specifically mentioning that an Associate Chair of Criminal Justice of the University of Texas, San Antonio (Dr. Gilbert), is also an "expert" in the field of Restorative Justice. As evidence, he has given the following statement "When TPRF quotes Dr Gilbert, they describe him as "an expert in the new field of restorative justice."", although he has not provided any specific source for that claim within TPRF. TPRF is The Prem Rawat Foundation. It is a registered charity. They provide a program for prisoners that Dr. Gilbert endorsed. He further cites the fact that in Dr. Gilbert's CV linked from the UTSA website, it says he is "Director, Office of Community and Restorative Justice, Center for Policy Studies, College of Public Policy" (CV link here). His CV and the university (which is the source for our quote) has ample evidence that he is an expert in Criminal Justice, and our article attributes that. The editor also managed to find one article, co-written, "Putting a Human Face on Crimes: A Qualitative Study on Restorative Justice Processes for Youths by: Jung Choi, Diane Green, Michael Gilbert", in one journal, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. This editor also claims that we must enhance Dr. Gilbert's description because "If Dr Gilbert was a conventional criminologist his observations would carry a different weight. He is a forerunner in a new, and most would say, much improved and more human [sic] way of doing things." He also adds "From his LinkedIn account, he is a member of "Restorative Justice - volunteers & practitioners" and "Restorative Justice International." I believe this is fringe, and completely unnecessary text. I also don't believe that his limited demonstrable experience in this field should in any way overshadow his solid credentials as an expert in the umbrella field of Criminal Justice. Thoughts? -- Maelefique(talk) 14:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

For the unbelievably bored among you, the entire discussion thus far is on the talk page here as well. -- Maelefique(talk) 19:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's clear from the slanted tone of the above that this wording did not arise from any talk page consensus. The actual change I suggested was "UTSA associate professor of criminal justice with a special interest in (focus on?) restorative justice." According to this “Restorative Justice Project” Dr Gilbert teaches a course in Restorative Justice at UTSA. [29]
He co-authored this article on indigenous neighborhood development.

[30]

He has authored or co-authored numerous articles for the Center for Justice and Reconciliation, such as these:

[31] [32] [33]

In 2009, he organised a national conference on restorative justice

[34]

To me, this information on his deep involvement with a new (to the modern mind) system of justice is important to creating a complete picture of the subject and an understanding of his position, and I can't understand why this innocuous edit is being met with such hostility. Rumiton (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a lot of new information that was never posted on the talk page, but I'm sure that was an oversight. Thanks for adding all of that. However, despite what this "Restorative Justice Project" says Dr Gilbert teaches, his own Curriculum Vitae posted on the university website does not mention this course, nor does it mention *anything* to do with Restorative Justice as a course he teaches. Most of the articles you are just now for the first time presenting are from websites that are *also* not a source for your claim that he's an expert, and in fact, your 2009 organisation of the national conference, that message was posted in advance of the event, and the notice itself is clearly posted by Dr. Gilbert himself, how is *that* a good source? He is also not listed as a speaker at the event, but there is another Dr. from his university that is. Your "innocuous edit" is definitely undue weight, but before we can even get to that problem, you insist that we argue over the sources first, by claiming they are reliable, I disagree. If you didn't know that 2000 words ago on the talk page when I first mentioned it, now you know again. Hostility? Because I disagree? No, calling my posting here "extremely stupid", yes, I think that would be considered hostile, probably goes against WP:AGF, and WP:Civility too, oh but wait, that was you that did that, not me... -- Maelefique(talk) 03:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Posing an undiscussed noticeboard question in a biased manner on a highly contentious subject (though God knows why it is so contentious) to me is "extremely stupid." I was attacking the edit, not the editor. But to reiterate, my proposed change to the subject's description in the article was (change in bold): "UTSA associate professor of criminal justice with a special interest in (focus on?) restorative justice." Googling <"restorative justice" Gilbert -Susan> (there is a Susan Gilbert active in the field) gives 122 000 results. I just looked through the first two pages for the above cites relevant to Dr Michael Gilbert. Stopping there was not an oversight, I thought what we already had was more than sufficient, but if even more are needed, they are easily found. Rumiton (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Here is one, FWIW. At the National Conference on Restorative Justice to be held at the University of Toledo in 2013, [35] the program track “Research and Teaching of Restorative Justice” will be overseen by Dr Gilbert. Rumiton (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Partial triple distillation on Benrinnes

Hey, I'm hoping some of you might think of something smart. I would really like to work out the distillation process on the Benrinnes article, but I don't have a proper source for it. What I do have is this blogspot post. The Blogspot post itself is kind enough to provide its sources, but I don't have access to those, so I can't look it up myself. It would certainly help the article if this could be included, but I wouldn't see how. So I'm hoping for something smart from the noticeboard here. Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

One wash still paired with two spirit stills. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you needed a source Whisky Classified: Choosing Single Malts by Flavour p74 by David Wishart Darkness Shines (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
For a public Domain work, the Barnard work seems a little difficult to find, but is available here. We should really make a copy of this on Wikisource. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Amazing as this resource is (and I will use it for other things), unfortunately, the specific distillation process was used between 1974 and 2007, so it is not described here. Thanks for that great resource though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" used as source

I would like an independent opinion whether Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock and Shepherd the Flock of God, both published by Watch Tower, could be used as RS in articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The question is raised at JW:talk (only for Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock).

My opinions from the talk page: «It is appairently leaked on the internet, but a similar case regarding a letter headed to elders in JW congregations was dismissed as RS from most "independent" editors at RS noticeboard (I have to clearify the case is not yet closed), as the letter was not published on a reliable website, or confirmed by WTS, and was not concidered as "public accessible"» ... «The source appair not to be according to the description in Wikipedia:Published. I'll quote from the sector "discussion": "The idea behind requiring a source to be 'accessible' is to allow a third-party, unaffiliated, person to review the source ... The third party is someone who is unaffiliated with the editor, publisher, group or institution in control of the source," and a quote from examples: "Any item that is inaccessible, due to zero copies being available to the public at this time (even if copies were available to the public once upon a time) is 'inaccessible'." As far as I can see, no exemplares are legally accessible for the public.» (See talk page for full discussion, one of the editors defending the use of the book as RS claims WP:SOURCEACCESS could be used to keep using the book.)

The book is only legally accesible for JW elders (from the talkpage, defending user: "The Shepherd the Flock book, however, is indisputably published by the WTS, though its official distribution is limited to congregation elders), is considered as property of WTS, and is only borrowed by the elders.

The "letter" mentioned, is discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikileaks parallel: Leaked letter from Watch Tower Society to 13,000 congregations (the link doesn't work anymore). In my opinion it is clear parallels between the letter and the book, and the only difference I can see, is the existence of the book is confirmed by WTS. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't much care about whether the source is "legally" accessible in an editor's opinion. Is it actually accessible? Borrowing counts, by the way: we cite borrowed sources every hour of the day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
We also care whether it is indeed the actual source. An alleged "leaked copy" on some website somewhere is prima facie unreliable. An account of the contents of the book in a reliable secondary source, published by someone who has actually seen it, in a publication with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, is what we want. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not accessible in public libraries as far as I know. JW tend to want to keep the content in the books secret, but of course it is appairently leaked in some websites. My conclusion out of the answears is the books can't be used as a source directly, unless it could be proved the content is directly availably for independent third part readers, either as a printed edition, or as an online edition through a RS, but the books' content could be used by referencing a RS witch is quoting or using the book, but then by naming the RS, not the book, as source. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing: If somebody claims you could steal the book, is it accessible? One of the books is printed in maybe as many as half a million exemplares, all language editions included, and some exemplares are probably "missing" or disappaired in other ways, but not accessible in a legal way. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
A JW elder could give away his copy, and this has evidently happened in the past. Though religious sanctions may apply to such a JW elder, that would not make it illegal. Both publications are readily available online. There was previously an article on Wikipedia about Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, but it was deleted due to lack of notability but not lack of authenticity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
A quick Google search located links to the older Pay Attention JW elders' manual (mentioned above) on WikiLeaks (and many other locations). The WikiLeaks page mentions legal action brought by the publisher against the individual who initially posted the manual online (it does not mention whether or not the legal action was successful), indicating it to be the actual publication. It is unclear how a publication that 'must' only be read by JW elders and is only privately distributed could be registered for copyright, though an implicit copyright would still apply. As with other JW publications, the books state in their inside cover that "This publication is not for sale. It is provided as part of a worldwide Bible educational work supported by voluntary donations", so no financial loss has been suffered by the publisher.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyright is surely not relevant here, unless of course we copy large portions into the article. Almost all the sources we cite are copyright to someone, but we are free to use, cite and indeed quote them. The question is whether it is reasonably possible for a reader to verify the citation. Becoming a registered library user to see a copy might be considered reasonable: becoming an elder of the JW church to see it would not. Cusop Dingle (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The publications are (unofficially) available online. I mentioned copyright in reference to Grrahnbahr's concerns about the legality of the file being hosted on other sites online, not in reference to Wikipedia citing the publication.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
If the publication is "unofficial" then we need to pay attention to the reliability of the publisher. Do they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Cusop Dingle (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The publications are not unofficial. The availability online is unofficial.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I realise that. By "publication" I meant "the act of publishing it unofficially", not "the thing published". The point is that if someone publishes unofficially what they claim to be a private document then we need to have a reputation for reliability on the part of the person publishing to allow us to use the thing published as an authentic copy of the private ducument. After all, anyone can put anything on a website and claim that it is some super-secret doument. In the absence of some reason to believe in the authenticity we simply cannot use it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Self-published sources from the Watchtower, or, for that matter, the Vatican, can in general reasonably be considered reliable sources for non-controversial material about a subject, or for the opinions of the group itself, with some attention paid to the degree to which the material is clearly self-serving. I would have to think that those same basic standards would apply for this material as well. John Carter (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is already discussed on a policy page that I haven't seen. There's a question of definition here. A text that is only distributed within an organization is not "published". There are many such texts, in many organizations. Citing such a text is like citing an unpublished manuscript: you can do it in an academic paper if you care to, no problem at all so long as you limit your citation to "fair use" and do not breach copyright, but it's strongly deprecated on Wikipedia because, since the text is not published, others cannot verify it.
If the text has crept out, and others can get access to it whenever they take the trouble, e.g. it is made available in libraries to any user of those libraries, then the people making it available have, in effect, published it (but they may be asked to stop doing so). If the text has been copied on to a public website (not an intranet) then the owner of the website is publishing it (but, again, may be asked to stop doing so).
Wikipedia's problems with that are (a) it may be taken off the internet or withdrawn from library stock, in which case our citation can no longer be verified, (b) in the case of the web copy, we can't verify that the copy is accurate.
For these reasons, I'd say, we should avoid relying directly on the citation of an unpublished text such as this. But if any source we consider reliable has already cited it (e.g. an academic or journalistic source) we have no reason not to use that as our source. That's like citing a published edition of a manuscript: it's exactly what we do. Andrew Dalby 09:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
If we are referencing a source using the book, shouldn't the source be given, rather than using the book as source? Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Certainly. "Say where you got it." Andrew Dalby 14:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a lot. This is really useful. We'll try to find other sources for the statements. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Just one (belated) comment: Depending on what you're trying to support with this source, I think it would be much safer if you could find an outside secondary source that cites this source. In other words, instead of citing the internally published book to say that it says such and such, find a scholarly article or book that says that the internally published book says such and such. (I hope that came through...it made sense in my mind.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, exactly what user Andrew said: "Say where you got it". Grrahnbahr (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology a primary source?

The title pretty much says it all. Is the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology a primary source? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A primary source for what exactly? Cusop Dingle (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The context is here. BitterGrey (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The specific citations at paraphilic infantilism are:
Both would be sourced to page 531, with paraphilic infantilism discussed in the left column and the theory of erotic target location errors discussed in the right. Essentially, is the OTP an appropriate, reliable, secondary source to verify the ideas that a) paraphilic infantilists are not sexually attracted to children and b) within the theory of erotic target location errors, paraphilic infantilsts are attracted to the idea of themselves being a child. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
As far as the quoted text alone is concerned, it seems to be an appropriate reliable source, that these ideas are considered by the academic community. However it cannot be used to state these ideas as facts or that they represent a consensus at large in the academic community.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@WLU: Usually textbooks are tertiary or secondary sources for the most part. So you would have to be more specific concerning why and for what aspect exactly you'd suspect it to be a primary source. However more important than a formal distinction between primary/secondary/tertiary is the quality and reputation of the source. This seems to be a a book by renowned academic published with a renowned academic publisher, so I see no reason, why it couldn't or shouldn't be used as a source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) My basic point was that Fruend and Blanchard's "Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists." was about, according to the very first line "A clinical series of male paedophiles..." As an article about pedophilia with no reference to infantilism, it should not be cited in the paraphilic infantilism article (much less have THREE sections based on it). WLU appears to have implicitly conceded this point, and is now hoping to use CB&B's claim in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology. Specifically, he hopes to use the claim that F&B was about infantilism (in spite of F&B not mentioning it) to support his exceptional claim that infantilism is some type or form of pedophilia. These sources have been discussed at RSN before[36]. Since F&B make no claim to being about infantilism, CB&B's claim that F&B was about infantilism is new to CB&B, making it a primary source for that claim.
A point already raised on the article's talk page is that a source's reliability is dependent on what it is being used to support: A source on Einstein's Theory of Relatively might be generally reliable, but like F&B, have no relevance to this discussion. This is why WLU was hoping to get Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology declared universally reliable. BitterGrey (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Well this board is for discussing the reliability of sources. Whether a source is used appropriately (read and cited correctly) is another question, that in doubt needs to be discussed elsewhere (the article's talk page, the talk page or quality assurance of a related portal). Any source now matter how good or reliable can be misused of course. Aside from venues just mentioned above you could also request a third opinion to ensure that source is used correctly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Kmhkmh, I think both sources (Freund & Blanchard as well as Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree) are reliable and there's no reason to remove either. Though Freund & Blanchard doesn't use infantilism or infantilists specifically, it defines "masochistic gynaephiles" as "habitually imagin[ing] themselves as little boys or babies", which pretty much the definition of paraphilic infantilism. Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree (authors of the chapter in the OTP) cite this paper on page 531 in the discussion of "erotic target location errors" and specifically refer to infantilism. Thus, though I consider the use of F&B a common sense accomodation despite not using the word "infantilism" specifically, CB&B makes the point and link explicitly. I consider the page enhanced by the use of F&B's more explicit and detailed citation, however to address Bittergrey's claim that such a use is either original research or an inappropriate use of a primary source, I'm willing to substitute CB&B (published in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology, which started the section) thus resolving the issue. Bittergrey apparently considers the book chapter by CB&B to be a primary source also, for reasons I find unconvincing. In other words, if F&B is unacceptable for WP:PSTS reasons, CB&B, which is not a primary source, should be fine and should resolve the issue. I have no issue with removing F&B and replacing it with CB&B if it means I don't have to keep reverting the removal of both sources and the text they verify.
Bittergrey's core objection seems to be any association between paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia, an association he, as someone running a website on paraphilic infantilism, finds objectionable. My point, one I have been making for a long time, is that both Freund & Blanchard, and Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree distinguish the two groups. Both sources say quite clearly that paraphilic infantilists are not the same thing as pedophiles and are not interested in children as sexual partners. But anyway, expect a long and ugly discussion, they all turn out that way. I've never suggested infantilists are pedophiles and neither do any sources. "Autoerotic form of pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia" anymore than being aroused by people with amputations is the same thing as being aroused by having an amputation or being interested in members of the same sex is the same thing as wanting to be a member of the opposite sex.
Anyway, a question the board can answer is whether Freund & Blanchard and Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree are reliable sources for the statements above. I think they are, and I think the objections are spurious. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Now if WLU will kindly focus on content and refrain from personal attacks...

Are we in agreement that F&B doesn't use "infantilism" or any term defined by any other RS as to be synonymous with infantilism without requiring WP:SYNTH? (This wouldn't be CB&B since CB&B doesn't mention "masochistic gynaephiles" or any of F&B's other neologisms. This is odd considering that all the authors discussed so far work together.) BitterGrey (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Freund & Blanchard don't use the term "infantilism", though I think we can use common sense to temporarily ignore the policy on synthesis since Blanchard is a co-author of the chapter in the Oxford Textbook of Pathology and that text does use the term "infantilism" explicitly as well as making exactly the same points. It's quite possible the term "infantilist/ism" wasn't used that often in 1993 and they adopted a more recognized term in the intervening 15 years. Irrespective, I still see CB&B as reliable for the text currently on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
WLU has the WP:burden here and he concedes that F&B's pedophilia article doesn't discuss infantilism (without setting aside many policies and guidelines relating to RSs, that is). I think we can put a stake in the ground here: F&B doesn't discuss infantilism according to F&B. Others are still free to disagree, but I'd like to get this closed. By the way, the term infantilism was in common use since the mid-70's and was formally adopted by the APA in DSM IIIR, in 1987. In 1993, F&B could have used the term - but didn't.
Now that we've accepted that F&B doesn't claim to discuss infantilism, we can move on to CB&B's claim that F&B discusses infantilism. This claim would be new to CB&B, and so would CB&B would be PRIMARY in that respect. The dependence between the sources isn't relevant, since we are no longer discussing a plurality of sources. (Well, except for being aware that CB&B's claim about F&B doesn't match F&B's claim about F&B.) Are we all OK to this point? BitterGrey (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
So you are misunderstanding burden; burden requires text to have a citation to avoid being removed per WP:PROVEIT. This text has a citation, in fact it can have two. You're also misrepresenting my position on Freund & Blanchard, who do discuss paraphilic infantilism, even if they don't use those exact words (again, they discuss people who "habitually imagine themselves as little boys or babies", which really is the definition of paraphilic infantilists). So please don't claim "I accept F&B don't discuss infantilism. I believe Freund & Blanchard are quite clearly theorizing about paraphilic infantilism and given the lack of sources on the subject, I think using F&B is perfectly acceptable. You are the one who disagrees with this, and I attempt to address your disagreement by substituting an unarguably acceptable secondary source.
You are misrepresenting how the DSM deals with infantilism when there is unarguable consensus that it doesn't, using the word only in reference to a single behaviour by masochists, not paraphilic infantilists in general (here and here).
Your third error is claiming CB&B is in any way a primary source (per WP:PSTS, "Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved). CB&B is a secondary source, synthesizing primary research. Again per PSTS, "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." CB&B synthesizes a variety of research to make claims about infantilism (found in the left column of 531) and the theory of erotic target location errors (found in the right).
I've explained all of these points so many times that it seems pretty clear you are willfully misrepresenting my position, the community's position on the DSM and the contents of the Oxford Textbook of Pathology, and either misunderstand, or are misrepresenting several of wikipedia's policies as well.
Also please stop removing my text above, I am stating that you have self-disclosed that you run a website on paraphilic infantilism, which might be biasing your judgement. I am also saying, as I have said repeatedly, that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles, desire adult sexual partners, and desire to be treated as and act as if they were children. I base my belief on the statements made in the relevant scholarly literature, including Freund & Blanchard and Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree - both of which clearly state that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
As the only editor seeking to keep the text WLU, you are the one burdened with finding sources to support it - and those sources need to match the text. Were there any value to your sources whatsoever, you wouldn't need to resort to personal attacks. As for primary, the event would be the decision by CB&B that F&B discuss infantilism. This decision would have been made by CB&B, not based on F&B or any other source. This, CB&B is primary in this respect - and this will remain so no matter what you write about me. BitterGrey (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The sources do support it. Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree explicitly say paraphilic infantilists do not desire children as sexual partners, but instead wish to behave as and be treated like children; this is the core of their theory on erotic target location errors. I'm not sure how saying "I don't think you are a pedophile" is a personal attack. Your claim that CB&B is primary is still completely at odds with WP:PSTS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@WLU, Greybitter: No offense but you should take your personal fight over content elsewhere. Since apparently you cannot agree on correct interpretation of the (reliable) source in question, you should move the argument to special subject portal (psychology, medicine). There other WP editors with background knowledge on the subject may comment on the correct interpretation/use of the source. Alternatively request a third opinion or use a conflict resolution site, but please refrain from using this site as platform for your personal disagreements. The idea of site is to request reliability assessment from 3rd editors, it is not meant to continue your personal conflict/arguments. For that use the article's talk page or your personal talk pages or maybe some conflict resolution site.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, I tried to keep things focused on the sources. Basically, 1) a quick review of F&B will confirm that it doesn't mention infantilism, or any established synonym. 2) This would make CB&B's claims about F&B new to CB&B, that is, primary. 3) CB&B claims F&B makes an exceptional claim "[Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." This would then be supported by only one primary source. Since exceptional claims require multiple high quality sources, this point, and the two related points WLU is trying to make, should go away. (On Dec 6th, WLU inverted the text to mean the opposite of what the references actually say. However, he is still fighting to use the same sources.)
I think we can make progress if others are simply willing to look up the sources. BitterGrey (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Done, talk:paraphilic infantilism, WP:SEX, WP:PSYCH. One point I do agree with Bittergrey on, it will require outside editors to become familiar with the sources in detail. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I realize that this was marked resolved, but one point bares mentioning here. BitterGrey's idea of a primary source isn't correct. The Oxford Textbook is not a primary source by definition. If an article in the Textbook refers to a study and makes claims about that study that are incorrect then it makes incorrect claims, but that doesn't make it a primary source. Whether or not the Textbook is correct in its claim about the study it refers to is not a matter for this board to resolve, as Kmhkmh has pointed out several times. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Griswaldo, let's see if I understand this properly: If I decided one day that the sky was purple, without reference to any other source, and somehow published this in Oxford press, would that be a primary source? I'd think yes, because it was "written by people who are directly involved." (Oh, and please don't pay too much attention to WLU's marking this thread closed, last time he marked a thread closed TWICE[37][38]... and then eventually reversed his position completely. It is just a thing he does to discourage others from commenting.) BitterGrey (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what your bizarre "sky is purple" analogy is supposed to imply. If you published the statement in the peer reviewed "Oxford Companion to the Sky" it would not affect the book's status as a reliable source by Wikipedia's rules, and it certainly would not make it into a "primary source". It would simply be a case in which a technically reliable source contained an error. It happens regularly. This whole dispute seems to me to be built around deep disingenuousness. It's blindingly obvious that Blanchard believes that infantalism is an "Autoerotic form of pedophilia". WLU says that "Autoerotic form of pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia". Well, yes it is. That's what "a form of pedophilia" means. I think this theory is utterly idiotic, and I can well understand why Bittergrey finds it deeply offensive. But since I don't get published in peer reviewed medical/psychological journals my opinion is irrelevant. Bittergrey should just accept that a theory which he understandably finds offensive does exist in the literature, and stop wikilawyering to keep it out. The claim that a textbook is a primary source because it is "written by people directly involved" is particularly ludicrous. By this interepretation every peer reviewed work would be a primary source, since experts are obviously directly involved with the subject (the policy passage in fact refers to direct involvement in an event which is being described). WLU should admit that the theory does indeed state that infantalism is a form of paedophila, and recognise that infantalists will find this view offensive. The article should discuss the theory to the extent of the weight it has in the literature as a whole. Paul B (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I admit that the theory of erotic target location errors states that paraphilic infantilism is to pedophilia as acrotomophilia is to apotemnophilia and homosexuality is to transsexualism. I believe the summary currently used on the paraphilic infantilism page, which is quoted above, does an adequate job of accurately describing the theory. It deliberately avoids using the loaded term "autoerotic form of pedophilia" because it is ripe for misinterpretation. In both cases the papers and the opinions in them are explicitly attributed to Kurt Freund and Ray Blanchard and thus indicating it is their opinion, not a scientific consensus. The paraphilic infantilism article explicitly states that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles (there's a whole section on it, Paraphilic infantilism#Pedophilia). I believe the current version meets all of your criteria for a reasonable summary of the material and if there are no further issues, I consider the matter closed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Paul, sorry if the "sky is purple" analogy was too abstract. F&B didn't use the then-established term "infantilism" or any established synonym. They chose to use other neologisms. Thus the claim that F&B discusses infantilism is new to CB&B. I was hoping for more insight into whether CB&B was primary with respect to this new claim. Thanks for agreeing that a form of something is still that something, which seems plainly obvious to all but one. Please be aware that these sources are cited in the live article, so this is a matter of getting it out, not keeping it out: WLU merely changed the wording when a previous RSN discussion found that the sources weren't sufficient to support the exceptional claim that infantilism was a form of pedophilia. To date, the only sources offered have been F&B, CB&B, and a letter to an editor: Only one uses the term "infantilism," no two use the same neologisms, and they all come out of the same facility. BitterGrey (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I read the debate. Clearly F&B did not use that term, but equally clearly they had the phenomenon we now call "infantalism" in mind. That is specified in the later publication. Yes, they "all come from the same facilty". Clearly it is the specific theory of a particular researcher and his associates. I can see no logic to your suggestion that "CB&B" may be a "primary source" for this claim. It is in the nature of scholarly secondary sources that they sift through material and present models of it. That's what scholars do. It'as one of the very things that defines a secondary source. Paul B (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Despite this discussion and commentary, Bittergrey has ignored this input and reverted again, with the same list of spurious claims that have been addressed repeatedly [39], and is still claiming that the DSM defines infantilism despite two clear examples of unanimous consensus that it does not here and here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 04:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I have to admit to not having noticed Paul Barlow's most recent comment, but since the arguable primary status of CB&B didn't figure into the edit, it doesn't change much. Regarding "the phenomenon we now call 'infantilism'", please note that infantilism was in use at least since the 70's, and was officially defined in DSM IIIR, published in 1987. F&B choose not to use the term six years later, in 1993. (Before WLU again complains about the DSM, I'd invite him to contrast the DSM and F&B: One is the consensus document of the American Psychiatric Association, sited by multiple independent sources as a source on infantilism, and actually uses the term. The other is not and does not.)
Paul, if F&B supports the claim that infantilists are pedophilies, then should we remove the paragraph citing F&B to contrast infantilists and pedophiles? That paragraph suggests that the two are different, not the same. BitterGrey (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The DSM doesn't define infantilism. RSN and ANI. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
WLU has a longstanding beef against the DSM. At paraphilic infantilism, he fought and argued to cite 47 pages of the DSM[40][41], then 5 pages (4RR/28 hours)[42][43][44][45], (and hijacking a 3O[46]), then zero (0) pages[47],[48][49][50], and then finally one (1) page [51] - at the same article. He claims to have read that source seven months into the conflict[52][53]. To remove it, he argued that infantilists weren't generally masochistic:"the sexual fixations are different - for infantilists it is being treated and coddled like an infant; for masochists it is the humiliation of being forced to be treated like a baby. One is about being cared for, the other is about being humiliated.". The intent then was to clear out DSM, making way for CB&B with James Cantor's support. WLU has yet to respond to the result that, if "masochistic gynephiles" are the same as infantilists and infantilists are not generally masochistic, then "masochistic gynephiles" are not generally masochistic.
Of course, given that WLU has renewed his commitment to revert no matter what I write, I don't really care what he thinks. I am, however, interested in Paul's answer to my question. Perhaps between us we can hammer out something that at least has integrity to the sources. BitterGrey (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I do object to the misuse of sources and I also object to Bittergrey ignoring the unanimous consensus of two discussions that the DSM was inappropriately used. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is now an ANI posting, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Correct place to issue a dare? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the ANI posting focuses on WLU's year-long pattern of Wikihounding. I suspect WLU would like to make it about this set of edits, just as he tried to make this discussion about CB&B exclusively, when in fact it was about F&B. BitterGrey (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Back to the sources

Anyway, back to the sources. F&B list 14 cases in 4 groups: "Paedophilic target identity inversion", "Paedophilic fetishism without target identity inversion", "Erotic target location errors with a non-human target" (one case involving the fantasy of being a cartoon dog), and "Infantile or juvenile self-imagery in masochistic gynaephiles." Setting "Puppy Smith" aside leaves us with two Paedophilic groups and one masochistic group. (Gynaephilia simply "refers to males whose preferred erotic targets are women." F&B p558)
In addition to never describing "masochistic gynaephiles" by 'infantilism' or an established synonym, F&B never describe them as pedophiles or cases of erotic target location errors. "Progress in understanding erotic location errors will require careful distinction between genuine phenomena of erotic target location and superficially similar paraphilic acts and fantasies that may have different aetiologies. ... The above cases suggest a distinction between paedophiles with erotic imagery of themselves as children and masochistic gynaephiles with similar features." F&B p 561.
In CB&B, there is the comment "...[Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." (pg 531). Of the four groups, only "Paedophilic target identity inversion" is described in F&B as both pedophilic and as having an ETLE. This group includes two cases that mention diapers (the same number as the "masochistic gynaephiles" group).
While this doesn't shed any new light on the WP:OR of equating "masochistic gynaephiles" to infantilism per F&B, it does show that the WP:SYNTH of using CB&B to support that equation is incorrect. Now, we could offer the new synth that per CB&B+F&B, "Paedophilic target identity inversion" is infantilism, but that too would be mere synth. BitterGrey (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe Paul B already gave an independent assessment of this issue and concluded your arguments were were without merit, making this new section an attempt to ask the other parent. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:Kettle, coming from an editor who asked the exact same question NINE times[54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62]. BitterGrey (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I was asking you that question, and you did not answer even once. Why not? That is completely different from asking nine different editors the same question in hopes that one will support you, which would make WP:KETTLE a meaningful essay to point to. I'll ask it again, please do me the courtesy of answering it to indicate you understand the sources. According to Freund & Blanchard, what is the definition of masochistic gynaephiles? What is the definition of a paraphilic infantilist? And how do those definitions relate to Paul B's statement on this very noticeboard? I would say the more relevant guideline here is WP:IDHT. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Nope, I answered[63]. WLU rejected my answer (WP:IDHT) and continued asking. Above is #10. In case others reading this might be interested in my own <original research> I'll add that: 53% of ABDLs report an interest in sadomasochism or power exchange and 47% of ABDLs report enjoying masochistic activities that are not baby-themed. 85% of ABDLs are non-transgendered male and 58% of ABDLs are heterosexual. (Surveys with fewer or no bisexual options would result in a higher percentage of heterosexuals and homosexuals.) Neglecting covariance, this means that roughly 26% might be (male) masochistic gynephiles. Please note that only 41% of ABDLs met Criterion B so 59% wouldn't be diagnosed as paraphilic infantilists (or diaper fetishists) as defined in the DSM. It is interesting to note that 97% of ABDLs report some interest in diapers, while only 2 of 3 "masochistic gynaephiles" did.</original research> Of course, my original research, like yours, doesn't belong in the article.
WLU, if you question my grasp of the sources, feel free to review my comments above and point out any errors. BitterGrey (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see where you quote Freund & Blanchard's definition of masochistic gynaephiles and compare it to paraphilic infantilists, which was the question I've been repeatedly asking. It looks very much like you refuse to answer because you know the two definitions are the same and thus there is no reason to exclude the article from parphilic infantilism. I don't care about the web survey you conducted on your personal website.
What were Paul B's thoughts on Freund & Blanchard's choice of terms and its relation to infantilism? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
More WP:IDHT from WLU. F&B's def of gynephilia was actually quoted above[64], with the formal definitional formatting omitted. In F&B it reads "The term 'gynephilia' refers to...". If anyone claims that F&B define masochistic gynephiles as something other than masochists who are gynephilic, he or she should feel free to point out where. BitterGrey (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I just realized we've both been reading the article wrong for a very long time. F&B doesn't define masochistic gynaephiles as "individuals who pretend they are children". In the section "Infantile or juvenile self-imagery in masochistic gynaephiles" on page 561 (first column, at bottom) it's talking about gynaephiles, who are masochistic, and these individuals who are both masochistic and gynaephiles are at the same time acting out sexual fantasies by pretending to be little boys or babies. In other words, Freund & Blanchard are discussing infantilists who also happen to be masochistic gynaephiles (or masochistic gynaephiles who also happen to be infantilists). So we were wrong in our interpretation of that section as a definition, but it doesn't matter since the paper is actually discussing a group of infantilists. The core use of the paper on parphilic infantilism is exactly the same, and it still beautifully illustrates how two groups (pedophiles and paraphilic infantilists) can be superficially similar in behaviour but completely different in motivation and etiology (as expressed on page 561, second column continued on page 562, "The above cases suggest a distinction between paedophiles with erotic imagery of themselves as children and masochistic gynaephiles with similar fantasies. This view is based on our analysis of the relationships between the infantile (or juvenile) self-imagery and the other elements of the total fantasy. With paedophiles, this imagery increases the subject's similarity to the sexual object (children). With masochistic gynaephiles, the same imagery increases the subject's difference from the sexual object (women), in particular, the difference between subject and object in power and control. This power differential, expressed in such fantasies by the imagined woman spanking or scolding the subject, is central to the masochistic arousal. A similar analysis can be applied to the fetish objects (usually nappies) used in masturbation by the two groups. With paedophiles, the fetish derives its power from its association with the sexual object, children. With masochistic gynaephiles,the fetish derives its power from association with the (fantasised) subject; it is an accoutrement to the role of the shamed, defenceless, punished little boy. In light of these differences, we believe that erotic fantasies of being a child probably have different aetiologies in the two groups."). All the uses remain the same, and Paul B's comment still applies. I've got to eat crow on that misinterpretation, but fortunately there's no changes required on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 03:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wish I had a dollar for all the times WLU argued bitterly and verbosely, only later to realize that he was wrong (eg [65][66][67][68][69]...). My point remains unchanged; that F&B is obscure at best and requires too much WP:SYNTH or WP:OR to be useful. WLU's concession to having read this article wrong after arguing about it for months is just further evidence that my position was right. The source WLU used to support infantilism _not being_ pedophilia is used by CB&B to support infantilism _being_ pedophilia - this should be a red flag to anyone. Back to the point that started all this: F&B chose not to use the term 'infantilism' or any established synonym, and it isn't our business to try to second-guess why. We simply shouldn't use it.BitterGrey (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Note the part where I say the page is still justified and doesn't need to change. Also note the part where Paul B says "Clearly F&B did not use that term, but equally clearly they had the phenomenon we now call "infantalism" in mind. That is specified in the later publication.". There's the independent input you wanted, and are now ignoring. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
A more important quote is where Paul refuted WLU's claim (which WLU has fought to have reflected in the article in multiple places): "WLU says that 'Autoerotic form of pedophilia' is not the same thing as 'pedophilia'. Well, yes it is. That's what 'a form of pedophilia' means."[70] Clearly, four of six diaper-related cases in F&B were grouped by F&B as pedophiles. F&B differentiated the masochists from the pedophiles with ETLEs. WLU's selective interpretation omits "That is specified in the later publication."[71] Presumably, this was CB&B:"...[Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." (pg 531). This quote would apply to the two diaper-related pedophiles that F&B described as having ETLEs. If F&B and CB&B continue to be cited on the subject of infantilism and pedophilia, the text must accurately reflect their exceptional claim that infantilism is pedophilia. BitterGrey (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
What does "autoerotic form of pedophilia" actually mean? If you were going to summarize this idea in any way except a direct quote, what would it look like? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Short answer: Any form of pedophilia is pedophilia.
According to CB&B, Blanchard believed infantilism to be a form of pedophilia. F&B doesn't use "infantilism" or any standard term, but four of six diaper-related cases are grouped as pedophiles (with the other two grouped as masochists). F&B and CB&B suggest that Blanchard claims infantilism is pedophilia. The Wikipedia article suggests that Blanchard claims infantilism is not pedophilia.
It is interesting to note that Fruend and Blanchard are collectively mentioned in the article a total of five times, even though the citations don't imply any more than the six diaper-related cases during their careers. Blanchard's position/claim is referred to in three sections, but is never accurately conveyed. BitterGrey (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
So you are saying Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree and Freund & Blanchard are saying all paraphilic infantilists desire children as sexual partners? That's an accurate summary of their theory? How do you think their position should be conveyed on the page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure about Barbaree and the late Freund, but according to Cantor, infantilism "is diagnosed as "paraphilia NOS (infantilism)" ... not pedophilia[72]. Blanchard's position might be his alone. (Oxford merely published a comment about Blanchard's interpretation, never implying that it had been adopted outside his lab.)
More than that, it appears to be based on only one case: Case 6. (Case 5 had no interest in undiapered infants, so he was probably miscategorized.) This explains the lack of support in academia, and why only Blanchard et al and Blanchard et al have been cited to support Blanchard's position. (Or, after Dec 6th, WLU's post-waffling reinterpretation put up to avoid the removal of Blanchard's exceptional claim during the previous RSN discussion[73][74].)
I agree with those RSN comments:"the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS." I'd add that it should be removed from all three places in the article.BitterGrey (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  1. I'm uninterested in what an editor said, I'm interested in what the sources say. What does "autoerotic form of pedophilia" actually mean?
  2. Re-analysis of the sources is original research. What distinction does Freund & Blanchard suggest between "Infantile or juvenile self-imagery in masochistic gynaephiles" and pedophiles?
  3. What do you think of these comments? [75], [76]?

In the past you have declined to answer such simple questions, I would assume it does not support your pre-existing conclusion and because the answers indicate that the sources are accurately summarized in their distinction between infantilists and pedophiles. I have little doubt that this practice will continue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, in the past WLU has badgered, ignoring my answers and multiple editors who disagree with him. These editors include James Cantor, the lead author of CB&B, who seems demoted to just "an editor" now that his comments get in the way of WLU's misrepresentation of F&B and CB&B.[77]
For WLU's latest question, the detailed answer is already here[78] and the short-short-short answer is already here[79]. I partially agree with WLU about F&B requiring wp:OR (or wp:SYNTH), but what he considers a reason to keep my position off the discussion pages, I consider to be a reason to remove his misrepresentation from three locations in the active article: F&B chose not to use the term infantilism or any established synonym.
WLU, if you honestly don't understand the sources, you shouldn't be edit-warring to cite them in multiple places. BitterGrey (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Freund & Blanchard's final three case studies discuss "masochistic gynaephiles who habitually imagine themselves as little boys or babies in sexual fantasies involving adult women" - in other words, masochistic gynaephiles who are also infantilists. Only the final set of case studies discuss infantilists. What does the comments section following this set of case studies say about pedophiles versus masochistic gynaephiles who have infantilist fantasies? What does "autoerotic form of pedophilia" mean within the theory of erotic target location errors? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone else paying attention? It seems clear that nothing I, James Cantor[80], or others can write is going to change WLU's battle lines. Now he's just asking the same questions over and over to distract from his mishandling of the sources. ( On that note, he claims "Only the final set of case studies discuss infantilists." This wp:OR is simply wrong. The first set includes case #5 among others: "When he wore nappies, he felt like a baby." )
WLU's usual tactic is to continue arguing until no sane person would ever read the discussion, and then claim the discussion as support in later linkspam. Unless someone else would like to comment, I'll end this by giving WLU the last word.BitterGrey (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

hopenothate.org.uk

[81] asserts that hopenothate.org.uk is an RS because "they're organised by Searchlight)" The problem I have is that the website does not make that claim. At all. In fact it appears to be a specific activist organization, and hence not a "reliable source" per Wikipedia rules. [82] appears to indicate that there is no association between the two, and that the head of "HnH" is no longer associated with Searchlight. As the source is not Searchlight, and there is no connection between the two, the RS nature of the site must be considered afresh - and I assert that it does not meet the requirements of WP:RS and, at most, can only be cited as to its own opinion, properly weighted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this refers to http://hopenothate.org.uk. The other address is parked by a domain squatter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we have any rule about "specific activist organizations" not being reliable. As a partisan source, it's opinions as well as contentious facts sourced to it should be attributed, and it should not be heavily relied upon for large portions of text. For straightforward factual information, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to treat it as a reliable source. Formerip (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It is used to state an opinion in Wikipedia's voice in the first section below the lede. Hope not Hate campaign has described EDL as the largest far-right threat in the UK. Which has been defended on the basis that HnH = Searchlight. If The Times made the statement, that is one thing, but HnH has a quite pronounced dog in the race, and should not have their opinion so stated as if it were substantially a fact. IMO. I find it well below major newspapers in having its opinions so promoted here. Collect (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Hope not Hate campaign has described EDL as the largest far-right threat in the UK is a classical case of a properly attributed opinion. The opinion is not stated in Wikipedia's voice. From a RS point of view, this is exactly how such a source should be handled. The only question is if the view is notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Whilst I suggest that The 'Hope not Hate' anti-fascism campaign has called the EDL the "largest rightwing threat in the UK today." is superior as it uses the opinion as expressed by that organization clearly delineated as such. I trust you see the difference herein. Collect (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
IMO, Collect that's basically fine although, on a styslistic note, Hope Not Hate should have no quote marks and a capital n for not. Formerip (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, per the group's own usage, neither not nor hope should be capitalised. RolandR (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hitsdailydouble.com

An IP recently added Hitsdailydouble.com to the Chris Brown discography article as a source for album sales. Is it reliable? Oz talk 07:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No. This was just discussed here: [[83]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources in List of scientists who believed in Biblical creation

I'm concerned about the sources cited in this article, almost all of which are from Creationist organisations and in this context I would have thought, not to be relied upon. TheLongTone (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say the sub-title of the article "...or who did not express any doubts on record" needs a serious looking at. If Albert Einstein did not actually say, "I doubt the theory of Creationism" would that mean he would be acceptable? Rumiton (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. Hipocrite (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup: a POV-pushing synthesis. Regardless of the merits of the sources (which seem questionable, where cited at all), it has no place in an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Youtube, again

I would like to understand what, if anything this video can be used for. It is not uploaded by the source. It is uploaded by someone who's about section says:

traveling the world fulfilled inspired by the message of Maharaji http://www.tprf.org

Since it wasn't uploaded by the producer of the footage (La Nuova TV it looks like), can it be used for *anything* other than saying this youtube video exists?

I also have questions about the RS-ness of www.lanuovatv.it (the original source I'm assuming) as well, as their website indicates no editorial oversight control or business credentials, which I think is necessary for a "news" channel, but that might be a question for another day. -- Maelefique(talk) 14:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It exists, but it's certainly not showing any kind of trace of being a reliable source; nor does its existence seem notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The Youtube video is definitely unreliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Slumz.boxden.com

Is Slumz.boxden.com reliable as a source for US album sales? Oz talk 20:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say No. There's no "about us," it's entirely anonymous, it looks like an anonymous blog/chat board and not a fact-checked or expert-run news source. You might be able to find a story copied onto that site, but you'd have to investigate the original source of the story to determine the reliability of the content. Zad68 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
If you can find where that particular album sales listing has been copied from, you might find it can be used if you cite the original source, but you cannot cite boxden for it. Zad68 (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Wade River Monsters

Congrtulations for finally changing his birth year from 1960 (wrong) to 1956 (right). However, the actual birthdate is still wrong. It is March 23 (right) not May 5 (wrong). This information can be verfied by Icon Film Productions, who are responsible for the making of the show "River Monsters".

Can you quote the precise source? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC).

Greater London and Ceremonial counties

I wanted to add some precision to claims to do with Greater London being called ceremonial county. Conspicuously not called so by any official websites such as [84]


The first thing to realise is that Greater London was explicitly not made a county although removing counties: London Government Act 1963 3 (1) (a) "no part of Greater London shall form part of any administrative county, county district or parish;"

views the schedule (appendix) as creating a county of London [85] because it defines it as "the counties for the purposes of this act"

However if you look at the order that follows on from the act: [86] Greater London is not constituted as a county.

The legal definition for the area can be confirmed from a later act from 2001 [87] Referring to "The Lordships Lieutentant"

The problem is that surprisingly strong POV issues arise from this - because it suggests there was usage of the word county for Greater London. Now the term Geographic county also redirects to this page and then there is the issue of Middlesex etc. There is little point going into the details butone example when a historically important area has no reference to the county it was in (and many still regard it to be in) i,e. Kingston [88] but states that is in the ceremonial county of Greater London.

The page claiming GL is a CC has been up since 2003 and still I cannot find any evidence to support an unambiguous claim that GL is a ceremonial county independent of wikipedia's claim.

Also being stopped from referring to Greater London as an area before admin body 1965 despite being used from before 1907 perhpas this is the clearest reference [89] The region is called "Greater London." Tetron76 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, "ceremonial county" is our own shorthand for "Counties and areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies in Great Britain", and we ourselves define the term as denoting areas that have a Lord Lieutenant. Well, it seems from your first external link above that Greater London has one, so by our own definition Greater London is a ceremonial county, but by the beautifully vague official terminology it isn't; it is, instead, one of those "areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies in Great Britain". The problem, then, is whether we should call it a ceremonial county, or whether we have to change our term because it is misleading. Are there off-wikipedia reliable lists headed "ceremonial county" in which it is included? If so, we can cite them and merely footnote the definition problem. If not, we ought to rephrase our term "ceremonial county" or exclude GL from the list.
[Added later: I think I am merely rephrasing your statement here. The real problem, maybe, is our need as an encyclopedia to have some geographical network into which to slot English places, and if not some incarnation of counties, then what? The problem with saying that a town is in a certain "Lieutenancy Area" is that one might struggle to make the fact appear notable.]
As for Kingston, it was in Surrey for about 1300 years, I guess, and is the seat of Surrey County Council right now. I don't see why one or both of those notable facts shouldn't be in the first paragraph :) Andrew Dalby 18:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Lengthy discussion at Talk:Greater London on this. One point to note here is the definition of "Counties and areas for the purposes of the lieutenancies in Great Britain" (its only "counties" for England and Wales and only "areas" for Scotland) so Greater London isn't an "area for the purposes of the lieutenancies in Great Britain".
The ceremonial county is the most practical geographic split for our purposes, which is why its used at WP:UKPLACE. London is a special case for article naming there (as "London" is a better disambiguator than "Greater London" for relevant articles).
As for Kingston, fully agree both those facts are worthy of inclusion early in its article (its current lead is pretty poor).
This ought to qualify as a reliable source.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Useful link. And thanks for the mention of WP:UKPLACE, Nilfanion. Andrew Dalby 09:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. "Most practical split" is not clear at all - there is the option of London Boroughs and counties or of administrative authorities.
As I have said on Talk Greater London: Uncited copy and pastes from wikipedia is not what most people call independent or reliable. It is from around this time i.e. compare CoE page 5: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ceremonial_counties_of_England&oldid=163319834#Definition
This highlights my real concerns about allowing terms to be created in areas where significant areas of the public are unsure without stating this fact.
WP:UKPLACE is not sensible as it would prevent the use of common name. If you ignore the fact that some regions ie Ashford, Surrey have 2 ceremonial counties neither is Ashford, Middlesex. They are unstable. This would mean that Winwick, Cheshire should now be renamed as Winwick, Cheshire East, Cheshire West and Chester [90] as the ceremonial county has been renamed. The places are often known as town, county - the question is in finding a sensible way of identifying the WP:COMMONNAME for the county or similar entity in the case of London. Ashford, Kent is not just a disambiguation it is what it is called in numerous sources. to its Surrey page as anyone who finds reference to it won't find it easily. Postal county is a phrase that appears about 20 times in google news archives and most of them are about USA. The problem is the page should be County (former postal).
I think following-on from various sources that it will be necessary to create the Geographic county too - although I was hoping to avoid this as there are about 5 different definitions of the term. The most useful single source to show wiki's weaknesses is the official Wales report [91] section 2.8 - 2.9 has high relevence.Tetron76 (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Midlesex is not a ceremonial county. See [[92]] for a formal list. Martinvl (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I never said it was, nor do I think it should be refered to one as it has never been described as one. ALthough, confirmed by 2.8 from above Welsh source:

The LGA 1888 did not abolish or alter the historic Counties themselves. The General Register Office's Census Report of 1891 carefully distinguished between what it dubbed the "Ancient or Geographical Counties" and the new "administrative counties". It made it clear that the two were distinct entities and that the former still existed. No subsequent Act has ever tried to alter or abolish the historic Counties; their continued existence has been consistently reaffirmed by the Government.

This is a point that is little understood - this is not an independence argument but if you lived in the area you would understand that knowing which side of the Thames a place is on is critical to Journey times. Government debate notice that the minister apologises.
Finally, Area is used because the 1997 Lieutenancy act refers to areas in the act. It doesn't make Aberdeen legally an area instead of a city.Tetron76 (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The above link of User:Martinvl cannot be accessed directly go via the home page it gives a list of the Lord Lieutents and gives London(Greater) and no Middlesex as already acknowledged.
Also from the same site http://www.royal.gov.uk/RoyalEventsandCeremonies/SwanUpping/SwanUpping.aspx:

Swan Upping is the annual census of the swan population on stretches of the Thames in the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire

Tetron76 (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
UKPLACE specifically uses ceremonial counties because they are more stable the other options. The administrative counties are unstable. Your example of Winwick, Cheshire is in the ceremonial county of Cheshire, but the administrative county has changed. The admin counties are also of lesser value as disambiguators - a reader is much more likely to know where Lancashire is than where Blackburn with Darwen is (and for the purposes of Entwistle, Lancashire, Lancashire suffices).
The historic counties were never static, so using them requires fixing a date (which is arbitrary). Why use the counties of 1884 instead of 1885 for instance? An article on the term "geographic county" would be a bad idea: Primarily because we already have it (Historic counties of England); it may be appropriate to turn the redirect geographic counties of England into a dab or redirect it at Counties of England.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The suggestion above of County (former postal) doesn't work. The village I used to live in was always in Gloucestershire, historically and for every current purpose, except that we had Wiltshire in our postal address. Neighbouring villages to the west and south were also in Gloucestershire, but had Bristol or Bath, not Gloucestershire, in their postal addresses. Bad luck. Andrew Dalby 09:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
No winwock cheshire has changed its ceremonial county from your definition of the term under the 2009 Amendment, I gave, changes the wording of column 1 of the table in the 1997 Lieutenancy act which is why it says it is not updated. (And UK law doesn't zero count)
I am not saying to use postal county - either - I am saying on a case by case basis an evaluation should be made as to the common name of county for that place if a disambiguation is needed.
What I am saying is that you should avoid the temptation to create terms for cartographical purposes and if it does so then it needs to state that this is what it is doing. The main flaw is that the word county is a polysemous word in usage and covers many areas but when someone states town, county this is not an address as part of a postal address unless it is given with a Road, etc. too.
Historic_counties_of_England#List_of_counties shows that there is significant blurring of the terms. As for suggesting a year to year change this requires Royal Charter and if you look at the Victoria County History at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/ it will give a better idea as to how counties changed.
All relevent county information should be given in the infobox - this shouldn't include made up ceremonial counties. You can give the administrative county (or unitary authority), former postal county, and historic county. 90.193.131.231 (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
You have misinterpreted the amendment to the definition of Cheshire in the Lieutenancies Act.
The 2009 amendment order to which you link states:
  • for “Cheshire” (against the entry “Cheshire” in the first column) substitute “Cheshire East, Cheshire West and Chester, and”[93]
Clearly the name of the area does not end in ", and"; the amendment is to the second column (which is situated "against" the entry for Cheshire in the first column).
In other words, for the list of administrative areas in the second column of the row which has "Cheshire" in the first column, leave its name unchanged but change the definition of its constituent parts from
  • [i] Cheshire [abolished council area], [ii] Halton and [iii] Warrington[94]
to
  • [i] Cheshire East [new council area], [ii] Cheshire West and Chester [new council area], and, [iii] Halton and [iv] Warrington (the superfluous "and," before "Halton" is presumably a minor drafting error).
So the Lieutenancy area or ceremonial county of Cheshire remained unchanged, but was redefined in terms of the new unitary authorities.
As for what should be in the lede or infobox: those are not appropriate places to go into detail about complex, subtle or obscure points; just ensure there is a link to ceremonial county (and possibly more detail in the body of the article), so that readers can find more detail if they want it. You can't include philosophical essays in infoboxes!
As I've said elsewhere, "Pluto is a minor planet" can be a true and accurate statement regardless of the view one takes on whether or not Pluto is a planet per se. "Ceremonial county" is a similarly convenient and established term.
And Greater London (excluding the City) is a county for lieutenancy purposes.[95]
— Richardguk (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I was wrong about cheshire above I had missed the first paragraph
But you are still missing the point that there is a geographic usage of county which exists separate
from the purpose of delivering mail any place in GL can be picked and you will find a news story giving its
postal county. Kingston-upon-Thames Surrey
Define county? Greater London is not a county and has never been regarded as a county. The ONS distinguish GL as a not a county both Geographically and administratively.
If you are just describing a ceremonial county as a Lordship Lieutenant and nothing more this is already covered: Lieutenancy area - Lord Lieutenant#Present day - Lists of lord lieutenancies
There are only 5 sources that would count as primary authorities for the information and none of which use the term ceremonial county:
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk
http://www.london.gov.uk
Greater London Lieutenancy
High Sheriff GL History
Official Monarchy web page
Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenants are the representatives of the Crown for each county in the United Kingdom.
However, this is coupled with the description of the GLL as London (Greater)
Greater London is divided differently from the other counties with far more deputies and mayors doing more ceremonial duties [96], [97]
Some other Lieutenancies still carry significant duty of Custos rotulorum [98]
In the few places it is mentioned by councils they distinguish GL from counties [99][100]
The Judiciary county is why the idea of ceremonial county overlaps the term geographical county. A boundary line could run through a smaller division and which administrative county was decided by the majority of the population living in one area. This would correspond to the High Sheriff at one time whose dutes used to be more than meeting a member of the royal family.
The term may commonly exist but your usage of the term is not established. The entire Geographical counties of Englandis based upon the single act of parliament which still distinguishes GL and a county if you look at the next schedule
[101]
Pluto is not a good analogy - it is in the dictionary for starters as a dwarf planet.
you have to ask what is meant by the column "county" and how GL fulfils it 1965-74 without a footnote.
  • But at least it doesn't matter what claims are being made as it is only on minor pages like:
England
Below the regional level, all of England is divided into 48 ceremonial counties...
cited with a source that doesn't support the information!
  • And the act which if more than 1000 people in GL had heard of the Lord Lieutenancy would have been stunned by the difference of having exactly the same person still in office to meet royals and introduce them to the mayor of the borough.With no references in the news and 2 academic papers mentioning it in passing is clearly an important part of the History of England deserving a paragraph unlike the unmentioned World Wars!
  • You may view it as convenient for the country to be fully divided into things called counties but it is not true.
This convenient term is not used in a dictionary - so not part of common language as a collocate
If it is such a convenient idea why is it not shown on official maps as ceremonial counties?
It might be convenient on you to claim on 500+ wikipedia pages that a place is in the ceremonial county of Greater London but it is still not true!
There has never been a news story calling GL a ceremonial county.
You are supporting distorting modern political history
and imposing a false geographic identity on areas.
When did Greater London become a cermonial county? - GLC - LGA 72 - LA 97 - Wikipedia calling it one in 2003?
Tetron76 (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
As discussed, since 1965, Greater London (excluding the City) has been a county for lieutenancy purposes;[102] treated as a county for shrieval purposes;[103] and not a county for administrative purposes. (In judicial geography, Greater London (including the City) been a single justice commission area since 2003[104] so now has its own custos rotulorum (keeper of the rolls).[105]) "Ceremonial county" is an unofficial but concise and unambiguous phrase, and emerged from previous wikiwars as the least-worst understood term for the area (whereas "geographic county" is a hopelessly ambiguous and unofficial term). Given that, what would you suggest to improve the lede? — Richardguk (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I will just chip in, as someone who was around when this whole parlava about English counties was debated AT LENGTH several years ago on Wikipedia... it was decided that the term "geographic" meant what people today regard as counties, so not historic and not the non-metropolitans (which include many entities which no one in their right mind would call a county, and which change frequently). Geographic counties are the ones used, not only on Wikipedia, but also by many organisations (including the boundary commission - take a look at their website.. eg: LGBCE East Midlands page) to describe geographically where things are in England. The ceremonial counties pretty much cover that function and have precise legal definition, cover all England, are largely based on historic counties, and importantly don't change often. Now, London is of course a grey area generally in terms of counties etc, but the use of ceremonial counties means we divide it into Greater London (minus the City) and the City. (The boundary commission interestingly stop using the ceremonials when it comes to London.. probably though because splitting it into the two ceremonials would be pretty pointless for the purposes of navigating their website.) If the proposal here is to use a different system on Wikipedia for London (ie not use the geographic/ceremonial counties rule as with the rest of England) then that's a possibility, but makes things more complicated. Not that the system of counties, etc, in the UK (don't look into Wales and its counties and their history if you are of a nervous disposition!) is simple, but we should try to keep things as straight-forward and uniform as possible for the sake of compiling an encyclopaedia. David (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado citizenship

I'm being accused of being unreasonable for rejecting several sources on the topic of Nelly Furtado's citizenship.

I don't think any of these meet our policies for reliable sourcing, but I'm posting it here to see if anyone thinks I'm missing something.—Kww(talk) 20:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

How did you determine that last.fm is a user-editiable wiki? TimidGuy (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Note the "edit" button on the biography page, and the wiki diff: http://www.last.fm/music/Nelly+Furtado/+wiki/diff?b=80&a=79 —Kww(talk) 10:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Since we all know that she is in fact Portuguese Canadian, the problem being that there is no reliable source.........why don't you state her as "Portuguese Canadian" and type "citation needed", next to it......can that be done? Because stating her as "canadian", just because there is no direct source.....doesn't make the article more accurate, in my opinion.Manas justice (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopaedia and we go by what reliable sources say, not by what "everyone knows". See this message from Jimbo Wales: There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason to see the sources cited as reliable - a wiki article, a blog which mentions Futardo in passing, and 'Onlineticketsshop.com'? Nope. Not remotely WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, her bio at The Canadian Encyclopedia says she was born in Victoria, BC, raised in a Portugese ethnic heritage and that her parents were from a small village in the Azores. It does not call her Portugese-Canadian. This BBC news piece on her marriage simply calls her Canadian and this BBC news piece says "born in British Columbia to Portuguese-Azorean parents". Follow the best sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that we may be trying to answer the wrong question here. Are we trying to decide whether sources state that Futardo holds dual Canadian-Portuguese citizenship, or that she has been described as Portuguese-Canadian? These are different things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The question here was "Are any of these sources reliable?". The question at Talk:Nelly Furtado is "Should she be described as Portuguese-Canadian in the lead sentence?", which I think is a different question.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It's all a bit moot anyway, because Ms Furtado has clearly and publicly denounced all citizenship by spending the last decade going round the world telling assembled groups of people that she's like a bird and she doesn't know where her home is. Formerip (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Be that as it may, she ain't going anywhere without a passport (presumably Canadian). ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not just "what everyone knows".....several members have stated that according to the laws of Portugal, children of Portuguese parents are immediately citizens of Portugal. Since Nelly's parents were both born in Portugal, Nelly is a citizen of Portugal, without any doubt, and we also have a video in which she says, "I'm Portuguese Canadian"....so is that counted as a reliable source?120.60.55.249 (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the situation goes well beyond what Kww described here, and notice that he decided to mention exactly what I argued to be the least important about this subject. The main issue here is that in the referred wikipedia text, Nelly Furtado´s Canadian citizenship was given for granted, which I don´t contest, based on the "ius soli" law principle, that predominates in the Americas. However, Portugal and most other European countries grant automatic citizenship based on "ius sanguinis". This means that the main principle to become a Canadian citizen, is to be born in Canada, and on the contrary, the main principle to become a Portuguese citizen, is to have Portuguese parents. Therefore, Nelly Furtado is both Canadian and Portuguese. Requests of a so called "proof" of her being a Portuguese citizen are just as absurd as asking for "proof" for her being a Canadian citizen, as she was granted both countries´ nationality after being born from Portuguese parents, in Canada. This can be checked at wikipedia itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_nationality_law Again, I repeat, the granting of Portuguese citizenship in Nelly Furtado´s case is AUTOMATIC according to Portuguese law. If you need more references on Portuguese law books stating the same as the wikipedia article, please just say so. Nothing more than this should be needed, as countries should be treated as equals by wikipedia, as should their nationality laws. However, if anything else was to be needed, I feel that an interview given by herself, in Portuguese, to a Brazilian TV, where she says "I am Canadian, but also Portuguese", and further ahead even adds "my heart and soul are Portuguese", should be a good enough aid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3n_ZA4r6Do But I say it once again, the main issue here is that she was granted Portuguese citizenship automatically, by birth, and that wikipedia should not privilege any country´s laws, or any person´s view of citizenship over another. She is a dual citizen of both Canada and Portugal. 194.79.73.25 (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Trying to deduce what her nationality or citizenship might be based on things we think we know about her or her parents, is a prime example of synthesis. We go by what reliable sources say, and unless and until we have such sources stating her citizenship, then we say nothing on the subject. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so in your view, why is she reported as Canadian, as there is absolutely no source in the text for it? Also, herself saying she is both Portuguese and Canadian while being interviewd by a TV does not constitute a source for you? If the very person saying she is Portuguese is not a source, may I ask what is? 194.79.73.25 (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Does she say that she is a Portuguese citizen? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
YouTube is not normally a reliable source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Beyond the usual youtube issues, the difficulty with using the video in this case is that one can't tell if she says "I'm Portuguese Canadian" or "I'm Portuguese–Canadian". Stick to the best, written, sources that are explicit on the subject. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Her exact words are "My parents are from the Azores. I was born in Canada, I am Canadian, but also Portuguese." She is clearly comparing her Canadian condition with her Portuguese condition. I would like to add that her parents being both Portuguese and born in Portugal is an undeniable fact, there are inumerous sources, and inumerous interviews of herself talking about it. There´s more than one where she also talks about how she always came to spend every single summer with her parents in the Azores, talking about her other Portuguese family members influencing her choice to do music, saying how she started singing in Portuguese far before than in English, etc. But for me, this is not the main point. People say that affirming she is Portuguese because her parents are Portuguese and that´s how citizenship is automatically granted under Portuguese law (and in most of Europe) is "deducing"... But for one to assume that she is Canadian because she was born in Canada, that is no longer "deducing"... For example, a person born in Portugal is not granted citizenship for being born in the country, but is automatically granted citizenship only if the parents are Portuguese, no matter where he or she is born. One should accept any concept of citizenship as long as it is in accordance to the law, and not admit a bias view that makes no argument against the "ius soli" follower countries, but demands "proof" for the "ius sanguinis" follower countries. It´s purely a matter of understanding what citizenship is, to see that she both Portuguese and Canadian. 194.79.73.25 (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's all very well, but this board is for discussing the reliability of sources. If there's an assertion you want to put into the article, and you have a source that supports it, name the source and we will discuss whether that source is reliable for that assertion. So far it seems that the YouTube video is not a reliable source at all -- that is, no matter what it says, it is not a source we can rely on. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

About her parents being Portuguese there are already reliable sources on the wikipedia text other than youtube. From there, to say that she is Portuguese, if a person is impartial, is exactly the same as saying she is Canadian because she was born in Canada. Same respect for both countries´ laws. No difference of any kind. 194.79.73.25 (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The stuff in this discussion about Portuguese citizenship is not correct. The Portuguese nationality act can be found here. Formerip (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The law as described in this English translation posted is close to accurate, even if this is not the last version. All that is needed for a person born from a Portuguese parent abroad (Nelly´s case) to be considered officially a full Portuguese citizen, is to either be registered by the parent, or for the person to declare himself or herself as Portuguese at any point in life. I don´t know about her being registered or not, but there are many interviews where she talks about herself as being Portuguese, written and in video. Unfortunately, there is no picture of her Portuguese ID, and obviously there will never be, and that seems like the only thing that would be admissible by some people here to prove it, as her own words are not. So, this discussion does seem like going on in circles... 194.79.73.25 (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think "declare" has a specific legal meaning here. She would have to have signed an affidavit. Obviously, you don't become Portuguese by shouting it out in the bath. Formerip (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
There is presumption of citizenship under these conditions by the Portuguese law. The letter of the text you mentioned is actually to make sure those who DON´T want to be Portuguese have an easy option. This is constantly happening with people born from Portuguese parents who were illegal in Canada at the time of their birth (and therefore have no Canadian citizenship according to Canadian law) and commit a crime in Canada. Even though they have no documents proving they are Portuguese, Canadian authorities deport them to Portugal, and they are automatically accepted, as Portuguese law establishes them as Portuguese regardless of registration. These "deportados" are actually a serious social problem in the Azores, as some speak no Portuguese at all, do not feel Portuguese, and so cannot socially integrate. It´s actually very sad. 194.79.73.25 (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Please find sources for what you are claiming. It seems to me obvious that no-one is automatically granted citizenship just because of the nationality of one of their parents. If it really were the case, then anyone who could identify a Portuguese relative, even if it was hundreds of years ago, would be automatically Portuguese, which would be absurd. Formerip (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
In the case of Portuguese law, it applies only to parents. So, first generation. A grandchild is not acceptable. I know that in Italy it goes for further generations though. This article´s story was in all TV´s here in Portugal, as the kids in this family, even though born in Canada, were not Canadians because of the parents being illegal. They were all accepted in Portugal and given a house. http://expresso.sapo.pt/canada-familia-deportada-chega-hoje-aos-acores=f697073 The Internet is filled with such cases, if you know how to read or listen to Portuguese. Youtube has several TV news on it. 194.79.73.25 (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
That's where what you are saying falls apart. If Portuguese citizenship is automatic to the children of ex-pats, then there is nothing to break the chain. If Furtado is Portuguese, then her children will be Portuguese. And then their children will be Portuguese. Etc. But, obviously, it isn't like that. If it applies only to first generation, then there must be some difference between those parents and Portuguese citizens. Formerip (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
If there are many interviews where she talks about herself as being Portuguese, then that should be good enough to describe her as such. There's no need to mention her citizenship. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
That's not a topic for this board as such, but no, that's not the convention. We don't mention ethnicities in the lead sentence, so, unless the source describes her as a Portuguese citizen, it doesn't get included in the lead sentence. Discussion of how the lead should be written should go in Talk:Nelly Furtado, though.—Kww(talk) 22:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of this board it to determine whether a source is reliable for some content. If it's against standard conventions to mention ethnicity in the lede, then you can feel free to omit this content. But taking a look at Michael Jackson and John Lennon, both featured articles, that doesn't seem to be the case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Note that Jackson is not described as "African American", but simply as "American" (and I think we all agree that we would have the sourcing to describe him as "African-American"). Lennon is "English", not any kind of hyphenate that he may be eligible for.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
"English" does not refer to nationality or citizenship, just as "Californian" doesn´t. The nationality and citizenship is "British". Lennon was a citizen of the United Kingdom. 194.79.73.25 (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
You're arguing over a hyphen? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
You cannot even start to imagine with how much strength he is arguing about it... 194.79.73.25 (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
No, the anonymous editor is trying to change "Canadian" to "Portuguese-Canadian", so we are arguing over 10 letters as well. "England" is a country, by the way: one of the countries inside the United Kingdom, and "English" is a nationality. There's a whole guideline devoted to sorting that particular mess out.—Kww(talk) 23:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
English is not a nationality, and you cannot find a single person in the whole World with an English passport. It is one of the four members of the United Kingdom. United Kingdom is the country under International Law definition, and the member of the United Nations. 194.79.73.25 (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
It can be a Nation under a sociological interpretation of the word, but no one has English citizenship, that does not exist.194.79.73.25 (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I would think so too, I can give you a few right away, but they are in Portuguese and on youtube, and that seems to be unacceptable. I already posted the one where she most clearly said it, comparing it with her being Canadian, and it was considered not to be admissible. I just found another where she says "I´m proud of being Portuguese", but again, youtube and Portuguese... I will really try to see if I can find the original TV links, as these are TV interviews... 194.79.73.25 (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Kww how many people who are a citizen of a country do you know that say that they are a "whatever" CITIZEN at any given time? Do you think anyone normal would ever talk about her nationality like that? When people ask about your nationality, do you add CITIZEN to the end of the sentence? Do you really think that makes any sense? And just like you said, where does she say she is a Canadian citizen? All I have seen so far were sources saying she was Canadian, not a citizen, right? 194.79.73.25 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If it is not a matter of being bias, and if it is not a matter of discriminating upon nationality, then a reliable source stating that she is a Canadian CITIZEN has to be added for such statement to be made as well. So, no nationality of any kind should be used for Nelly Furtado until a source that specifies she is a CITIZEN of any country according to the specifications indicated here is made. Can anyone impartially object against this? Same principles and justice for all. 194.79.73.25 (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


Being Canadian would get mentioned if it were solely her country of residence, so she's "Canadian" if she's a Canadian citizen, and she's "Canadian" if she's a Canadian resident. No problem there: we have many sources that indicate that she lives in Canada. Portuguese would only get mentioned if it's her citizenship or highly relevant to her notability. She would still be notable if she wasn't Portuguese, and we have no reliable source that she's a citizen. BTW, if people ask me, I tell them that I'm Dutch, Irish, and Welsh, but I've never been a citizen of any of those countries: it's merely my ethnic background.—Kww(talk) 23:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
So you are saying that Portuguese nationality law and her own words and statements don´t matter for anything, but if she was to move to Zambia and live there, and you couldn´t find a source specifically saying she was a Canadian or a Portuguese citizen, then you would accept her as being Zambian just because she was there? Is that truly what you are saying? Do you really believe in that? 194.79.73.25 (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
There's no dispute as to whether she's Canadian, is there? Formerip (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of. If the way to resolve the urge to describe her as "Portuguese" is to stop describing her as "Canadian" as well, I could support that. Ethnicity is one of the most trivial elements of a person's description, and the whole reason we leave them out of leads is to forestall nationalistic arguments to include them.—Kww(talk) 23:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that would make her Zambian in my eyes. I expect that there would be considerable discussion about that one, though.—Kww(talk) 23:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
It is obvious that a mere resident of a country cannot be considered a citizen of that country. I can´t even see what is there to argue. I don´t dispute that she is Canadian, I dispute that the requirements to prove a specific nationality cannot be more demanding than the ones to prove any different one. That´s discrimination. It has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity. If you come to Europe and you go to The Netherlands, and see the variety of people there and talk to the people, they would laugh of you considering being Dutch as "ethnic". People in Portugal with American ancestors are "ethnically" Americans then? Can you please explain to me exactly what ethnicity refers to an American? 194.79.73.25 (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems pretty WP:LAME. Please read over the battle over Chopin:

"Was Chopin Polish, French, Polish–French, or French–Polish? For years, there has been a low level (and at times high intensity) conflict about which country can claim Chopin as its son. Or was it Szopen? The observer learns a lot about the Napoleonic code, about the nuances of "citizenship," "nationality," and "ethnicity." Students of law can argue the finer points of jus sanguinis and jus soli. The use of "Polish born" is branded as a racist slur. There is spirited debate about whether the citing of a passage of law is considered original research, tantamount to "dropping Mentos into a bottle of Pepsi to see if it will explode." Can you emigrate from a country of which you are not a citizen? Can you receive citizenship if you already have it? The possibilities for intensive study are endless. Celebrity witnesses such as Obama, Churchill, Sean Taro Ono Lennon and Dr. Seuss are pressed into making appearances. Collateral damage even reaches WP:Lame, where the Chopin entry is removed because of an alleged lack of lameness. And then there are the trolls. Even Chopin's remains are divided. The body rests in Paris, the heart in Warsaw." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Eeheheheh :) And yet, even though Chopin did not have two French parents, and was actually Polish, this at a time when the concept of citizenship wasn´t adequately defined by nearly any country as it is now, they still managed to include a "French-Polish" reference right in the first paragraph. Does it seem that unreasonable to put Portuguese Canadian on Nelly Furtado? :) 194.79.73.25 (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Are y'all just doing this to make everyone over at the Prem Rawat article feel a little less silly about the things we are argue about? :) -- Maelefique(talk) 00:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

:) I just don´t understand why it is so bad to admit she is Portuguese. I never heard of specifically having to find a sentence saying that someone is a citizen of a specific country, instead of just assuming the nationality from the person´s own words and country´s law. But apparently, if one is Portuguese and born outside Portugal, your own word is not good enough unless you specifically use the terminology CITIZEN to refer to yourself. On the opposite, just living in Canada is good enough proof to be considered Canadian. Go figure... :) 194.79.73.25 (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
No one should be talking about "admitting" or "denying" anything. The reason that the ethnicity isn't included in the lead is precisely this kind of nonsensical argument, between whether someone is "Portuguese-Canadian" or "Canadian-Portuguese" or "IberoCanuck" or any kind of combination. Current nationality in the lead sentence, complete description of ancestry and background in the body of the article. By having a simple principle applied uniformly across all articles, it makes life less contentious overall. Occasionally we get an editor like 194.79.73.25 that views our policies and guidelines as having some kind of sinister motivation, but it seriously is intended to reduce conflict, not increase it. If there was some reason to deny her Portuguese ancestry, it wouldn't get mentioned multiple times in the article. Like I said, I'd be willing to remove "Canadian" from the lead sentence if it would resolve this. The consensus for literally years has been that our policies and guidelines result in describing her as "Canadian", but if that has suddenly come into doubt, I wouldn't argue for keeping it.—Kww(talk) 00:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Why do you keep on talking about ethnicity? This is not a matter of ethnicity, for the 89th time... Ethnicity, ethnicity, ethnicity... Do you even bother to read what others write? Many people have more than one citizenship, what part of this is so difficult for you to understand? Look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship . For people who have more than one citizenship, the criteria to prove any of the citizenships should be the same. No country discriminations. That´s all! 194.79.73.25 (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I keep writing "ethnicity" because that is all we have sourced for "Portuguese". No one finds any of your sources that claim citizenship to be reliable. Even if we accept that we could examine Portuguese law and draw a conclusion, we would then need a source that her parents had been serving the Portuguese state, that her birth had been registered in the Portuguese civil registry, or that she had declared a desire to have Portuguese citizenship. You can't provide any of those things. Until you can, it's an "ethnicity". That's not somehow denigrating Portugal, it's being consistent in our treatment of ethnicities and nationalities.—Kww(talk) 00:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
You need the exact same kind of evidence, but in accordance with Canadian law, to prove she is Canadian. And yet, even no such proof exists either, you are willing to accept her as Canadian on grounds as ambiguous and vague as "because she lives and works there". Where´s the consistency on reliability or sources? 194.79.73.25 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
194.79.73.25, the Canadian nationality of the subject is not contentious, so no further sourcing is required for that. The claimed Portuguese citizenship is contentious, so it requires a source. I think that's as simple as it can be made. Formerip (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand, and agree that she is Canadian. What I am saying is that for people with multiple citizenship, it should not be the easiest thing in the World to call her one thing (in this case, Canadian), based on no proof of any kind (at a certain point people were saying things such as that if she lives and works in Canada, then Canadian she is), while at the same time demand for proof of the second or third nationality with a degree of specificity far beyond reasonable. If you don´t treat all likely citizenships as equals when demanding for proof, then you have to consider all contentious as well, if you are to be impartial. If she says she is both Portuguese and Canadian, she says she´s proud of being Portuguese, she speaks Portuguese, and furthermore Portuguese law establishes that a person like her has theoretical Portuguese citizenship, you have to admit that, contentious or not, at this point we actually have more "proof" that she´s Portuguese than that she´s Canadian, or not? :) 194.79.73.25 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
She's not described as Canadian on the basis of no proof of any kind, though, is she? She was born in Canada and has lived all her life in Canada. That makes her indisputably Canadian. We are not obliged to treat it as contentious just for fun. On the other hand, she has never lived in Portugal, but you claim she is Portuguese because her parents are Portuguese. That's disputable and, in fact it is disputed. So, it's perfectly fair and rational to demand further evidence that she is Portuguese and no further evidence that she is Canadian. Formerip (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the second part of what you mentioned is not disputed, her parents are Portuguese and born in Portugal, no one contested that. And since Portuguese law establishes having Portuguese parents as the main principle to attribute nationality, and Canadian law establishes place of birth as the main principle to attribute nationality (with few exceptions, for both countries), we are actually debating exactly the same thing. Can we at least agree that requesting for a formal statement where the words "Portuguese CITIZEN" are specifically mandatory is way too demanding and unreasonable, as obviously no one who is naturally giving an interview or talking about its own nationality would say "yes, I am a Portuguese citizen" or "yes, I am Canadian citizen", but simply "I am Portuguese" or "I am Canadian"? I truly think this is a quite fair ground for a minimum degree of agreement on the matter... 194.79.73.25 (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
We just need evidence that proves that she is a Portuguese citizen, but we only have evidence that proves she might be. Formerip (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so on top of all the proof that she might be, I believe the following link should be considered as well, and I haven´t seen anyone other than Kww giving an opinion about it: http://www.spiritartists.com/nelly-furtado.html . It´s of a company that directly works with Nelly Furtado´s booking agent. It specifically states that she has Portuguese citizenship. I saw Kww claiming that it was too similar to other sources that could be edited by anyone, but I think that would be just the quite logical situation to expect if this was to be the original source for the other ones. I can see no indication on it that shows that the information is not reliable, can you? They have Nelly Furtado on their list of artists available for special events and private parties, they are professional agents, it would not make much sense for one to assume both that they are wrong and that Nelly or someone on her staff haven´t read it previously. 194.79.73.25 (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Journal of Nuclear Physics

Resolved

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Nuclear Physics and Energy Catalyzer, the misleadingly titled "Journal of Nuclear Physics" is actually a self-published blog about a purported cold fusion device. However, Masud Ahmad, Fayyazuddin, and Samar Mubarak Mand contain citations to Journal of Nuclear Physics as if it was a legitimate scientific journal. This raises the following questions:

Is there more than one thing called "Journal of Nuclear Physics"?

Should the references to JoNP on the Ahmad/Fayyazuddin/Mand pages be labeled as being from a blog as we do on the Energy Catalyzer page? Deleted? Left as is?

Is there a central place where we keep a list of sources that are known to be unreliable? Should there be? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a Journal of Nuclear and Radiation Physics(JNRP), I assume the sources you are speaking of are not this one? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
There is/was apparently a Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics. All three of those scientists are Pakistani. Perhaps there's a non-English journal in Pakistan with that name? Until you know for sure, leave it as is. No, I don't believe we have a list of unreliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI - There is no entry for Journal of Nuclear Physics at List of physics journals#Nuclear Physics. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Thomson Reuters has only four entries in its journal database starting with "Journal of nuclear":
  1. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY
  2. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS
  3. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
  4. JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Taking into account that the data base contains an exhaustive list of all peer-reviewed scientific journals, we can safely conclude that Journal of Nuclear Physics is a garbage source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
That was never in question. The question is whether the references in the three BLPs of Pakistani scientists listed above are the same garbage source. --Guy Macon (talk)
I think this is a reference to a 'Journal of Nuclear Physics' produced by the Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology (PINSTECH), judging by the citations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you are correct. I raised the question at Talk:Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology#PINSTECH Journal of Nuclear Physics? in the hope of double checking that we have the correct spelling. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, I do not understand the problem. Thus, ISI Web of science search gives the following citation report for Fayyazuddin:
  • Number of publications: 131.
  • Sum of Times Cited without self-citations: 1557
  • The most cited article (574 citations): ALGEBRA OF CURRENT COMPONENTS AND DECAY WIDTHS OF RHO AND K MESONS Author(s): RIAZUDDI.; FAYYAZUD. PHYSICAL REVIEW Volume: 147 Issue: 4 Pages: 1071-& DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.147.1071 Published: 1966 (judging by the co-author's name, and by the article's subject, FAYYAZUD and Fayyazuddin are the same person).
In connection to that, taking into account so decent list of publications, do you need to focus on one particular publication? (If you need a full list of articles authored by Fayyazuddin, I can provide it. Believe me, it is really impressive). The same can be said about other two physicists (although I am not sure I was able to correctly identify last and first names)--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
You keep answering questions I didn't ask and missing the one I did ask. Please read the following carefully. We say Fayyazuddin published a paper in "Journal of Nuclear Physics." I am questioning whether a "Journal of Nuclear Physics" that Fayyazuddin published in exists. I am not saying that Fayyazuddin didn't publish somewhere or that he isn't a scientist or that wherever he did publish wasn't a peer-reviewed journal. I just think we got the name of the publication wrong on that citation. We also say Masud Ahmad published a paper in "journal of Nuclear physics, PINSTECH". I am questioning whether "journal of Nuclear physics, PINSTECH" exists. Again, Masud Ahmad is a scientist and the paper got published somewhere. That isn't the question. If it helps, we do know that a cold fusion blog exists at www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com, and that it is not where either of the above-mentioned scientists published their papers. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
It looks as if each of those articles was published in Nuclear Physics A or Nuclear Physics B (which are respected publications) but just were poorly cited in the wp articles. It took some digging with google scholar, as the titles were malformed in each case. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I just checked and all the issues I had have been fixed. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

BostonHitman.com

I would like some opinions here as to whether BostonHitman.com can be considered a reliable source. It is being used in the The Friends of Eddie Coyle article to source the claim that actor Robert Mitchum met with members of the Boston underworld while researching his role in the film. This seems like a very bold claim to me, and one that would require a very good source to support it. The question, then, is whether this website can be considered such a source. I have my doubts, but would like to hear what other editors think. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the website of a book by Howie Carr. Amazon says "Howie Carr is a columnist for the Boston Herald and author of The Brothers Bulger, which spent 11 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list, and Hitman: The Untold Story of Johnny Martorano: Whitey Bulger’s Enforcer and the Most Feared Gangster in the Underworld. He also hosts a daily four-hour radio talk show syndicated throughout New England. In 1985, Carr won a National Magazine Award, and in 2008 he was elected to the National Radio Hall of Fame in Chicago. Carr lives in suburban Boston with his wife and their three daughters." Its publisher is a mainstream publisher. So I'd say yes. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, all of that goes a long way toward indicating his notability. But, can it be used to source the specific claim it is currently being used to source? Even if he is notable, that is no proof his work, specifically this website, can back up the claim. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 23:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

biblocality.com

Is this source, [106] reliable for this claim "Troy Brooks stated Jesus Christ would return on this day (Tisha B'Av), with the 7 year Tribulation to precede from Feast of Trumpets Sept. 14, 2015 to Aug. 7, 2022." on this article List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events?

The debated change can be viewed here: [107] Freikorp (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No, there's no indication of editorial oversight. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why the source supports the assertion at all. It's an anonymous poster reporting what they claim a Rabbi once said. Neither of these appears to be Troy Brooks. As an open forum, the posting is a self-published source and usable only for reporting or quoting what the poster said as their own opinion, assuming we can relate the poster to a real person by some reliable means. But currently, no, not at all. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is Troy Brooks who said this not some Rabbi. Troy is the first person on the planet to declare the Tribulation from Sept. 14, 2015 Feast of Trumpets (first rapture according to readiness this day) to Tisha B'Av Aug. 7, 2022 (Jesus steps down this day) for a total of 2,520 days. Troy owns biblocality.com. Mark Biltz has nothing to do with this timeline. Mark is thinking of other stuff unrelated and not seeing the Tetrad comes before the Tribulation. Rev. 6.12 occurs before the first trumpet of the Tribulation (8.7). Troy believes in Partial Rapture. Mark Biltz doesn't. First rapture is "before the throne" (7.9) before the first trumpet and it is according to readiness (Luke 21.36, Rev. 3.10).

Is the Book of Mormon Pronunciation Guide a reliable source for non-Mormon names?

The source is at [108], an appendix to the Book of Mormon. Who wrote this and where isn't clear. See for instance this edit at Dan, at Jordan[109] and Carchemish[110]. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It may well be reliable as a guide to how that church believes such names are or ought to be pronounced in their particular religious context. It does not appear to be a scholarly work, so not a reliable source for current academic consensus on how these names are or might have been pronounced in a historical context. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it is a reliable source, since there is no revealed expertise behind it that I can see. Better to use a mainstream dictionary. Zerotalk 07:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I've now heard from the editor adding this and they agreed not to use it again. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey, Robin

The Decline of Nair Dominance: Society and Politics in Travancore 1847–1908. Sussex University Press.(1994) by Jeffrey, Robin (ISBN 0856210544)

Is this book a reliable one on the concerned subject? I think the book is not available online. Can such a book be considered reliable?. -InarZan (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the author is Emeritus Professor at the Australian National University and La Trobe University, and Visiting Research Professor at the National University of Singapore's Institute of South Asian Studies.[111] The book is published by the University of Sussex Press, where the author studied for his PhD in Indian history. This looks to me like an eminently reliable source on this subject. RolandR (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Sources do not have to be online! Cusop Dingle (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Nor for that matter do they have to be in English. Martinvl (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Other language sources

Are other language sources acceptable? For example, are Malayalam language sources acceptable in articles related to Kerala? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Please sign your contributions.

See: WP:Reliable sources/Cost Fifelfoo (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Lettera 43

Andrea Lehotská (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are a number of assertions about Lehotská's accomplishments in this article that are sourced to an Italian online periodical called Lettera 43 or L43. I'm not Italian and not familiar with Italian sources. Each of the citations in the Lehotská article point to a picture in a slide show with a blurb, and the material in our article is "supported" by that blurb. The very look of each of these pages makes me think unreliable, but I can't tell what kind of fact-checking is done by L43 generally and, more specifically, what kind of fact-checking is done in this particular section of its website, which they happily call "Gossip".

Can we use these citations for this material?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This article (European Journalism Observatory - "In Italy the growing supply and quality of information online") suggests it is in the "superblog" category, a la Huffington Post and Daily Beast. It doesn't really comment on quality though. I'm pretty wary of any "gossip" column that doesn't give a named author. The Interior (Talk) 16:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"Milan Babík. Nazism as a Secular Religion. History and Theory"

Vol. 45, No. 3 (Oct., 2006), pp. 375-396 is given as the source for a claim:

Simultaneously, the Nazis integrated to Nazism the community elements of Lutheranism, from its organic pagan past

The precis does not seem to make the claim, and the source is not available to me - can anyone verify that this is a proper claim as sourced? 22 pages seems a bit much to wade through if the text is as convoluted as the abstract. Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've read the introduction and text searched for "community" and "Lutherianism" and "Lutherian"—I don't think the claim is supportable from this text. The text certainly argues that Nazis integrated protestant features, but there is no discussion of "organic paganism" at all in the text. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The quote connecting Lutheranism and Nazism has been provided on the article's talk page. Regarding paganism, how about this fragment form the same source?
"Steigmann-Gall clearly recognizes that not all Nazis were positive Christians and that the NSDAP contained a second principal current of religious thought: paganism, spearheaded by Alfred Rosenberg and including other notable figures such as Himmler. In this case the attempt at supplanting Christianity with an ersatz religion, marking a return to pre-Christian Nordic myths such as Wotan, was undeniable. Unlike positive Christians, who saw the Protestant clergy as a vital ally if only it would reform itself in compliance with a Nazi ideology that embodied the true message of Christ and Luther, for paganists even the established Protestantism was too "Romanized" and hence had to be abandoned."
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The source may support another claim in this passage, but not the claim indicated above. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that part of the problem here is the "its" in the proposed text. Is that a 'pagan past' of Nazism, or of Lutheranism? Not that it matters much, in that the 'paganism' evoked by the Nazis seems to have been cobbled together out of thin air, rather than having any objective grounding in pre-Christian cultures. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of Feher for dating start of Messianic Judaism

The Messianic Judaism article cites Shoshanah Feher's "Passing over Easter: Constructing the Boundaries of Messianic Judaism, Rowman Altamira" (1998, ISBN 978-0-7619-8953-0, p. 140) as positive proof that the movement began in the 1960s. The quote in fact is an off-hand undocumented assumption in the closing pages of the book ("This interest in developing a Jewish ethnic identity may not be surprising when we consider the 1960s, when Messianic Judaism arose.") Such as weak source should not be accepted as an authoritative source for the purpose it's being used.--DeknMike (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  • AltaMira is an academic press with relevant field expertise. An offhand reference to dating, in a book specifically about Messianic Judaism, in an academic press work, seems good to me. Can you explain your reasoning? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
There are obviously multitudes of sources on this topic. what are the dates named by the preponderance of sources? is Feher a notable outlier? have others commented on Feher's date? Has he responded? -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
To help along this discussion, I offer the following corroborating information:
  • Dr. Shoshanah Feher, who received her Ph.D. in sociology from UCSB in 1995, gives the 1960s as "when Messianic Judaism arose."
  • Dr. J. Gordon Melton, who received his Ph.D. in the History and Literature of Religions from Northwestern University in 1975, who is currently a research specialist in religion and New Religious Movements with the Department of Religious Studies at UCSB, who is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Baylor University's Institute for Studies of Religion, who is the second most prolific contributor to the Encyclopædia Britannica, and who authored The Encyclopedia of American Religions, says "Messianic Judaism ... emerged in the last half of the 20th century."
  • Dr. Yaakov S. Ariel, Ph.D., Professor of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill says "The Rise of Messianic Judaism" was in "the early and mid-1970s"
  • Dr. James R. Lewis, who received his Ph.D. in Religious Studies from the University of Wales, says "[t]he origins of Messianic Judaism date to the 1960s".
  • Jewish author Dan Cohn-Sherbok gives "the 1970s".
  • Dr. Bülent Şenay, who recieved his Ph.D. in religious studies from Lancaster (UK) University, says the "group emerged in the 1960s."
I am interested to review any more responses on this. Thanks... Zad68 (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Zad68's arguement is that since other Jewish writers began writing about the 'emergence' of Messianic Judaism in the 60s, then Feher's unsourced comment must mean it began in the 60s. I acknowlege the book's value as a sociological study about the people in one Messianic Jewish congregation and the practices of the movement in general. However, this book does not qualify as a reliable source on the historicity of the movement writ large, but only the beliefs of the people in that congregation. Confusing the discussion with other seemingly related references (only the ones that support his POV, while discounting sources that say otherwise) is a further attempt to avert a determination on the matter at hand.--DeknMike (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Please do not presume to say what my argument is. Feher gives the 1960s as "when Messianic Judaism arose," the article says it "arose in the 1960s and 70s." TheRedPenOfDoom specifically asked: "what are the dates named by the preponderance of sources? is Feher a notable outlier?" and I have provided 5 well-credentialed other sources that corroborate what Feher says. It is very puzzling why you have an issue with this. Zad68 (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I know it puzzles you, which is why I asked for outside readings on the validity of the source. While it may agree with other sources, you seem treat it as a primary reference, even though it would fail as a valid source in most any scholarly setting. You've said your piece quite forcefully on the article talk page. Please let others respond. I asked in good faith. Please have the courtesy to not always take offense when I question your conclusions.--DeknMike (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Feher is not a primary source, but rather is a reliable secondary source, and nobody (especially not me) is trying to argue Feher is "primary." Exactly one sentence from Feher is used in the article in the two places where the article says: "Messianic Judaism [...] arose in the 1960s and 70s." In both of those places, four other Ph.D.'s (plus Cohn-Sherbok) with directly relevant academic credentials in religious studies are cited alongside Feher and say the same thing Feher does, give or take a decade. I perhaps agree with you that of the list, the Feher cite might be the weakest one, but as Fifelfoo pointed out above here, "An offhand reference to dating, in a book specifically about Messianic Judaism, in an academic press work, seems good to me" so even the weakest cite in the list is still strong enough to stay. What exactly is your goal here, to get Feher removed from the list of 7 supporting cites for "Messianic Judaism arose in the 1960s and 70s" and cut the list down to 6? Zad68 (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Again with putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it was a primary source by Wiki standards, I only claimed it was YOUR primary source. This notice, however is whether Fehrer can stand on its own as a reliable source for justifying the date claim. If your justification is that it says the same thing as other sources, and are claiming the other sources as sufficient justification for your date claim, use them. Please stay on topic.--DeknMike (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
You claimed I am using Feher as a "primary reference", which I mistook to mean primary source. My apologies. However, you are mistaken in your claim that I "seem treat it as a primary reference." I did not add Feher as a reference to the article, Jayjg did on 05:49, 24 October 2010 with this edit. Jayjg then defended its use with the edits here and here. Brewcrewer did likewise here and here. Re your comment: "If your justification is that it says the same thing as other sources, and are claiming the other sources as sufficient justification for your date claim, use them.": Already been done, haven't you read the article? Feher was the only referenced cite supporting the statement, until six more high-quality reliable secondary sources were added supporting the same thing Feher said. Let's not forget that, before I posted anything here, Fifelfoo above--an independent outsider to this conversation--said, "An offhand reference to dating, in a book specifically about Messianic Judaism, in an academic press work, seems good to me." There probably isn't a single statement anywhere else on Wikipedia that is backed up with better sourcing than the statement Messianic Judaism "arose in the 1960s and 70s." Surely we can now close the issue of whether Feher can be used as a reliable source for the statement with a resounding Yes. Zad68 (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't comment on who added the reference, but in this thread you staunchly defended it, which to my mind means you are treating it as a majority reference. However, since you now claim it is a minor reference, I don't see why you continue with the logical fallacy that it's important because it agrees with other references. It still leaves the question open as to whether Feher as a stand-alone reference is valid for the claim you say it makes. If the other references are indeed 'high quality' and Feher only supports their scholarly conclusion, then they should be enough, and the reference to Feher for the disputed offhand statement can safely be removed without changing the article.--DeknMike (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
You're saying I am making the informal logical fallacy of ignoratio elenchi, otherwise known as "missing the point"? Let's see if I understand your point. Your contention seems to be that Feher should not be used to support "MJism ... arose in the 1960s" because Feher is weak and the Feher citation isn't made stronger by the fact that multiple independent reliable secondary sources agree with her? Contrary to what you seem to be saying, Wikipedia gives added weight for the support supplied for a statement in an article when the support is from multiple, independent reliable secondary sources that agree with each other--exactly what I have provided here. Because you are making fundamental mistakes like this, it's not surprising you are finding editing Wikipedia frustrating. I guess you are still ignoring what Fifelfoo and The Red Pen of Doom wrote, probably because what they wrote supports my position exactly. By the way, your claim of ignoratio elenchi actually concedes that I could have a valid argument, but you feel it does not address the issue; however, I've demonstrated that my argument is directly on-point here. When you carelessly make incorrect reference to Latin phrases and misuse debate terms like that, DeknMike, like you did here, you actually end up making your own argument sound weaker.
Point by point:
  • DeknMike: "you now claim it is a minor reference" Zad68: I didn't. Where did you get the phrase "minor reference"? Not from me. Look up at my edit from 15:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC), the one where I list six reliable secondary sources. They are all good sources, any one of them independently could be used to date the movement as recent.
  • DeknMike: "the question open as to whether Feher as a stand-alone reference is valid for the claim you say it makes." Zad68: I "claim it makes"? Feher said "consider the 1960s, when Messianic Judaism arose"; the article says MJism "arose in the 1960s." Are you suggesting the article somehow misrepresents Feher? I'd like to see you try to make that case! Anyway, Feher is a reliable source, independently by herself. Fifelfoo agrees. The Red Pen of Doom asked the relevant questions "what are the dates named by the preponderance of sources? is Feher a notable outlier?" The multiple independent reliable sources I provided show that the preponderance of reliable sources are in agreement, and Feher is not an outlier.
  • DeknMike: "If the other references are indeed 'high quality' and Feher only supports their scholarly conclusion, then they should be enough, and the reference to Feher for the disputed offhand statement can safely be removed without changing the article." Zad68: Agreed, true! You could remove the Dr. Feher cite and the support for the article statement would stand strong with the remaining cites from Dr. Melton, Dr. Ariel, Dr. Lewis, Cohn-Sherbok and Dr. Şenay. However, because Feher is a reliable source and agrees with those other reliable sources, there's no reason to remove the Feher cite whatsoever.
At this point I can't imagine any more words will be productive here. I'll just react to edits made to the article as needed. Zad68 (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that no more of your words will be productive. (Note that ignoratio elenchi can also mean "Irrelevant conclusion: diverting attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly.) Your circular arguments make no sense: "because Feher is a reliable source and agrees with those other reliable sources, we must therefore assume it is a reliable source." The whole point of seeking OUTSIDE discussion is to have a 3rd party look at the source and affirm its historical sourcing methodology. Neither Fifelfoo nor The Red Pen of Doom 'agreed' with the statement; they started a reasoned discussion, and you piled on with backstory to obscure the question. You must think that saying the same thing over and over will make it true (argumentum ad nauseam and argumentum verbosum). --DeknMike (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Lets get back to the discussion at hand, that the scholarly work written by Feher (about the practices of a particular Messianic congregation) had nothing to do with dating, but rather it was an off-hand, unresearched assumption that would hold no weight on its own, cherry-picked for convenience, and since other sources seem to confirm the same conclusion, removing the reference to Feher at this point in the article would be inconsequential.--DeknMike (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

newswire.co.nz

Can this site be used as a reliable source for a minor and non-controversial information about a New Zealand building? It is a news site run by journalism students of Whitireia New Zealand. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 05:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you describe in more detail, what the minor and non-controversial information would be? A source can be reliable for some information but unreliable for other information. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
It is this article. The bit about Bon Ton (para 5 to 9 of the main body of the article, "Bon Ton works hard to distance itself ...... sometimes 12 hours or longer – is the norm.") for the article Bon Ton (brothel). --SupernovaExplosion Talk 00:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
While I would have a hard time justifying that site for controversial information due to it's lack of editorial oversight policy (at least that I could find), it does give you a way to contact the author, apparently a student of Journalism, and a quick review of her other articles looks to be fairly legit as a reporter. If possible, I would find that information directly from the BBC video mentioned, but I think it's ok, unless it's questioned by another editor, and well, then it becomes de facto controversial, and that's a lot tougher to justify. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 14:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --SupernovaExplosion Talk 14:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Dvorak keyboard

Is Randy Cassingham a reliable source for this? He doesn't seem to have any relevant expertise. 86.** IP (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about http://www.dvorak-keyboard.com/? I looked at that... He doesn't cite any of his own sources and although it looks like he's a fan, I would look for a more authoritative source than that page for general information about the history, design philosophy, adoption rate, etc. of the Dvorak keyboard. Zad68 (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I was lookign at ISBN 0935309101 - that source is even worse. 86.** IP (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe that this is the book in question.[112] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"Freelance Communications", the publisher of that, has very few books not by Cassingham [113] and seems to be moving around a lot - Pasadena, CA; Boulder, CO; etc. I suspect it should be considered self-published. 86.** IP (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I found this book which is apparently the same publisher.[114] and maybe this book.[115] But if this is their website,[116] they appear to be self-publishing house. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've begun trying to remove the unreliable sources, then. 86.** IP (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure it's a good idea to be deleting that much content[117], unless of course, you're also planning on expanding the article with better sourcing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Family genealogical website

In the BLP article for B. Ramanath Rai, a now-deadlinked genealogical website is used to source the ethnicity (Bunt) of the article subject. I found the website at Wayback, thus "Bellipady Family Website". bellipadyfamilytrus. Archived from the original on 2008-06-02. Retrieved 18 October 2010..

This is tricky. As a general rule, in Indian-related articles at least, there is consensus that caste assertions require self-identification if the person is living, rather as with WP:BLPCAT. If that was the sole issue, then I would take this matter to WP:BLPN or WT:INB. However, I need first to determine whether a website that is no longer live, looks amateurish in design (although perhaps not by the standards of its day), and clearly falls within the general scope of being a self-published source can be reliable. We do not know if Rai himself had an involvement, whether it may have been his decision to pull the thing, etc. Bit of a nightmare, really, but I'd bet someone would argue that as a family site it amounts to self-identification for BLP purposes. My gut feeling is that it is unreliable as a source because we cannot determine whether he agreed to the details contained within it, but I would appreciate the opinion of others. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a RS by our standards. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Verification of reliability

The article on Jayne Mansfield has the following content.

First marriage

In May 10, 1950, a pregnant 17-year old Jayne married 22-year old Paul Mansfield at Fort Worth, Texas.[2][3][4][5][6] One biographer, Raymond Strait, wrote that she married Paul publicly in May 6, had an earlier "secret" marriage in January 28, and her first child was conceived after the secret marriage.[7] Some sources cite Paul as the father of the child, [2][3] while others cite it to be a result of date rape.[5][8] The marriage certificate of Jayne and Paul lists their date of marriage as May 6, 1950.[9]

Can someone verify the following part of it?

The marriage certificate of Jayne and Paul lists their date of marriage as May 6, 1950.[9]

If the marriage certificate is true, then almost all the biographers are wrong. That's serious.

I don't have access to the certificate and have no clue of its credibility.

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Cantor was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Jocelyn Faris, Jayne Mansfield: a bio-bibliography, page 3, ABC-CLIO, 1994, ISBN 0313285446
  3. ^ a b Martha Saxton, Jayne Mansfield and the American fifties, page 29,Houghton Mifflin, 1975, ISBN 0395202892
  4. ^ James Robert Parish, The Hollywood Book of Breakups, page XX, John Wiley & Sons, 2006, ISBN 9780471752684
  5. ^ a b May Mann, Jayne Mansfield: a biography, pages 10-12, Drake Publishers, 1973, ISBN 0877494150
  6. ^ Tom Pendergast, "St. James encyclopedia of popular culture" (Volume 3), page 260, St. James Press, 2000, ISBN 9781558624030
  7. ^ Strait, Raymond (1992). Here They Are Jayne Mansfield. SPI Books. p. 304. ISBN 1561711462. "Paul and Jayne were married on January 28, 1950 in Fort Worth, Texas. ... In view of their January marriage, the wedding was arranged for May 10, 1950."
  8. ^ Jessica Hope Jordan, The Sex Goddess in American Film, 1930-1965, page 221, Cambria Press, 2009, ISBN 9781604976632
  9. ^ a b "Jayne Mansfield (Vera Jayne Peers) Marriage Certificate". Archives.com. Houston: Texas State Department of Health Services. 1950. ARCHIVES.COM| Archives.com. Retrieved March 9, 2012. (subscription required)

BTW, I have already posted this to help desk, village pump, and Wikiprojecr Fact and Reference Check... no success so far. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for. This was added by User:Dasani recently, after stating that is what it says. [118] So you want someone else to confirm that is what the link says? You'll believe them, but not Dasani? If it's such a big deal, why not pay for membership, or at least take advantage of the Archives.com 7 day free trial and see it yourself? Or are you asking whether Archives.com is a reliable archivist? --GRuban (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you know what county they would have been in? I don't know about historic archives, but generally marraige records are all public record with the local county clerk, unless you get a confidential license. The Texas state department has a list of county clerks. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 01:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Is this not OR using a primary source in this manner? Tom Reedy (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "in this manner". If the marriage certificate of Jayne and Paul lists their date of marriage as May 6, 1950 then there is no OR involved as far as that statement is concerned as OR "refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." We have such a source--the marriage certificate.
Now if it being is used to state in the article that "almost all the biographers are wrong" then yes you have OR per WP:SYN. HOWEVER, WP:NOTOR clearly states "Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources. If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation."
So something like 'almost all the biographers state their marriage as being x but their marriage certificate says it is May 6, 1950' would NOT be OR.
It is all a matter of how the information is used in the article that would determine if it is OR.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_119&oldid=1138648366"