Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 103

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

→

Sales source

This source has recently been used for album sales to several articles, including Sir Lucious Left Foot, Distant Relatives, and How I Got Over (album). It's an image of a list of charting albums and their sales. However, the image shows no copyright or publication name (US/North American sales such as Billboard, Nielsen SoundScan, Nielsen Business) to indicate that it's official. Also, the image's source is a blog site called hiphopencounter, and self-published sources should not be used if there is a question to their authenticity (WP:SELFPUB) Dan56 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That could have been made and posted by anyone. Should not be used.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

American Soap Opera sources

Hey. I have become a little concerned about a big problem that has not really been adressed enough to outsiders of WP:Soap Opera. The article Lucky Spencer and Elizabeth Webber has recently been created, but I think it has a lot of weight on sources that may not meet the goal. Which do you think are okay and not okay. Please look at it in the context of the article, then state whether they are okay to be used in general. I'd like quite a lot of input here guys, where possible.

[1] - Soapcentral just appears to be a mammoth fansite that has been running for a while.
SoapOperaSource looks better than most.. [2]
AllSoapScoops [3] <- Not impressed with there editorial, what so anyone can join and put in their opinion? Then it can be used as a source on wikipedia... hmm.
I do not know anything about 'GoldDerby' - [4]
I'm not familiar with Daytime confidential - [5] - Is that okay?

I just think AllSoapScoops and SC are terrible.. Soap Opera Source is the best of the bunch imo. I asked why they are used so much and my response was that when characters haven't got much coverage in reputable sources, books and newspapers, these are a good substitute to make a point. My thinking is the point must not be that notable if only the odd fansite or website catering for soaps reports on it.RaintheOne ^BAM 23:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

SoapCentral was discussed here and at WP:SOAP a few years ago and was apparently deemed reliable for "news information" - [6]. AllSoapScoops does mention it is a "fans' appreciation page", so I would doubt it's reliability. Daytime confidential appears to be part of Zap2it, which is produced by Tribune Media Services. It's used in quite a few articles and appears to more reliable than the other sources listed here. - JuneGloom Talk 00:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the San Jose Examiner a reliable newspaper source.

Are the URLs of reliable sources ever blacklisted by wikipedia?

As I understand, wikipedia considers newspapers to be reliable secondary sources. Therefore I looked for and found a newspaper source.

The problem is that the URL to this source has been blacklisted by wikipedia. This makes me wonder if my link is to the real Examiner, or to some fly-by-night outfit. I have had to alter the URL by removing http to be able to save this page.

Forgive me, I am new, but it seems like I am down to these options:

a) Request whitelisting of my specific URL.

b) Leave off the URL, or describe it in words only.

c) Find another source, which may end up having the exact same problem.

1. Here is the citation

Baeck, William (September 2010), "The mystery of Frenchman's Tower", San Jose Examiner, San Jose

2. The link is "www.examiner.com/tourism-in-san-jose/the-mystery-of-frenchman-s-tower"

3. I wanted to use the source in an article[7].

4. The source supports the public interest in and the notability of the subject of the article.

5. I had previously asked Editor assistance if I could use newspaper articles as a source [8].

Please suggest the best thing to do.Wikfr (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source because its articles are contributed by its readers and it has no fact-checking or editorial review. See the home page. TFD (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I understand why I had such a hard time figuring out who was publishing that thing. I am glad I asked for your help.Wikfr (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Johannes von Ronge

I'm not really sure where to post this issue, but it seems to relate to the reliability of sources, so I'll try here. If it belongs elsewhere, I'm sure someone will let me know. :) The article on Johannes von Ronge has his name wrong according to every source I can find that hasn't scraped its information from WP. See, for example, many sources from Google Books: [9]. See also all the entries in Worldcat: [10]. According to all those sources, his name is Ronge, not Von Ronge, and there is no umlaut over the o. The German Wikipedia also has him listed as Johannes Ronge. It appears that there have been several attempts to fix this, to no avail. Can someone provide some guidance here and make a definitive determination as to his correct name, and if it's currently incorrect, provide a fix? TIA 75.13.69.146 (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is certainly a determined attempt to make this fellow into Johannes von Rönge, and a parallel attempt to make his wife into Berthe von Rönge. Berthe suffers from lesser notability and so it is difficult to find sources with a correct name. All the reliable sources I found call her husband Johannes Ronge. All these ~~articles~~ sources have been removed in the current version. This includes ~~several~~ two encyclopedia articles available in Wikisource. His brother-in-law Carl Schurz calls him Johannes Ronge when he writes about him. This remake effort even extends to fabrications in Wikisource. When I checked the sources for the Whittier and Rossetti poems there, they both called him Johannes Ronge, in one case this source was an original manuscript. I corrected the article, maybe twice, and fixed Wikisource once. I don't plan to make another attempt. I appreciate the attention the problem is getting. From my point of view, this is just sophisticated vandalism. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 8 and 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur, how to we fix it? If no one here knows, we can take it up at the move board. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not an easy fix. A move is not the thing to do as I think the old Johannes Ronge article and the Johannes von Ronge article have interesting things. There are two new links to Google books. It seems all the worthwhile changes have been made by 75.13.69.146. If they could be copied, along with the two new refs, to Johannes Ronge, which I have recovered with minor updates, then we could turn Johannes von Ronge back into a redirect. Preserving histories is a lost cause at this point. There are just two parallel ones. The talk page is still OK that I can see. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think where involvement by an administrator is necessary is to protect the page from vandalism, as it seems to be a target, but that would exclude IP edits, although suggestions could still be left by an IP on the talk page for desirable edits. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I can move all of the data to Johannes Ronge, and then it will be on my watch page, be interesting to see who does what with it. If it gets to be problematic, page protect wouldn't be a problem. But if we wanted to preserve histories, we could I suppose merge the data, move the Johannes von Ronge to Johannes Ronge (old fork), blank the page with a note linking back to Johannes Ronge, and explain the mess on Johannes von Ronge's talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping for the cooperation of 75.13.69.146, or perhaps Nuujinn is the same? My idea was 75.13.69.146 or someone else could make updates to Johannes Ronge corresponding to the additions of the new sources which do look very worthwhile. Then Johannes von Ronge can just be turned into a redirect. This is not a super quick fix, but I think it helps preserve the legitimate contributions to both pages, and for someone like 75.13.69.146 who has already made the edits, it should go quickly. Any explanatory notes can be left on Talk:Johannes Ronge, and certainly something should be said there about the continuing vandalism. I think I will start that thread after I finish this comment. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following through on the fixes. I cleaned up some related problems on other pages and links. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Lack of references in the DSM

I'm having a discussion at Talk:Paraphilic_infantilism#DSM_references about the DSM. The book does not discuss paraphilic infantilism at all, and I've removed all references to the DSM-IV-TR from that page. Bittergrey (talk · contribs) has replaced them with no justification [11] in complete error since the DSM fundamentally does not verify the text. This is an extremely simple matter, I photocopied the page range specified and read them beginning to end, there is no discussion of paraphilic infantilism. Page 572 does mention infantilism within the context of masochism but the two are different paraphilias. However, the removal has already been reverted once without justification or evidence I'm wrong, so this will hopefully head things off. It's very simple - the DSM-IV-TR does not discuss paraphilic infantilism, so it should not be used as a citation in the text. That's how I see it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if we can wrap this up before WLU wastes too much of this boards' time. In response to the claim "Page 572 does mention infantilism within the context of masochism but the two are different paraphilias." That page lists infantilism as a type of masochism (302.83) quite explicitly. In terms of categories, they are both reported as masochism (302.83). For brevity, DSM doesn't repeat the types of masochism in every location where it discusses masochism. While not as verbose as other sources, the DSM is a consensus document from a national body of professionals, available in most US libraries. A more reliable source is difficult to imagine.

Six minutes prior to WLU's post above, he asserted "I've read them all [the DSM pages cited], paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear."[12]. This would directly contradict his statement above, and document that most of his debating about the DSM preceded a careful reading of it. At this time he had already repeatedly modified or deleted references to the DSM.

I suspect that concerns about DSM have nothing to do with the true conflict here. WLU was at 3RR before raising any issue with the DSM[13][14][15]. He also replaced my request for a third opinion to try to make it seem that this is strictly a formatting issue[16]. He then gamed 3RR(28 hours - [17]) to avoid waiting for that third opinion.

WLU and I do have a past. In terms of RSs, I've had to clean up one time when he cited a Wikipedia printout, for sale though a diaper company, as an RS[18]. That past round, the only edit war he could pick on this particular article was with a bot[19].

My motivation is simple: The DSM isn't an easy read, so I believe references to it should be very specific. Page numbers do take up some space in the article, but not that much. BitterGrey (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

BitterGrey, is it your belief that the "infantilism" mentioned in the DSM in association with masochism is exactly the same thing as "paraphilic infantilism"?
WLU, I see exactly one sentence in the Google Books snippet on infantilism, which says "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ('infantilism'). Is that all that the DSM says about the specific subject? I ask, because BitterGrey seems to have found scope for fifteen inline citations to the DSM, thirteen of which contain information not contained in the one sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The DSM defines infantilism as a masochism, in the paraphilias section. The paraphilic infantilism article here was initially titled simply "infantilism."

As for WLU, his contradictory statements about the DSM show that his reading of the DSM isn't the soundest: WLU@infantilism: "I've read them all, paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear[20]" And six minutes later: WLU@RSN "Page 572 does mention infantilism..the two are different paraphilias."[21].

WhatamIdoing, can I take your involvement here as an indication that you ARE involved in this (which means someone else is soon to be involved too)? Basically, we've got an editor who gamed 3RR (4 edits in 28 hours[22][23][24][25]) to avoid waiting for a third opinion, after replacing my request for a third opinion to try to make it seem that this is strictly a formatting issue[26]. Then he goes on to delete material after dismissing RSs that he clearly did not understand. WLU has not been willing to discuss why this is so important to him all of a sudden. Last time it was so important to him all of a sudden[27], you and I had recently had a debate[28], and now we have recently had a debate again[29]. BitterGrey (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not WP:INVOLVED in this dispute, but a brief glance at the page history will show that I post to this noticeboard fairly regularly. If RSN hadn't been on my watchlist, then I wouldn't know about this dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes WAID, that is the sole occurrence of the word infantilism within the DSM according to google books. I've photocopied and read all six of the pages formerly cited in the paraphilic infantilism article. None are relevant to paraphilic infantilism. The closest you could say would be what applies to this set of paraphilias would have to apply to paraphilic infantilism specifically. I don't think that's valid at all. The sentence found on page 572 is within the context of masochism, as in one subset of masochists may enjoy being forced to wear diapers. It is clearly a subset of masochistic behaviour, not an independent thing. The only citation I would support would be along the lines of "some masochists may enjoy being forced to wear diapers" and in retrospect that should be included. You can't legitimately say everything that applies to masochism applies to infantilists, not by any means. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, do you now accept that the position you had on the DSM when edit warring to remove the detailed references - "The DSM doesn't discuss paraphilic infantilism, period... I've read them all, paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear" [30] - was wrong? Debating what the DSM has to say about paraphilic infantilism is pointless if you won't acknowledge that it is, in fact, mentioned. 'Google deep' readings don't cut it with DSM - all the more reason to include detailed references. BitterGrey (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM doesn't discuss paraphilic infantilism. It discusses sexual masochists who are infantilized as part of their sexual repertoire, not infantilist. The phrase "paraphilic infatilism" does not appear in the book. I've photocopied and read all six pages cited, the word "infantilism" appears exactly once, as a behaviour of masochists. You can't apply everything said about masochists to paraphilic infantilists merely because "infantilism" appears once. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

From not appearing at all to being mentioned once? At least that is progress. At this rate, your position will have moved to be indistinguishable from (but still somehow in conflict with) mine in about one or two weeks.

By the way, I'd be more than happy to discuss the DSM with anyone interested in discussing it. BitterGrey (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As stated, a single sentence on infantilism appears on pg. 572 of DSM-IV TR ('The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ("infantilism")'. This appears on the entry on Sexual Masochism (302.83) which takes up about one page (c. 350 words). It appears as part of list of masochistic acts that may be sought with a partner (these are: bondage, blindfolding, paddling, spanking, whipping, beating, electrical shocks, cutting, infibulation, being urinated or defecated on, being forced to crawl or bark like a dog, being subjected to verbal abuse, forced cross dressing, hypoxyphilia or sexual arousal through asphyxiation). This entry on infantilism as one of a long list of acts illustrative of potentially masochistic behaviour is identical to that in the previous edition of the manual (DSM-IV: 529)

In the article a number of statements reference the DSM-IV TR.

(1) In the majority of cases, it does not interfere greatly with a person's work or casual social life. It is characterized by the seemingly uncontrollable desire to wear diapers, due to reasons other than medical necessity, and/or be treated as an infant - Ref DSM-IV TR 572-73.

This is problematic because, according to the DSM-IV TR one of the two criteria for the diagnosis of Sexual Masochism is that it causes 'clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning' (p.573). Thus, if an individual enjoys "infantilism" but does not suffer from social, occupational or other impairment in function one does not, according to the DSM-IV TR have a paraphilia (likewise a "transvestite", according to the DSM, that is neither distressed nor socially or otherwise impaired is not a "transvestite" regardless of whether they cross dress or not). DSM-5 is going to change this approach in recognising that the paraphilias are not necessarily disorders and thus by distinguishing between paraphilia and paraphilic disorder (e.g. tranvestitism and transvestite disorder). Paraphilic disorders would indicate that the sufferer was distressed or impaired or harm to others [31].

The DSM IV-TR's reference to diaper wearing and being treated like an infant is in the context of behaviour that is humiliating to the individual.

(2) The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, indicates that a majority of infantilists are heterosexual males. - DSM IV-TR 568

The relevant passage from the DSM states that except for Sexual Masochism the paraphilias 'are almost never diagnosed in females'. Male sexual masochists outnumber female sexual masochists by 20 to 1. This statement, therefore, is almost certainly true but it would be better to get a rs that specifically talks about infantilism in this context rather than having to deduce the fact from the general statement in the DSM.

(3) DLs and ABs differ in self-image and the focus of attention. - DSM-IV TR 572-73, 569-70

The pages referenced cover the Fetishistic (569-70) and Sexually Masochistic (572-73) paraphilias. Neither ABs nor DLs are referred to. It seems clear that ABs are being treated as Sexual Masochists and DLs as Fetishists. It may be a reasonable argument to treat these categories in this way but one would have to find a source for it. Also these pages of the DSM do not talk about the self-image of either paraphilia.

(4) Neither includes a sexual preference for children. - DSM-IV TR 572-73, 569-70

Again, this is a discussion of Sexual Masochism and Fetishism. ABs and DLs are not mentioned. There is no indication of a sexual preference for kids, but the writing here is deceptive as ABs and DLs are not the focus of these sections.

(5) There is no singular, typical behavior for paraphilic infantilism, but a wide range of thought patterns and behaviors. Some fantasize about being free of guilt, responsibility, or control, whereas others might not. Some act indistinguishably from a baby at times, while others practice in a way that would probably not be noticed by passers by on the street. The desires and tastes of paraphilic infantilists vary around common themes of diapers and babyhood. - DSM-IV TR 572-73

While the previous instances might indicate a creative reading of the DSM through the extension of a discussion of the broad paraphilias to certain behaviours/acts indicative of these conditions, this section has no basis in the source material. It is pure invention.

(6) Although there is no typical AB/DL, the interests of AB/DLs tend to fall along a spectrum. This can be called the spectrum between infantilism and diaper fetishism - DSM-IV TR 572-73, 569-70

Pure invention. No basis in the source.

(7) On the adult baby side of the spectrum is an interest in roleplaying as a baby or small child, called infantilism.- DSM IV TR 572-73

Pure invention. No basis in the source which only talks about the desire for humiliation.

(8) On the diaper lover side of the spectrum is an urge toward wearing diapers for sensations of comfort or sexual stimulation. Diaper lovers commonly focus on diapers as fetish items, or sexually charged objects - DSM-IV TR 569-70

It's a reasonable discussion of fetishism but the source does not talk about diaper wearing or diaper fetishes but only about fetishism in the broad sense with a limited set of examples. It's a misrepresentation of the sources as the article reads as if the DSM specifically addresses diaper lovers when it does not.

(9) Infantilists have a desire to be infants themselves, those with a diaper fetish have a sexual interest in diapers, and neither include a sexual interest towards children - DSM-IV TR 572-73, 569-70

On the assumption that another rs can support the (reasonable) contention that diaper loving qualifies as a fetish one could then say that the DSM gives no indication that either Sexual Masochists or Fetishists are defined in regard to a sexual interest in kids. The other statements are unsupported by the source.

(10) Many published cases are only tangentially related (other sources) to infantilism and diaper fetishism and should not be confused with the basic paraphilias - DSM-IV TR 568

Not sure what is meant by this as it is clear that any reasonable definition of diaper loving or adult babies that relies on the DSM would have to consider them as behaviours associated with broader paraphilic categories (fetishism and sexual masochism).

(11) There is a strong tendency for AB/DLs to be male. Estimates range from 10 to 20 males per female AB/DL. - DSM-IV TR 568

As above, the reference here is to gender ratio among the Sexual Masochists. The ratio given in the DSM for Sexual Masochists is 20 to 1.

That's it. I think the DSM has been misrepresented to imply that it directly addresses infantilism when it does not. Some stuff has just been made up. FiachraByrne (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC):

One question for Bittergrey. If you're a infantilist or diaper fetishist and while accepting the condition appears to have caused you some distress why would you seek to define in terms of manual that details psychiatric disorders? Surely there are better sources that do not discuss it only in terms of mental illness? If you've come to accept who you are and if you enjoy it why turn to the DSM which is pretty crap source in many ways?FiachraByrne (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There are many other good sources, extensive community surveys, etc. Of course, these usually get deleted, usually shortly after disagreements elsewhere on Wikipedia. (Those evaluating FiachraByrne's comments should note his/her recent comments about me elsewhere on Wikipedia.) They get deleted using any convenient excuse - having been written by AB/DLs, not having been widely published, in short, not being the DSM. Typically, the references are only questioned after all text without references has already been deleted.

As for poor sources, I chose not to use Malitz, but another editor did. In discussion[32], I pointed out that this reference was only applicable as an argument from silence after dismissing the author's stated position. I pointed out that it set a very low standard for references, but to avoid conflict, I didn't remove it myself. Even when removing other sources, WLU left Malitz in place. In the past, WLU added a Wikipedia printout, for sale though a diaper company, as an RS[33] and left me to clean it up.

A note on terminology: as was discussed early in the history of the article, infantilism is used to refer to the condition, and ABs to those who have it, or have similar interests. The DSM currently doesn't have a term for those who have the interests associated with infantilism but not clinically significant distress or impairment. As a result,the community term, AB, was used. The section on infantilism (or more generally, masochism) is sited. Similarly, diaper fetishism is discussed for contrast. Diaper fetishism is simply categorized as a fetish. Similarly, those who have diaper-fetish-like but clinically significant distress or impairment are called DLs. Since they often occur together, the population is referred to as AB/DLs. (Some sources omit the slash.) (<original research>About 4 in 10 AB/DLs do suffer clinically significant distress or impairment.</original research>) BitterGrey (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with FiachraByrne's analysis. I have no issue with the information being included, if a reliable source can be found. I don't think internet or community surveys, particularly those not published in scholarly volumes or in peer reviewed journals, are reliable sources. I don't think that because there is a lack of scholarly discussion, we should then drop the bar to include what people, particularly practitioners, think is true.

I will point out again that Bittergrey is following his usual claim that anybody who disagrees with him is doing it out of personal spite rather than a completely routine interpretation of wikipedias guidelines. I will also point out that I have changed my opinion in the past based on discussion, and that this is quite reasonable and not worth bringing up in every single discussion as if it were somehow a horrible flaw. Malitz is published in a peer reviewed journal, it's use is fine in my mind, unless it has been superseded by a better source. If Malitz is being misrepresented, then it should be adjusted. I'll see if I can find a copy in the next week or so.

Naturally, any editors' opinion on a matter of fact is irrelevant, we are bound by what we can cite. If the DSM doesn't have a term for infantilists, it should not be cited. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of time, let's focus on one of those points, the strongest point, the "pure invention."

(7) On the adult baby side of the spectrum is an interest in roleplaying as a baby or small child, called infantilism.- DSM IV TR 572-73

Pure invention. No basis in the source which only talks about the desire for humiliation.

Those who actually go down to their library will find that the page actually states "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ('infantilism')." Perhaps this page is missing in WLU's copy. If others who haven't recently attacked me elsewhere on Wikipedia are interested, I could go the shortcomings of WLU's other points. However, that does seem like a lot of trouble for a "disagreement about reference formatting". BitterGrey (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Also note that these are also being discussed on the talk page(eg [34]).BitterGrey (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I was alerted on my talkpage to this thread. I have published on this topic professionally and work with people with paraphilias on a daily basis. I have only a few comments to share, for what they are worth.

First (and probably most relevantly), FiachraByrne's detailed analysis of each sentence citing the DSM is exactly correct. The DSM does not at all support those statements. The claims apply to "typical" masochism, not to infantilism.

Second, despite that the word "infantilism" appears (once) in the masochism section, I have never met a professional who would diagnose paraphilic infantilism as masochism. In my experience, it is diagnosed as "paraphilia NOS (infantilism)". The erotic focus of masochism is the pain and humiliation, whereas the erotic focus of paraphilic infantilism is being treated as a baby. That is, people with paraphilic infantilism do not experience the interaction as humiliating, just erotic; whereas the masochists do not experience the interaction as being "mothered" (rather, they are obeying a dominatrix who is belittling them, which they do experience as erotic).

Finally, although the DSM is a very widely used text, it is not the only one. (My personal opinion is that it is not a very good text for the sex/gender section.) An encyclopedic coverage of the topic should not over-focus on the DSM but should instead reflect the RS's overall. I recently wrote a chapter in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology, which might direct editors to still other RS's both on paraphilic infantilism and on masochism. I am happy to email copies to interested editors.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I'm not at all surprised by this position. Part two, of course, is mere Original Research. Parts one and three three boil down to "remove DSM, use my book." Please note that after Cantor replaced the definition of paraphilia in the paraphilia article with his own[35], I'm the one who restored it to the definition from the DSM [36]. he too is in no way neutral in this debate.

Regarding his 'Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology' paragraph on infantilism (pg 531), I'd have to write that it is, at best, grossly mistaken. For example, Malitz wrote "Dynamically the patient's diaper [fetish] appeared to symbolize a regression to infancy in order to reclaim the attention and love of his mother and to undo his displacement in her affections by his sister's birth." Regressing to infancy to reclaim maternal affection is inherently infantile. Cantor sites this to support the text "There have also been reports of individuals ... who express no desire to seem like an infant(Malitz, 1966, Tuchman & Lachman, 1964)". By the way, Tuchman & Lachman comment "The regressive quality and symbolism of the behavior pattern suggest a schizophrenic mechanism." Schizophrenia is not a paraphilia. Doesn't anyone check these things? BitterGrey (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a faulty generalization, i.e. reading too much from general statements as applying to a particular case. I think James Cantor's suggestion to use more focused sources is the best way forward here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

On a quick Google Books search I found a book saying "Although infantilism is classified as sexual masochism in DMS-IV-TR, it is questionable whether the criteria for sexual masochism are always met" [37] So, it seems a genuine controversy, which should be reported per NPOV. (One of the book authors is William T. O'Donohue so it seems reliable enough.) If the DSM were always undisputed, they'd probably have no reason to ever revise it, which doesn't seem to be the case, e.g. they even removed homosexuality at some point. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That is most likely a reference to Criterion B, "clinically significant distress or impairment." (There are only two criteria, "A" being a duration of six months or more.) While my own data would fall under original research[38], it is clear that there are those who share the desires of paraphilic infantilists, but have not suffered "clinically significant distress or impairment." This is why terminology such as AB and DL is used. However, having seen that AB/DLs include the range from those with a deep condition to those curiously exploring a new kink, I see some justification for Criterion B as a diagnostic necessity.

The article used to discuss this aspect of Criterion B. However, it was deleted some time ago.BitterGrey (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what--if anything--of your reply has to do with what I wrote above. But I surely miss the deep expertise here, and I'm not really eager to gain it. Cheers, FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The book I mentioned explained: "For example, if the infantile role playing does not involve feelings of humiliation and suffering, then the diagnosis of sexual masochism would not be appropriate and a diagnosis of infantilism as paraphilia NOS is warranted." This is pretty close to what James Cantor said above. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

O'Donohue's book would be better if it were more specific: ..."questionable".."always".."if." This is a reasonably worded speculation, but just a speculation, not even an assertion. The danger of dismissing the DSM is that it opens doors to careless self-promotion. For example, Cantor and colleagues proposed a neologism "Pedohebephilia" for the DSM, which was soundly rejected (Franklin, K. 2011. "Forensic Psychiatrists Vote No on Proposed Paraphilias", Psychiatric Times. Vol. 27 No. 12). His interest in obscuring the definition of infantilism is so that he can redefine it as a type of pedophilia/pedohebephilia: "They [Cantor's colleagues] 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. Towards this goal, as I pointed out above, Cantor is willing to cite a case of Schizophrenia to try to claim to know something about infantilism.

Furthermore, without the DSM, we'd be oscillating between various neologisms; Money's "autonepiophilia" in the case of O'Donohue's book.BitterGrey (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth. I said to report the academic controversy if one exists per NPOV, not to discard and never mention the DSM. It's clear from the above that the DSM does not address infantilism specifically in detail. Unless you want a one-sentence article, more sources need to be used. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And since you brought it up, I also don't see any problem mentioning alternative terminology in the article following WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. After all, "AB/DL" is mentioned and it's certainly not in the DSM. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The accuations above are incorrect, and, frankly, rather incoherent. I don't get the impression that anyone is taking them seriously, so I won't waste further bandwidth unless anyone has any specific question about what expert thinks what.— James Cantor (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.

I would suggest we cite the DSM once to say infantilism appears as a behaviour in masochists, and that's the only time it's used. Is there general agreement, does anyone else support citing the DSM otherwise? And we use other available reliable sources instead, where appropriate. It says in the article that paraphilic infantilism is poorly researched, it seems justified that we have a short article that cites what can be found and avoid writing a long, poorly-supported one. O'Donohue's book can certainly be cited, and also actually supports the idea that you can't treat infantilism and masochism as interchangeable, which certainly buttresses what the DSM actually says. May I suggest: "Infantilism is listed as one of several behaviors exhibited by masochists.DSM Psychologist William O'Donohue believes that '...it is questionable whether the criteria for sexual masochism are always met. For example, if the infantile role playing does not involve feelings of humiliation and suffering, then the diagnosis of sexual masochism would not be appropriate and a diagnosis of infantilism as paraphilia NOS is warranted.'O'Donohue" I'd also use O'Donohue in the lead to say autonepiophilia is a synonym for paraphilic infantilism. Since sources are coming up that are much more applicable to paraphilic infantilism than the DSM's questionable, synthetic use as a source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(This post had been deleted, probably by accident[39].) BitterGrey (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the practice of rejecting the DSM's definition of infantilism in favor of some medical-sounding diagnosis not inline with the DSM. Sorry if this was unclear or sounded tendentious. Of course, DSM shouldn't be the only ref: The article has been stable at about 20 refs for a while now. As for alternate terminology, it used to include anaclitism, but it was deleted[40].

Given how much trouble we're having nailing down relatively established terms such as "infantilism" and "AB/DL", it might be best to put off any discussion of neologisms like Money's "autonepiophilia" until later. His 1984 article defining the terms "Paraphilias: Phenomenology and Classification" in Am j of psychotherapy, Vol XXXVIII No 2 gives a one word definition for autonepiophilia, "diaperism" (pg 167). Pg 171 mentions it among the fetish paraphilias: "A diaper fetish (autonepiophilia) has a similar early origin." This would suggest it is more of a diaper fetish than an infantilism. It is possible that his 1984 paper went one way and his 1986 paper went another, of course. However, this discussion might be best left for another day.BitterGrey (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM does not have a definition of infantilism as a distinct paraphilia. It merely notes infantilism as a possible form of masochism. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

@Cantor: Accusations of accusations is not an answer. As for being incoherent, I'm not the one citing a case of Schizophrenia as if it were a case of infantilism.

@WLU: In Money's 1984 paper, quoted above, autonepiophilia is used as if it were a diaper fetish, not an infantilism. At best, this ambiguity makes it a neologism. BitterGrey (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

FiarchraByrne, I agree but would substitute "behaviour" for "form". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

@WLU: Behaviour is better.

I think it should be raised that exactly the same issues over the use of the DSM in this article are present in the one on Diaper Fetishism. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

To avoid having ongoing discussions at a third location, it is probably best to deal with first the one article, then the other. BitterGrey (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone might want to tell WLU that the DSM defines fetishism too (pg 569-570). He seems a bit confused about that[41]. Or maybe he doesn't accept that "Diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism, which is one of many paraphilias"? BitterGrey (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bittergrey's same misuse and mis-citation is indeed now appearing at diaper fetishism and the list of paraphilias page. It's the same issue - the infantilism and diaper wearing appears in the context of mashochism, making the DSM essentially irrelevant to all three pages but for the note of the behaviour in the context of masochism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the list of paraphilias, it was James Cantor who added that ref. This kind of throws a wrench in WLU's accusation that it is my "misuse and mis-citation", and Cantor's newfound position that the DSM doesn't define infantilism. BitterGrey (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Fair point. However, the issue is the same whoever added it. Is it the best or even an adequate source for the attribution of "infantilism" as a paraphilia. The answer I think is no, unless one is treating it as a sub-category of masochism. In regard to fetishism it would be best to get a source that says that infantilism is or has aspects of fetishism. The DSM does not do this but again other sources do. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As FiachraByrne says, it doesn't matter who adds the reference. James Cantor may have changed his mind or made a mistake in 2008. This isn't about sides and who added the citation. This is about whether the DSM is clear or not regarding the relationship between paraphilic infantilism and masochism. I have requested clarification and sent Dr. Cantor an e-mail, though his above comments suggest that his current opinion is that the DSM does not verify this. We should use other sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 05:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, do you retract your clearly false accusation: "Bittergrey's same misuse and mis-citation is indeed now appearing at diaper fetishism and the list of paraphilias page." I know it makes your anti-DSM campaign seem more justifiable if you can blame everything on me. Or are you asserting that, in 2008, I took over Cantor's mind and used him as a puppet is some pro-DSM campaign? BitterGrey (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of the DSM on the Diaper fetishism page appears to be ok now. FiachraByrne (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with FiachraByrne, the current use of the DSM to cite only diaper wearing as a behaviour of masochists is appropriate. The rest of the article needs considerable work. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still hoping for an explanation for what just happened at ANI. Between 4:36 and 8:43 Aug 16, FiachraByrne's description of the diaper fetish article went from having a "problem...the source does not support the content at present" to "fine now"[42], but there were no edits to the page between the two posts. This change might have been brought about by my 6:17 post[43] pointing out that the mess at that article was WLU's doing[44]. Ideally, this explanation should not include time travel or mind control, as required by the explanation of how Cantor's 2008 addition of a citation is my doing, as WLU accuses above. By the way, should we open a separate discussion about whether the DSM's fetishism section discusses fetishism? BitterGrey (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As this issue is being raised here as well, this a repost of mine with minor changes from the ANI thread

As Bittergrey knows, I raised the issue of the use of the DSM in the Diaper Fetishism article during this RSN at 1:44 pm on the 14 August [45] (or see above). At that point, as recorded in the foregoing diff, Bittergrey replied that it would be better to deal with one article at a time and nobody else responded to the issue. In fact, WLU had already begun to remove improper use of the DSM in that article four minutes before I posted my original concerns [46]. On the ANI page Bittergrey states that he "allowed" WLU to make those edits [47] so he was, I presume, aware that at the time I posted my original concerns WLU was in fact already removing improper use of the DSM from that article. Either editor could have informed me of this but it was my responsibility to check the article. Then when I was notified by WLU at midday on the 15 August of the ANI I didn't really want to get involved. So I was pleased to note some hours later that this process had apparently been resolved and I went back to, among other things, trying to establish a workable consensus that respected the sources at Talk:Paraphilic infantilism. Returning here for a look early this morning I saw that things were not in fact resolved so I posted at 5.36 am 16 August my concerns about the use of the DSM on the Diaper Fetishism page. As we've established, WLU had in fact already resolved any problem with the use of the DSM on that page, at least from my perspective, and I was in error to have presumed that the page had remained unchanged from the last time I had looked at it (which would have been some time just before 14:38 on the 14 August). As soon as I realised that the page was in fact rectified I posted that information on the ANI page. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, here we can see the Diaper fetishism page prior to WLU’s edits. The DSM IV-TR was then used to support the following statements in that article:

1. Diaper fetishism, "Nappy fetishism" or Diaperism, is a paraphilia in which a person feels a desire to wear or use diapers. This is normally not due to any medical need whatsoever

The DSM does not mention Diaper fetishism although it does of course discuss fetishism. It is undoubtedly supportable that Diaper fetishism is a fetish and a paraphilia but the DSM IV-TR does not provide that support. Nor does the DSM describe diaper fetishism in any way or state that the wearing of diapers in such an instance does not stem from medical need.

2. Diaper or nappy fetishism is differentiated from paraphilic infantilism (sometimes simply called infantilism) in that those who engage in infantilism and fantasize about being regressed to an infant or small child state (a form of role-playing) do not involve in sexual activity as such. While in a (temporarily and intentionally induced) state of regression, this fulfils an emotional need that may result from very early childhood experiences. Pure diaper fetishism, on the other hand, refers strictly to the practice of wearing diapers for emotional or sexual gratification, although there is a spectrum of practice between the two. The popular term for a diaper or nappy fetishists is diaper lover, or simply DL. Diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism, which is one of many paraphilias

The only source for this series of statements was the DSM IV-TR. The DSM IV-TR does not mention diaper fetishism. It does not distinguish it from paraphilic infantilism. It does not discuss infantilism in terms of regression or state that it does not involve sexual activity as such. It does not say that this temporary state of regression fulfils an emotional need or that this emotional need is derived from an experience in early childhood. It does not define diaper fetishism. It does not state that there is a spectrum of practices between infantilism and diaper fetishism. It does not mention Diaper Lover. It does not state that diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism (a tautology in any case) or identify it as a paraphilia. To a greater or lesser degree, other sources would have supported most of these statements. Then, perhaps, reference to the DSM may have been appropriate if one was to make a general statement about fetishism. But the way this text is constructed one would presume that the DSM recognised diaper fetishism as a specific paraphilia and engaged in a long discourse about it. Thus, the use of this source was misleading.

3. Diaper fetishism does not include a sexual preference for children.

It is true that the DSM IV-TR does not seek to link fetishism to paedophilia but that is different to the statement above.

4. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder independent from diaper fetishism.

As above, the DSM IV-TR does not support this contention. Other sources may although there are a small number of cases of co-occurrence. Another source, Malitz, was cited in support of this statement, however.

5. Those with diaper-related paraphilias differ widely in their focus of attention.

The DSM IV-TR does not use the phrase ‘diaper-related paraphilias’ or any approximation of this and it does not discuss a differing focus of attention amongst those with the diaper-related paraphilias.

6. Some are aroused from "wetting" (Urination) their diapers, or, to a lesser extent,

There is no such statement in the DSM IV-TR. It could be supported by other sources.

7 Some do not use the diapers at all, for arousal, or bladder and bowel movements.

This statement was supported by another source (Malitz) but the DSM IV-TR makes no such statement. The word diapers does not appear in the DSM IV-TR. Urophilia and coprophilia are listed in the DSM IV-TR as examples of 302.9 Paraphilias Not Otherwise Specified, but not in such a way as to support the above statements.

FiachraByrne (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

AS WLU has pointed out the DSM does mention diapers on page 572 in the quote already included earlier on in this thread ("The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ("infantilism")")FiachraByrne (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And my response from ANI:

I probably won't have time to address all of FiachraByrne's claims, but will touch on a few to show that they are as throughly unchecked as her previous claim about the article[48], which disappeared suddenly after it became clear that she could not blame it on me. It reminds me of WLU's accusation "Bittergrey's same misuse and mis-citation is indeed now appearing at diaper fetishism and the list of paraphilias page."[49] This ended when I pointed out that the ref to the DSM at list of paraphilias was added in 2008 by someone who was now arguing against the DSM[50]. It is great to be addressing this issue in a forum that won't be so easily votestacked or swayed by spammy shouting.

"Diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism, which is one of many paraphilias."

Sexual fetishism is specified because fetishism refers to religious or magical artifacts.
pg 569-570 (302.81 Fetishism) A list of items "among the more common" fetish items is given. The only exclusions listed are female clothing (in the case of cross-dressing) and masturbatory aids such as vibrators.
pg 566 (Paraphilias) "Paraphilias include...Exhibitionism (...), Fetishism (use of nonliving objects), ...

Thus, with few exceptions a <whatever odd item> fetish is a sexual fetish, and (sexual) fetishism is a paraphilia.

"Those with diaper-related paraphilias differ widely in their focus of attention."

pg 569 (in the section differential diagnosis) "The individual paraphilias can be distinguished based on the characteristic paraphilic focus."
pg 569 (302.81 Fetishism) "The focus in Fetishism involves use of nonliving objects (the "fetish")."
pg 572 (302.83 Masochism) "The paraphilic focus of Sexual Masochism involves the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer... The individual may have a desire to be treated as helpless infant and cloted in diapers ("infantilism").
It seems relatively clear that diaper fetishism and infantilism are diaper-related, and per the DSM, they do differ in their focus. Also per the DSM, they are both paraphilias.

"Pedophilia is a psychological disorder independent from diaper fetishism."

Pgs 568-569 define fetishism, 302.81. Pgs 571-572 define pedophilia, 302.2. They are separate paraphilias. Yes, they are not mutually exclusive, but this text being supported doesn't say that.

"Diaper fetishism does not include a sexual preference for children."

The symptoms for fetishism are detailed on page 568 of DSM 4TR. A sexual preference for children is clearly not among them.

By the way, if anyone still thinks this is about the DSM, they should note that all the pages that were relevant to fetishism or paraphilias in general have been removed from the diaper fetish article by WLU. It now only cites the page 572, on masochism. Within the confines of AGF, this doesn't make any sense. BitterGrey (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems we have a set of people trying to push their position on the DSM, without even having done a careful reading of it.

"I've read them all, paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear." WLU[51] after hitting 3RR to modify DSM citations.
"The word diapers does not appear in the DSM IV-TR." FiachraByrne[52], in grandiose but flawed presentation posted to both ANI and RSN, and after seven thousand words of discussion at RSN about the paraphilic infantilism definition on page 572.
DSM pg 572 (302.83 Masochism, in the Paraphilias section) "The paraphilic focus of Sexual Masochism involves the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer... The individual may have a desire to be treated as helpless infant and clothed in diapers ("infantilism").

One of the things that makes the DSM a great reference is that it is in most libraries. You don't have to depend on what people like this say - you can check it for yourself. BitterGrey (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

SDANet on Seventh Day Adventist topics

SDAnet is a media organization operated in the public interest by members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. While the owners and operators of SDAnet are members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, they are not acting in any way as official spokespersons for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Except for those contributions which are clearly labeled as official Seventh-day Adventist Church material, the opinions expressed by contributors to the various SDAnet activities are those of the individual authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, nor do they necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners and operators of SDAnet.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If the topic is simply "what do mainstream SDAs believe about X," it should be as acceptable as citing a cardinal's blog for Catholic doctrine (i.e. acceptable until an official Papal statement saying otherwise is found). As long as it's not unduly self-serving, not about third-parties, assumably authentic and about the subject making the claim, a non-independant source can be used. However, such sources do not establish notability.

In the case of Leonard R. Brand, the use SDAnet as a reference is not being used to establish notability. I get the impression it's just citing a book review, which would be an acceptable way to discuss what the SDA church thinks of Brand's book.

In the case of Arthur Patrick, SDAnet would be acceptable-ish for statements about himself... If there were other sources to establish notability. As it stands, I can't see anything demonstrating notability in that article. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have with its use in the Leonard R. Brand article is that it is purporting to demonstrate Brand's "Relationship to the Seventh-day Adventist Church" (originally the section title was "Notability Within The Seventh-day Adventist Church"), and I'm not really sure he does that (to the extent that there is a sufficiently-well-defined "that" to do). It's just somebody not-particularly-notable saying vaguely nice things about the book -- given that they would both appear to be moderate Adventists with a scholarly bent, this doesn't seem too surprising or particularly noteworthy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the contributing author most emphatically is trying to make the claim that such Adventist-affiliated sources can establish notability (the article is in the last throes of an AfD). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, if an additional SDA source saying vaguely nice things about Brand's book can be found (or the Arthur Patrick article doesn't get deleted), it'll show a general trend of acceptance. If an SDA source dissing the book can be found, it'll show enough of a mixed reaction that it'd probably be best not to discuss the book (unless we found another source discussing how it created a controversy in the SDA church or something). Otherwise, we should probably put it under a section about his work, and then more clearly state that Arthur Patrick of SDAnet thought such and such of the book.

No, that source doesn't establish notability. Notability needs outside sources (if the next Pope only gets attention from the Catholic church and not from news agencies, I'd even go as far as to say he would only get a mention in other articles but not his own). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just discovered that Arthur Patrick is listed in the 'Acknowledgements' page of the book -- making him blatantly affiliated. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Hrafn for letting me know about this discussion. I am the editor Hrafn is referring to helping with the Leonard R. Brand article. The Brand article has a section dealing with Brand's relationship to the Adventist church. In that section there is a subsection highlighting Brand's book about Ellen G. White, the 'inspired' co-founder of the church. Patrick does a book review on Brand's book. Doctor Patrick is a notable enough fellow with a WP article on him, etc. But I don't think that the Patrick quotes need to be used to establish notability. Other material can do that. I have included it because Patrick describes the format of the book and that Patrick has a reputation for being a fair-minded, objective scholar. What needs to be done regarding Brand's book on Ellen White is to demonstrate that it is causing a notable stir within the church. I am quite sure that can be done, though I have not put such evidence into the article yet. Ian, thanks for your analysis. I look forward to your further thoughts. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What "other material"? Most of the article is cited to similar sources, and what little third-party coverage is almost-exclusively on the topic of the Coconino Sandstone footprints, for which Brand is not the sole creationist advocate (making it largely WP:BLP1E to Flood geology). Also what Patrick does not describe is a "Relationship to the Seventh-day Adventist Church" that is in any way special/notable/significant beyond that of any other adherent with a scholarly bent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Another WP:SPS regarding Falkland Islands

Laurio Hedelvio Destéfani (1982). The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain. Edipress. ISBN 978-950-01-6904-2. Retrieved 15 August 2011.. See [53] as well.

Publisher is named as Edipress. See [54], activities appear to be primarily printing newspapers and magazines, though they will print a book for a fee. Now based in Switzerland the two founders are Argentine. I also note that this is in fact confirmed in the introduction that the company were printers rather than publishers.

The cover lists a number of Argentine companies that sponsored printing of the book in 1982 during the Falklands War. The book is highly politicised and reflects the Argentine POV very strongly. The introduction also indicates that the intention is for the book to be distributed for free to make the Argentine truth known everywhere. The jacket actually states "sale is forbidden". (I bought my copy through Amazon, [55] oops). It is fairly common as 127,050 copies were printed and distributed for free to university libraries worldwide. Many of those coming onto the market are ex-library stock.

Hence, it appears this would very much be considered an SPS as the sponsors paid for the book to be printed. Although an SPS, the author is a history graduate and was Head of the Department of Historical Studies of the Argentine Navy, as well as a member of the Argentine institute dedicated to Falklands (Malvinas) studies. Does this meet the SME exemption for an SPS?

As it is highly politicised and strongly reflects the Argentine POV and author's opinions I have been very careful how I use it. I have only used it to cite non-controversial facts. However, given the concern expressed above for a peer reviewed collection of expert contributions should I even be using it for that? I would welcome second opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It is decidedly not SPS as that refers to the author publishing his own words. I doubt the author paid for such a large press run from the largest magazine publisher in Argentina, I believe. The Amazon price of $8.95 does not seem that it is excessively expensive, I would gather. The use of "printer" instead of "publisher" would rather depend on the first language the book was written in -- what is the word for "publisher" in Spanish? I think "sustantivo"? And the word for "printer"? Dang - I think "sustantivo" also works! So much for that one <g>. If it is "highly politicised" then find countervailing reliable sources. But calling a source which is clearly not self-published an SPS is a teeny bit iffy here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually as I noted above the sponsors paid for the book to be printed and not the author. This is actually stated in the introduction. Now I posted here to get a 3rd party opinion on a source I'd used for a sanity check, not as an opportunity for you to hound me further with your sarcastic comments. For the 3rd and final time stop hounding me. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As I am not "hounding" you in any way whatsoever, I find your complain a tad meritless. Have a cup of tea on me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Although Destéfini is a recognised historian I would tend to exclude it. It is clearly intended to represent the "official" Argentine case and is recognised and generally used as such when cited [56]. If it was an academic work he could have found an academic publisher. Where you have it supporting non-contentious claims you have other sources which should be preferred. I would cite it only if and when the Argentinian claims are being explicitly outlined and not as a neutral commentary. In other words, treat for what it is, a POV text.FiachraByrne (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that was the guidance I was looking for. I can use other sources in most cases, except where I've used it to cite Argentina claims. If I understand you correctly thats the way I should really proceed. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

FiachraByrne makes a good call above. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact it was me who included Destéfani's book as a source in some Falklands and South Georgia related articles in the first place. Which means I regard it as RS. Surely it represents the Argentine position about which he feels very strongly, more so that the book was published during the days of Argentine occupation of the Falklands. Nevertheless, Destéfani shows a fair measure of good faith in his dealing with sources and historical facts (unlike quite a few Argentine authors), as e.g. in his treatment of Rivero's affair. The book features some interesting evidence and details of the early Falklands history too. I wouldn't care overly about the SPS or not SPS aspect. Apcbg (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to my use of the source not anything you've used it for, even as an SPS there is a expert provision that would allow its use. On the whole I agree with its continued use and came here for a sanity check, I believe it can be used but with great care because of the nature of the work. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

wired.com and whosnews.usaweekend.com

Not a dispute over specific content; see instructions at the top of this page. Debate WP:SIGCOV at AfD, not here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2011 (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.

In a recent deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximal (Transformers) user Tarc clamimed that those two web sites are unreliable sources. Specifically these articles [[57]] and [[58]] Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewignash (talk • contribs)

My opinion is that my position is being deliberately misrepresented by you. USA Today and Wired are reliable sources, but simply being mentioned in passing in a source that is deemed reliable is not sufficient enough to satisfy notability thresholds. This is about as fraudulent of a filing as one can find. Tarc (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

~~:I agree with Mathewignash. Those are obviously reliable sources that effectively demonstrate notability. Good job! --172.162.154.102 (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)~~

And here come the meatpuppets. Wonderful... Tarc (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who that is actually. Anyways, you said the were not RELIABLE in your arguement on the deletion page, not that they were not NOTABLE. They ARE reliable. Mathewignash (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I actually said nothing of the sort. What I said was that simply being mentioned in passing by a reliable source is not enough to satisfy notability concerns, that in-depth coverage directly of the subject is required. do you understand now? Tarc (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2011 (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.

Could this be checked out

I posted it in the professional wrestling section and I got no official response. Varghoo (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? --Freknsay (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about where I posted it, I posted it in the Proffesional Wrestling Section Talk Page

HipHopEncounter

Do you consider this source to be reliable, even though its a blog site and it contains accurate album sales from nielsen soundscan. I've been using the sales figures from that site to update the sales on some album articles that haven't been updated in months, but Dan56 keeps reverting my edits. Hometown Kid (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This post concerns the same as this one on this noticeboard. Dan56 (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As this image is from a blog site and is open to any one to upload images, it should not be used. Especially when there is a question raised about its authenticity by other editors. --Freknsay (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of dictionaries

Re "WP:Not a dictionary" If someone writes "XXX means YYY +ref +ref +ref" and then footnotes three major dictionary sources behind a word to show that this is modern usage, is this OR and can/should be deleted? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not really the right venue for your question (you probably should have asked it at the WP:NOR/noticeboard)... but I will answer anyway... No, it is not OR to give a dictionary definition of a word or term. I think you are misinterpreting WP:NOTDICTIONARY here. WP:NOTDICTIONARY does not mean we "ban" including dictionary definitions in an article (we include dictionary definitions in many of our articles), it means that we should not have articles that consist of nothing but a dictionary definition. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Dictionaries, in general, are tertiary sources. For any technical definitions, general dictionaries generally make poor sources. That does not, however, connect with "OR" in any case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you specify what usage these are being cited for? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You cannot draw your own conclusions about how a word is used based on how you see various sources using it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, a WP policy question has now been answered by an editor who is directly involved in content dispute. Jayjg is one of the editors who has just deleted 3 modern dictionaries which I inserted into an article, which is why I'm checking policy first. Surely there's a conflict of interest of an editor who is part of the group who has deleted dictionary refs coming to a noticeboard and answering the question for the noticeboard? FWIW the deleted sentence + 3 refs was verbatim what the 3 dictionaries (which is the sum total of available modern dictionaries) said, and the word in question was the title of the article "XXX is....." but can we not have a policy question answered without the gory details of one local dispute being dragged in? Please. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I never "deleted 3 modern dictionaries which [you] inserted into an article". Please make more accurate and truthful statements; this is not the first time you've made these kinds of non-factual accusations. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, the sole purpose of this particular noticeboard is to focus entirely on the gory details of a single local dispute, rather than generalized or hypothetical questions.

As a quick rule of thumb—although Blueboar is right that usually questions about "original research" should be asked at the WP:No original research/Noticeboard—if ____ has been published anywhere, then saying ____ in an article cannot be original research. "Original research" basically means "made up by a Wikipedia editor".

That something complies with NOR (a rather low bar) does not, however, mean that it necessarily ought to be included in any given article.

If you want more help in resolving this dispute, you'll need to tell us the name of the article in question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The article I believe is Yeshu. But it's not written at a level that the general reader can understand. That in itself a problem. The dispute sounds like a WP:SYNTH issue: Someone wants to use dictionaries to advance an argument. We typically try to avoid that. Brmull (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Brmull "Someone wants to use dictionaries to advance an argument" - I don't think that's fair is it? I did not write the dictionaries, nor cherry-pick, but used all available; the dictionaries merely state how a word is used, there's no "argument" involved. These are the 3 mainstream standard modern dictionaries. I'm merely asking if dictionaries can be used as WP:sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It all depends on how the sources are used, and in what context. In this case, you're attempting to use them as WP:PRIMARY sources, and draw conclusions based on how they use the word. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, thanks. So it has to go into the gory details of the article? In fact it isn't necessarily about the Yeshu article per se as the 3 active editors believe that that existing article is not about Yeshu (name) in the same sense as the Yeshua (name), Isa (name) articles, but about the identity of the Yeshu in two early and one probably not early uses, and consequently in their view dictionary references about the name itself have no place in the article. I have, until now which doesn't mean it is correct, assumed that citation of a standard dictionary in articles where a word/name/term is the title constitutes a WP:source. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Brmull, that's exactly the issue here, a WP:SYNTH problem: "Someone wants to use dictionaries to advance an argument". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, as one of the editors who deleted the 3 dictionary references from the article, you are entitled to your view. But all the dictionaries did was simply say "Yeshu Hebrew = Jesus English," there was no "WP:SYNTH" problem, the problem was the 3 modern dictionaries showed "in modern Hebrew usage" departing from some views about usage in the 13th C. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, as I explained above, I am not "one of the editors who deleted the 3 dictionary references from the article". If you have any evidence of me doing so, then please provide the diff. This is not the first time you've falsely accused me multiple times of doing something I have not done. Please apologize for this false accusation - and a real apology please, not one of your "well, maybe you didn't do that, but you did a lot of other bad, bad stuff, so I'm excused when I make these false accusations". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidently plural editors cannot physically press the same button on a specific delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs)

Is that supposed to be some sort of admission that your accusation was false after all? It's certainly not an apology. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Now can somebody save me the trouble of crawling any further through the article's history, and give me a diff of someone either adding or removing these three dictionaries, so I can see exactly how they were being used? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, WhatamIdoing thanks for asking. here, but I do not wish to attempt to restore this content/these refs at the article in question. I may not attempt to add them back at any article. At this point I'd simply like to hear a third party opinion in evaluating whether these dictionary sources do constitute "original research" as charged. If you'd prefer to stay a million miles from it I wouldn't blame you. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith

I would like to ask for some clarification on the reliable of a source.

One editor has insisted that a connection be made between Fawn McKay Brodie (author of No Man Knows My History) and Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation (ie. geneticist Ugo A. Perego) be established before the inclusion of any mention of Perego DNA research. That research disproved Brodie theories on the Children of Joseph Smith Jr. Basically the editor is saying that unless Perego research was done because of Brodie then it doesn't belong in the page.

At issue I would like input on is weather this source can be considered reliable, in this case only:

Perego's 2008 FAIR conference presentation statement where he quite clearly states that it was learning of Brodie's theory of Joseph Smith fathering Moroni Pratt, that caused him to do DNA testing on Mr. Pratt: "After learning of Brodie's reference I agreed to look into this case since I already knew Joseph Smith's Y chromosome profile."

The issue at had is whether FAIR is reliable in this case only. Weather this source shows that Perego did in fact do this research, in part, in repose to Boidies claims. I totally understand that FAIR is not a reliable source for many things, but reliability depends on what kind of information you are citing. In this case FAIR is only repeating the statements made by Perego. It is not making conclusions. Just because the sponsoring organization is FAIR does not mean what Perego himself said at that conference is unreliable. Just because FAIR hosts that transcript it should not be considered unreliable also. It is not FAIR who is making the connection, it is Perego and his reasons for the testing don't require any kind of review, they are his own. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with that identification so long as it's prefaced with a statement such as "At a conference of the Mormon apologetic organization FAIR, the Mormon geneticist Ugo Perego said....."--John Foxe (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That is not the issue at hand. Dose this establish that Perego did the research in response to Brodie claims? We are not attempting to quote him or his statements on establish he did the research in response to Brodie as you keep demanding. To include your statement is inappropriate and bias, since that is not what we are sourcing.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Let us accept that FAIR is reliable as far as what the speaker said. That should be non-controversial. Thus adding "At a conference ..." is superfluous in this case. What remains is the qualification of that speaker as a geneticist - if he is known in the field, then his opinions and findings carry weight. If he is not known, the weight is substantially reduced. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple of the things that worry me are that (1) this speech has not been through any established process or editing or verification, and (2) the speech is only posted on a non-permanent website. Just a week or so ago, for example, the speech was temporarily taken down from the site and was unaccessible. You cannot really say that this speech has been "published". Plus, since the speech has not been through an established publication process, we don't know how this speech was transcribed, or how accurately the speech reflects what was said during this particular gathering. In Wikipedia, we don't typically cite transcribed speeches unless the speech was either published in the form of "conference proceedings," or commented upon by the press--in which case, we cite the news organization. COGDEN 21:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To Collect Ugo A. Perego is known.

To COGDEN:

Re: 1. Your applying a standard that isn't part of WP:V. WP:V only says that it must be "published". FAIR publishes threw it's website. Almost every page has links to page that are no longer "valid". This doesn't mean that the reference is no longer "published" or WP:V.

Re: 2. "Published" doesn't mean 100% "accurate". Newspapers make make minor misquotes all the time. That doesn't make the entire article unreliable. In this one case, I find it improper to say "You have to have a source that links Perego to Brodie" while excluding a direct quote by him based on dislike for FAIR. Again in this case only, his statements are at a FAIR, reported on by FAIR and are only being used to establish that Perego did the DNA research in response to claims made by Brodie. To claim that are inaccurate is silly, especially considering how extensively Perego discuses Brodie in his book The Persistence of Polygamy: Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy (Volume 1), which can be found on Amazon.

Lastly, just found a reprint of this article which can be found at josephsmithdna.com a website owned and controlled by Ugo A. Perego himself. He is reprinting it himself.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Source on Jan Lokpal Bill

In an effort to update some very old info, a user recently added a bunch of information the section Jan Lokpal Bill#Complete set of differences between Jan Lokpal and Government's Lokpal bill to this article. I attempted to remove that information because to me the source provided, this document written by the IAC fails WP:SPS, and, specifically, WP:ABOUTSELF. The organization, India Against Corruption (website here, note that midway down the page there's a bullet point with a link to the document in question, which verifies the source of the document) is one of the groups drafting one of the bills in question. If you even glance at the first page of the document, you can see that this is not a neutral recounting, but the IAC's opinions about the various versions of the bill. As such, even though it purports to be a factual comparison of different versions of the bill, we cannot trust their analysis, under the grounds laid out in WP:ABOUTSELF--specifically, this document is both "self-serving" and is about a third party (the government of India); as such, it is my opinion that the document and all information included in it should be removed until such time as we have a neutral third party that makes this comparison. My attempts to explain this on talk (see the latter half of Talk:Jan Lokpal Bill#Complete differences section debate aren't seeming to be understood by the editor who added the content. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am the editor in question here. The aforementioned section is a long one with lots of information. Although I understand the WP:ABOUTSELF issue, I do not understand Qwyrxian haste in deleting the entire section. Taking cognizance of the issues raised by Qwyrxian, I have been trying to add additional neutral links from news sources to each of the 20-odd points mentioned in the table, which takes time. Secondly, unlike Qwyrxian, I am a civilian of the country (India) where the debate in the concerned article is currently raging. I know each of those points to be true and it is only a matter of time before all the text is verified. I have been urging Qwyrxian to have some patience till I do so (I'm already 40% done) and I'd really appreciate if some understanding is shown. Thirdly, the document in question was created by the very drafters of the one of the versions of the bill, it was widely circulated (even among the press) and it'd be silly for one of the parties involved in one of the most important debates in Indian history to fake differences. That is common-sense, but I understand the need for verification. I agree the "comments" section can be POV of the drafters, but there's an additional section which aims to highlight the critique of the drafter's version too. It is important to show both POV (and work and research on it to fill the comments section) to remain neutral and not blanket-delete the whole article as Qwyrxian has been doing. Veryhuman (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about truth; WP:V explicitly says that we care about what is verifiable, not what is true. Commmon sense has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies. Until you can provide a reliable source, you cannot include the info. The extra sources you are adding verify the opinions of the two sides, but they do not verify that these represent differences in the drafts. Unless that document is shown to be a reliable source, I will remove the section again until you can verify that these accurately represent the differences between the different versions of the bill. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, please keep your cool and listen to reason. Please read the references carefully inorder to understand the differences. If there is an issue, deletion is not the option. This section does not satisfy empirical criteria for [Speedy Deletion]. Be a little more constructive. Deleting this will cause massive loss of good-quality information, which can be bettered in time. Deleting is a simple alternative, but dont abuse it. If you still are adamant, I will ask for Third Opinion. Veryhuman (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion on the article talk page. As things stand, the information is in breach of WP:V, WP:SPS and several other policies/guidelines. Saying that "I know it to be true and it will be shown in time" is a somewhat ridiculous statement. We are writing an encyclopedia here. When things crystallise, as you anticipate they will, then perhaps the information will have its place. Until then it does not. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a via media, Veryhuman. Firstly, I have had a look at the material. Imho, User:Qwyrxian's concerns are genuine. I also understand your POV being an Indian. I suggest that you move the disputed material to a user page where you can keep searching and adding the references at your convenience. As soon as you are done, you can ask for the material to be reviewed by Qwyrxian and if it passes muster, it can be added. If there are observations, they can be addressed. This way the only difference is a delay and review. As such, we should not be eager to compromise the 5 pillars for the sake of eagerness. It is quite possible that the case could be used as a showcase of Wikipedians having POV issues which ultimately will be counter-productive to all concerned including the IAC. AshLin (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks AshLin. This suggestion makes sense. I'd appreciate if Qwyrxian points out which sections are problematic given the current status of the article and updated references. If this solution is acceptable to Qwyrxian, further discussion may be moved to the article talk page. Veryhuman (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A new, reliable source has been found (at least for part of the info); continuing at talk. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

EWTN as reliable source on Catholics for Choice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Commenters here have helped me realize that this is more of a due weight issue than a reliable source issue per se, so I'll bring it up at NPOVN. Closing to avoid parallel discussion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh...once again I am compelled to bring a source here, despite the burden being on the users adding it, who perhaps are hoping that majority mob rule will be a substitute for policy-based consensus.

Is EWTN, a conservative Catholic news site, an acceptable source on the "See Change" campaign of Catholics for Choice, a pro-choice Catholic organization? The article in question describes the campaign (whose goal is to have the Holy See designated as a NGO) as an "anti-Catholic attempt to expel the Vatican from the UN," while the same source elsewhere describes CFC as a "militant pro-abortion group" (with "Catholics" in scare quotes in the group's name) and a "pro-abortion Catholic cartel that operates within the Church for the express purpose of creating confusion."

I think it's obvious that this falls under WP:QS and is absolutely not reliable for statements about this third party. One of the users advocating it says it is reliable because it has an independent lay board and reports on Catholic topics. (The other users haven't bothered to explain why they believe it's reliable.)

(Context: material on a House of Reps vote is being added that is sourced to this EWTN article, to a CFC press release, and to a Washington Post votes database. I've argued that the material is covered by no reliable secondary sources - the WaPo isn't a story but rather a collection of every vote, so it's reliable for facts but doesn't confer any notability on the event, while a CFC press release is reliable for statements about CFC but, similarly, we don't write up all their press releases. And the EWTN is, as I've explained, an unreliable attack page.)

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would EWTN be a QS? Surely they are not being disparaged merely because of their religious affiliation? - Haymaker (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, they're being disparaged for editorializing about the subjects they're covering -- see Ros's comment above about "'Catholics' for Choice". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh please, don't waste everyone's time by bringing this idiotic strawman to yet another forum in an attempt to smear me as anti-Catholic. If the fact that a significant part of EWTN's website is dedicated to advocating an opposing political agenda wasn't enough to make it QS, its virulent and malicious bias against the article's subject certainly would do so. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You can prove that EWTN has a "virulent and malicious bias against the article's subject"? - Haymaker (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As demonstrated above. Now, do you have anything productive to contribute, or are you going to continue claiming that this is because I just really hate any source that self-identifies as Catholic? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I asked if you could prove it, not just point to where you said it earlier. You are not, in fact, a reliable source. - Haymaker (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In general EWTN is a reliable source. If something sourced to them is seen as controversal, state in the content that "EWTN published/stated...". --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would we do this? If the event is notable, it should appear in reliable sources. If the only coverage that can be found is an attack page from a website with an ongoing campaign against the article subject, it's obviously not notable enough to include. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's DUE is a matter for WP:NPOVN. What we're telling you is that a biased media source still meets the basic requirements for reliability. These are the five factors that determine reliability:

It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s).
It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing.
It is a third-party or independent source.
It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes.

The presence or absence of "virulent and malicious bias against the article's subject" is not on the list. A source can be virulently and maliciously biased while still meeting every single one of these standards. You deal with bias through your method of presentation, not by saying "unsympathetic right-wing sources not permitted on this left-wing topic". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And can you demonstrate EWTN's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? That's kind of important. (Reprinting this antisemitic rumor is a pretty good indication that this claim will not successfully be demonstrated.) See WP:QS: "Such sources include websites and publications...which rely heavily on rumor..." (one excerpt from a policy whose other parts also apply) It also might help if you provided examples of sources that were virulently and maliciously biased that were nonetheless determined to be reliable.

If you really think NPOVN is the venue, I can try that too, since it's also an obvious NPOV violation to allow an organization that disparages the article subject, spreads misinformation about the article subject, and wishes to "destroy the credibility" of the article subject to determine the article content. But it's also just that the source is not reliable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not buying your characterization of either of those two external links. - Haymaker (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Attribution If the source isn't questionable the way to deal with this is attribution. Just attribute the statement to the source, "according to ..." IMO I don't see any indication of it being unreliable. However, it would be good if someone more knowledgeable were to verify that it does indeed have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, the source is questionable, based on its lack of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and based on its reliance on rumor. Attribution would not solve the problem I described above, ie. we do not let organizations engaged in active campaigns of disparagement, destruction, and misinformation against an article subject determine the content of that subject's article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

1) You'r descritpion of what EWTN is "engaging in" seems a tad over the top, IMO. 2) Neutral commentators here don't appear to agree with you about it being a QS. The point of asking a question here is to get exactly that kind of opinion. Insisting that others are simply wrong when they give it is pretty much WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. 3) Why don't you give these individuals some time to answer the question I asked about the reputation of the source? The one example you gave is not proof of what you claim, since all news sources make mistakes. I'd like to hear more from the uninvovled people who frequent this board and less from the disputants. That's how the board should function, though often disputants just carry over their talk page fights here instead.Griswaldo (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to persuade people; it's a discussion. ;) Re: reputation - I think such reputation has to be positively established - the absence of a negative reputation is not enough. The link re: the perennial Protocols of the Elders of Zion claim that rich Jews are trying to subvert Christianity was an illustration of why I believe that this reputation is unlikely to be successfully established, but I think the burden of establishing that reputation for fact-checking and accuracy still rests with those who say the source is reliable, whether or not a failure to fact-check has been suggested or proven. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that instead of trying to determine whether EWTN is a "reliable source" for coverage of Catholics for Choice, it would seem more useful to treat EWTN as a notable critic of Catholics for Choice. If EWTN has something noteworthy to say about CFC, that can be attributed to EWTN as a criticism of CFC. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We'd then have to treat it as self-published, though, which again raises the question of why we let self-published critics determine the article content. This may actually be a better question for NPOVN; I'll think it over and possibly close this and open a thread there. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:51, 18 August 2011 (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.

European Respiratory Journal/ European Respiratory Society

Is the European Respiratory Journal from the European Respiratory Society a reliable source or not?
I came across this revert and now I'm curious to know a wider opinion especially because the source is used in many other articles in Wikipedia. --Dia^ (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed scientific journal with an eminent editorial board, publishing papers by academic and professional medical researchers. Absolutely passes WP:RS. Zero^talk 11:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be a reliable source in general, but for medical articles we have a preference for secondary sources (review articles, medical textbooks) because not all studies that are performed need to be included on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 15:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Scientist's own articles used as sources for material?

Input from additional editors would be helpful at an RfC on the Leonard R. Brand article. He is a creationist scientist. The main issue is whether or not the article can contain sections describing Brand's research, when the only sources are Brand's own scientific articles (or must there be secondary sources that discuss Brand's work)? --Noleander (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

May I add a related question: A scientist's own work in a peer-reviewed journal often gets cited by another unrelated scientist in a different peer-reviewed article. That scientist describes what the first scientist says, often in specific detail. Is the unrelated scientist's published report a secondary source with regard the first scientist? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Noleander has described the current status "when the only sources are Brand's own scientific articles." His question is relevant to the articles current status. If that status changes, and other scientists' citations of Brand are also included, can Brand's research publications remain in the article supplemented by those other scientists? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The questions DRS raises are valid: Must we find secondary sources that discuss in detail a scientists work? Or is it enough that some other scientists cite the primary authors journal articles? What if the citations are just in passing? And what if there are no other scientists that even cite it? --Noleander (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask that the scientist's work be discussed in at least one review article? Even my lame-ass college research projects met that low bar. To use a mention in another primary source(s) to establish notability would be a misuse of that primary source IMO. Brmull (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is no distinction between a research paper and a review article that cites something from another source; both are a secondary sources for what is being cited. If a paper published in a peer reviewed journal cites content from another paper, then it is a reliable secondary source for that content as far as I'm aware. There may be other factors that have to be taken into account when deciding to add content to an article, such as neutrality and due weight, but generally if peer reviewed work re-iterates claims or interprets somebody elses results then it is generally considered a secondary source I think. Betty Logan (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been litigated on these pages before. A research paper is going to mention those cites that are relevant to the project. The author is not asserting that those cites are important to the field as a whole. Notability is not established. Brmull (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to delete most of Wim Crusio then. I think this is too high of a standard and not found in any policies or guidelines. As explained on that page, WP:N applies only to whole article topics, not to every sentence in an article. Furthermore, even WP:N doesn't ask for review articles, only sources that are independent. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is difficult to give one general rule. To take one extreme, certainly an article which is not cited by anyone would have a hard time convincing typical experienced Wikipedians that it should be mentioned. But on the other hand demanding a citation in something strictly defined secondary source goes beyond what we normally demand.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between stating the results given in an article as "simple fact" and stating that "So-and-so in this article stated that he found thus-and-such." This obviates the seeming contradiction in the policies, I suggest. Collect (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wim Crusio is a mess of self-promotion but at least his work has been discussed in invited reviews. As it turns out, Leonard R. Brand's research, at least regarding deer mice, was discussed in a review article. There's no question it's okay to discuss those findings. I also think it's okay to mention his other research interests without going too much into the findings (since notability is uncertain--and by notability I mean WP:UNDUE rather than WP:N). Thus I think the clause "and demonstrated that the burial of the whales in diatom sediment had been a very rapid event" should be deleted. #1 I don't think he proved that, and #2 We don't know whether this is important because there is no secondary source. Also, from reading the paper it doesn't appear that he studied extinct Leviathan whale fossils so that should be clarified. Brmull (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Collect's opinion seems reasonable. Peer reviewed published research by a scientist is clearly reliable enough for those claims by the scientist. What RS essentially boils down is, can we trust the source for accurately relaying information? It makes no claims to the factual relevance of those claims; that is what WP:UNDUE covers. His scientific claims may well be fringe theories, and as such the policy basically says such fringe theories are too negligible to cover on the article covering the actual field. On the otherhand, if the article is about the person formulating and pushing those theories, and they dominate his career then WP:UNDUE would seem to compel us to cover that aspect of his career. As long as they are represented as fringe theories and not a mainstream scientific view I think primary sources are largely ok if the focus is on his career rather than the science itself. Betty Logan (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If only scientifically correct ideas were included anywhere in Wikipedia, we wouldn't be able to report any of the fringe stuff that Melanie Phillips, Lynne McTaggart or Jenny McCarthy promote, even in their own biographies. Clearly an absurd situation. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. I'm not suggesting only "scientifically correct ideas" can be included in WP. I'm saying that peer-reviewed scientific research findings should not be presented without any context from secondary sources as to the significance of those findings. Because it's a slippery slope, especially on this particular topic, where some are using journal citations for POV pushing purposes. Brmull (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Participants on this thread might also like to venture an opinion on a second RfC I've called on this article's talkpage, as a result of an explicit request from a disputing editor: Talk:Leonard R. Brand#Questions on quotes. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"Research findings should not be presented without any context from secondary sources" is correct. Per W:UNDUE, we report detail of a scientists published papers in proportion to the level of notability they have been given by secondary sources. I haven't looked over Brand's published papers, but if for example Brand's Theory A was published by an academic journal but received no attention from secondary sources, we might simply note in the article that he published a paper dealing with Theory A. If the paper were discussed within academia or received attention from other RS we might report what those sources say about Theory A, and use Brand's own paper on Theory A to fill in relevant detail. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Koch Industries and related articles

[59] shows a repeated edit in this article based on "treehugger.com." My opinion was that articles subject to WP:BLP must have claims based on WP:RS complaint sources, which treehugger.com is not, in my opinion. We have Greenpeace currently cited in the article, citing its claims as its opinion. So the question is: Is greenpeace RS for statements of fact in an article related to BLPs, and is treehugger.com also a fact reliable source?

Partial quote from treehugger:

A new report from Greenpeace exposes one of the major, yet little known, financial backers of climate change denial, including fueling the "Climategate" fire.

The blog then proceeds to deal primarily with Charles and David Koch by name. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that Treehugger is a professional blog owned by Discovery Communications, and as such it is a RS. Brmull (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Environmental editor holds an M.A. and states in his bio:

Only by reducing demand though a combination of conservation, efficiency improvements and public infrastructure enhancements will all the exciting work done on alternative energy be able to satisfy our seemingly endless appetite for energy. It’s as much a change in psychology as it is in technology [60].

The "article" cited states:

A new report from Greenpeace exposes one of the major, yet little known, financial backers of climate change denial, including fueling the "Climategate" fire. "Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine" shows how the Kansas-based has spent nearly $25 million between 2005 and 2008 funding, what Greenpeace calls a a climate denial "echo chamber" and become the "financial kingpin in efforts to undermine climate science.

IOW, the blog merely recites something already linked in the article as an opinion of Greenpeace. C.v. for the blogger? After nearly a decade in the world of independent film etc. with a M.A. in "Environmental and Energy Policy" - scarcely a strong resume for such fluff. The blogs are political and social in nature (in fact, being "green"), and are not a "news source" as such.

Ownership by the owner of Discovery Channel != automatic RS. [61],

And of course such RS blogs as [62] there is little difference between the thought patterns of deniers & environmentalists.

In short - same level as the Discovery Channel's programs found not to be generally RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account the author's credentials, the entertainment focus of Discovery Channel, the fact that the source is a blog I have to say exclude this source. If the content is noteworthy it will have been covered in a better source. Also the source isn't used to cite anything to a living person in the article so BLP doesn't apply. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As a practical matter, I don't see why Treehugger is needed, except to say that Koch outspends Exxon 3-1. But that's not usable because it's just in the title. Treehugger is written in a very informal style and obviously there's a strong editorial viewpoint but if you read closely they are very careful to attribute properly. The "little difference" quote mentioned above was taken out of context. This is a professional operation. As for the idea that something might not be reliable because it is related to the Discovery Channel, how are you going to make that call? For example Discovery's "Death of bin Laden" special has proven to be one of the most accurate sources for that event. Brmull (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS != WP:ACCURATE or WP:TRUTH. The gist of the factual claim about Greenpeace's opinion is inthe Greenpeace press release. Treehugger adds no value to the material, and the opinions are still opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the link to Treehugger is unnecessary in this case. The only issue that remains is the philosophical debate as to whether Treehugger is a RS, and whether policy should be changed to make this more clear. If you don't get an answer here this could be discussed at the Identifying Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Brmull (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Kurdica

Kurdika is not reliable soruces. As long as I understand, members (users) can create articles on this "encyclopedia". For example, this article was written by ku:Bikarhêner:Baran Ruciyar (tr:Kullanıcı:Baran Ruciyar). -- Takabeg (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What article uses kurdica.com as a source? Brmull (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

[63] shows none at the moment, but I agree that doesn't meet our criteria and shouldn't be used. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I found in the article Lachin Kurdish Republic. -- Takabeg (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Last Word cited in Catholic League (U.S.)

Page: Catholic League (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User adding source: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Source: The Last Word. May 29, 2009.
Relevant discussion: Talk:Catholic_League_(U.S.)#Youtube used as lousy source in Catholic_League_(U.S.)#Church_child_sex_abuse_issue

Facts

A Youtube video of a radio program entitled Bill Donohue Defends Child Abuse (Youtube) was added by Roscelese. Editors user:JorgePeixoto and user:NYyankees51 objected on reliability grounds. Roscelese conceded that Youtube is not reliable. Editor user:Lionelt objected to the video on the grounds that there was no evidence of permission which violated copyright. The video was removed.

Roscelese then added an unlinked cite to the radio program.[64] Lionelt objected on the grounds that she did not see it for herself. He pointed out again that Youtube is unreliable. Roscelese defended the addition by claiming it is cited on Gorman's (the subject) blog.

Points

1. Youtube has a poor reputation for verifying the integrity of content uploaded. There are no safegurds to prevent a user from uploading an edited video. WP:VIDEOLINK states:

YouTube and similar sites do not have editorial oversight engaged in scrutinizing content so editors need to watch out for the potential unreliability of the user uploading the video. Editors should also attempt to make sure that the video has not been edited to present the information out of context or inaccurately.

Therefore the Youtube was properly excluded.

2. When Roscelese cited The Last Word she was relying on her personal knowledge of the program based on the Youtube video. The first issue is that we have no way of knowing if that video was complete and unedited, and second Roscelese did not listen to the program herself. This is a violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Regarding the assertion that Gorman's blog authenticated the video, as a self published source it is only reliable about statements pertaining to itself. It cannot speak about 3rd parties, including the user that uploaded the video, and the video itself.

Conclusion

The citation The Last Word should be removed because the editor who added it relied on an unreliable Youtube video and did not listen to the program herself.

Submited by: – Lionel ^(talk) 05:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I argue that if a potentially unreliable source is being cited for the statement "O'Gorman said X," and O'Gorman endorses that exact source on his blog, it can be used. The material as added by another user contained the statement "in a debate with Bill Donohue," but I removed this as Donohue has not endorsed the video, while O'Gorman has. Lionelt's comment that O'Gorman's blog is not a reliable source for statements about the user who uploaded the video is strange to me, since no one is arguing this. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Point 2 is not valid, and the conclusion which relies on it is thus unfounded. The quoted guideline WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT does not apply to a reliable source that is correctly cited after searching through sometime unreliable sources including youtube. If hearing the youtube audio stream of the radio show helped Roscelese discover the Gorman blog post, a reliable expert source which discusses the radio show from the viewpoint of a participant, then so what? Gorman offers links to two youtube streams of the show, and he does not say the streams misrepresent Donohue or Gorman or even moderator Matt Cooper. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Re. Jim Goad

Someone.. perhaps from Goad's forum, or perhaps Goad himself, feels that Jim Goad's conviction for some kind of domestic violence/assault offence, after beating his not entirely mentally stable former girlfriend the morning after boning her, does not deserve mention in his article. Is this an appropriate use of sources? Nevard (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources, RJ Smith writing for SPIN magazine, and Joseph Gallivan writing for The Portland Tribune, are reliable sources. The paragraph should stay. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

death of Gérald Genta

Everyone seems to agree he probably is dead, but finding a reliable source to verify that has proven difficult. I put forth this ref [65] (translated from French). The name of the magazine translates as "The Review of Watches." (Mr. Genta designed high-end watches) Can we use this to verify Mr. Genta's death? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems reliable. You might want to put a footnote on the date of death showing this is the source, until more sources become available. Brmull (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Arif Dentel Laboratory_Samundri City

A unique name in dentel association since last 35 years. Defiened by Dr Ashraf in mandi bazar samundri. Now it is near Govt. Girls High School # 2 Circular Road Samundri.

116.71.191.207 (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Regards116.71.191.207 (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Dentist Arif Ashraf

What is the question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of Eurogamer in a specific case

A number of IP editors are removing a piece of information from the article IceFrog which is sourced to this Eurogamer article. After I reverted them and asked for a reason, the last IP doing so claimed the source was not reliable. I started a talk page discussion but I doubt it will yield anything, since all those IPs only edited this single article and nothing else. As such, I'd invite input on this question and possibly a neutral editor reverting back if necessary. Regards So Why 07:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As per the consensus verified reliable sources listed by Wikiproject:Video Games here, Eurogamer is a reliable source. I will go revert them now. Silver seren^C 08:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The only concern I have here is whther this stub should exist at all. You write, "with the additional coverage of Dota 2 and the whole Dota genre, I think he is now notable enough to warrant an article." But in the Dota article there is no new coverage of anything. The main new info in this stub is we are now joining Eurogamer in outing this guy, which I understand is quite controversial in the Dota community. Is this NPOV? Brmull (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "outing". We report what reliable sources say. If reliable sources have outed him, then that has nothing to do with us, and we must report it properly. Furthermore, his real name was also stated by Eurogamer in an article that was released last year, which was when he was "outed". And there's other coverage of him, such as Joystiq, Joystiq, and PC Gamer. Silver seren^C 08:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

IceFrog is notable and Eurogamer is notable. What isn't notable is what Eurogamer is referencing. They are referencing a blog that claims to list his real name, which is hardly a reliable source. He may deserve his own article, but that name does not belong, unless either he or Valve come forward and say otherwise. DarthBotto_talk•cont 09:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, after a bit of searching, I believe you are correct. Valve has stated that the info in the blog is false, that that is not his real name. However, you removed the name, but added a bunch of tags, which don't apply if the name is gone. Why did you add them? Silver seren^C 09:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ars Disputandi article at Russell's teapot

Mamalujo has suggested that an article that appeared in theological journal of philosophy:Ars Disputandi from an otherwise unpublished author is relevant criticism to the well established logical argument of Russell's teapot. That article is written, and cited as: Garvey, Brian (2010). "Absence of evidence, evidence of absence, and the atheist's teapot" (PDF). Ars Disputandi. 10: 9–22. doi:10.1080/15665399.2010.10820011.
I don't object to the citation as it is published on the web, just that it is not a notable journal or "reliable [scientific] third party publisher", nor has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", the author is not an "established expert on the topic", and submit the material is self-serving, all in conflict with the requirements of a journal per wp:sources. Please note: it is a theological article & journal commenting on a purely logical (and scientific) argument.
You may be interested in the Talk page as Mamalujo has been unable to reach consensus with myself nor Abhishikt.
Thanks for your time. Grimsooth (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Theological opinions seem relevant in an article related to philosophy of religion (this is not a scientific article, so the heading is misleading), but as with all philosophical topics, we need to be very careful to include only noteworthy opinions. An opinion becomes noteworthy by being discussed by others, or possibly and to some extent by being the opinion of a very notable philosopher. Neither appears to apply here. Hans Adler 13:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a serious amount of unfortunate misrepresentation about this journal above. It's focus is not theology, but the philosophy of religion, is put out by an academic publisher and it is peer reviewed, etc. Clearly it is a "reliable source" within the philosophy of religion. That much should be obvious. The author of the article is also quite obviously a well published philosopher of relevant fields. As Hans points out the real issue isn't reliability but a content decision -- is the information DUE or not. Perhaps not, but that is something editors ought to take up at the talk page, or a more relevant content noticeboard. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The journal appears to be a reliable source for the existence of published criticism. The point raised by it doesn't seem unreasonable either. That said, I wouldn't support an inline namecheck like this, unless it's to someone who is a recognised authority to the level where the name could be linkable (blue or red). I'd prefer to see that statement as an anonymous passive voice, with a reference (including the author's name). In fact I'd probably merge this para to after the second para, which is a statement of much the same argument by James Wood. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions, but those are content concerns and not reliability concerns. I think we need to let this go back to the article talk page at this point.Griswaldo (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but philosopher Brian Garvey is certainly not an "otherwise unpublished author". Moreover, Ars Disputandi is a peer-reviewed academic journal with an eminent editorial board. There is no way on earth that this source fails WP:RS. Moreover, as Garvey's article is directly concerned with Russell's teapot, is it obviously relevant. That doesn't mean that it must be added (no rule says that all reliable sources have to be used), but the reasons given on the talk page for excluding it are truly bizarre. (As an aside, I think Russell was right and Garvey is wrong, but that's just as irrelevant as Grimsooth's opinion.) Zero^talk 14:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The section header is substantially misleading. Collect (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed and I am going to change it.Griswaldo (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this article (Russell's teapot) is "just philosophy". It revolves around philosophy of science (mostly falsifiability). The sentence in question is just a giant WP:WEASEL as well. [66] FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The only instance of "just philosophy" appearing on this page, before I wrote it just now, came from you just above, which means you're replying to a straw man. However philosophy of science is a type of philosophy (and not a type of science), so calling an entry mostly to do with the philosophy of science a philosophy entry, as opposed to a "scientific" entry, remains correct. That said, I disagree entirely that it has mostly to do with the philosophy of science as opposed to other branches of philosophy, particularly the philosophy of religion. The teapot analogy was not developed to further the philosophy of science. Indeed it offers nothing novel or interesting to the sciences. Instead it adapts a very fundamental principle of scientific reasoning to arguments about the existence of God. This is much more pertinent to the philosophy of religion, or perhaps the philosophy or irreligion.Griswaldo (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The article has now been edited in a manner somewhat different from what we had all interpreted the article as being about. Collect (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The criticism section now seems to be a bit POV and isn't dealing with the criticisms in a neutral manner. Silver seren^C 02:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Emo Violence

Hello i am planning to improve coverage of screamo sub-genres in the screamo article itself and I came across this article while reaserching. I was unsure because it has no date of creation and no author, the article is stuctured like wikipedia and becuase of this I was unsure of whether it's usable. Jonjonjohny (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC) http://www.musicnewsreviews.com/Emo_Violence.html

Absolutely not WP:RS. As it says at the bottom of the page "It uses material from the Wikipedia". Circular referencing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

RS on HAL dhruv article

HellO!!!!can any one help me out that the cite sourced for this article is RS or not??? this cite ??? Roh^G??· 12:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The link you give is to the site home page, rather than to the source for whatever is being cited. You'll need to provide a proper link, and indicate what it is being cited to support. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello there, I believe I may be of some assistance. I am the GA Reviewer of the HAL Dhruv article and the individual who questioned the source's suitablity to be used to cite facts in said article. The individual link is as follows: link, though there were several other Domain-B cites that I also replaced with cite tags in search of superior sources. The main page looks more professional that the article pages do, so perhaps my diagnosis is over the top. External opinions on the quality/suitability of the link and the site network would be appreciated, by both nominee and reviewer. Kyteto (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, for what its worth, I found another link on the same subject, which might be better [67]. Both are from 2008, and a more recent source might be preferable - I've not tried looking at Spanish-language sources (e.g. the Peruvian media) though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Institute for Creation Research as a reliable source

Several editors at the Intelligent design article insist that the creationist advocacy group Institute for Creation Research is a reliable source (specifically, this article). The particular article is written by the former head of that advocacy/activist group, leading Young Earth creationist Henry M. Morris. His academic credentials consist of an undergraduate degree in civil engineering, a Master's degree in hydraulics, and a PhD in hydraulic engineering. Drrll (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't exactly obvious from the talk page discussion what the article is being used as a source for? As a reliable source for scientific issues, obviously not, but as a source for Morris's opinions, it is fine. As always, context matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't being used as a source for Morris' opinions per se, rather, it's being used in the article lead to definitively say that intelligent design is a form of "neo-creationism." Thus, both Morris' academic qualifications and his role at the time as the head of an advocacy/activist group is relevant. Drrll (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, our article probably shouldn't say that at all (though I happen to believe that it is true). What it should say is that intelligent design is seen by its critics as a form of "neo-creationism" -and you have plenty of sources to back that up, elsewhere in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There are plenty of sources to back up that ID is seen by its critics as a form of "neo-creationism," including some individuals with impressive credentials in the relevant academic specializations.

Let me add, I just realized that the most relevant policy, the core policy WP:V, would likely disqualify even the use of this source to say that it is Morris' opinion. The most lax provision of WP:V in regards to self-published sources allows uses of such sources to state the opinion of someone--WP:ABOUTSELF. However, the first and perhaps the second requirement of that policy would disallow its use--"the material is not unduly self-serving," and the second requirement is that "it does not involve claims about third parties," where the ID movement may qualify as a third party. Thus, WP:SPS would apply instead. That policy says the following:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.

Morris was not an "established expert on the topic of the article"--ID--and he has no "work" "published by reliable third-party publications" "in the relevant field" of ID. Drrll (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

comment: Intelligent design is indeed a form of creationism. There is little doubt about this. I suppose one might quibble about the use of the term "neo-creationism", which may not be clearly defined. The clear solution here is to just be straightforward and use the word creationism instead. The idea that we need to use WP:WEASEL words here to dance on the head of a pin is only silly. If push comes to shove, I suppose we could call it a "non-scientific magical explanation" instead of creationism. aprock (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the text in the ID article should just use the term that has widespread usage everywhere--creationism. It is used widely in scholarly sources, general audience books, general audience news sources, and all dictionaries and expert-written encyclopedias--in stark contrast to the level of usage that "neo-creationism" has. Drrll (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Messybeast.com

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Messybeast.com, previously brought up. I can't find anything to indicate this is an expert website for exemption from WP:SPS. However, the owner appears to be a wikipedia editor - User:Messybeast. Anyone able to provide more information? Used as a cite on Falkland Islands Wolf. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a tough one. The source has done some really nice work, but doesn't always say where she gets her information. I'd say contact User:Messybeast and ask her to add some sourcing to her wolf page. Otherwise messybeast.com can go in the "See also" section but not in the body. User:Messybeast can only edit the page if there is no reference to her work in either the body or the "See also" section. I know this is different that what was decided in the archive, but this is how it was handled on another very contentious page I've worked on. Brmull (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Akiba Blog

I am wondering whether Akiba Blog (somewhat NSFW) can be considered a reliable (or at least situational) source. The website was brought up here before, where it was dismissed as just a blog. However, the blog also contains semi-regular columns contributed by PR and staff from multiple anime or video game companies including Aniplex, Marvelous Entertainment, Visual Art's, and Edge Records in a manner similar to the PlayStation Blog (which is considered a RS by WP:VG/S). The blog also appears to have been interviewed by website ASCII.jp in 2008, and The Otaku Encyclopedia describes the blog as "widely considered the number one source for news on Akihabara" (although this is rather subjective), which may establish the author, "Mr. Geek", as being an expert in the otaku culture to an extent. -- クラウド６６８ 05:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Self-published royalty websites

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After over a week's debate, consensus is that these self-published ancestry sources should not be used as sources in biographies of living people. Closing per request at WP:AN/I. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There are at least a couple of self-published websites devoted to detailing the lists of succession to mostly defunct thrones which are cited extensively on Wikipedia. Two that have come up recently are:

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ "Genealogical Gleanings" [68]
http://www.royalark.net "Royal Ark" [69]

We use these two sites for material on living people. Should these websites be treated as exceptions to the rule prohibiting the use of self-published websites as sources for BLPs, WP:BLPSPS? If so, why? Will Beback talk 00:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I think not, unless the case can be made that the owners/authors of the sites are experts in royal genealogy. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's my understanding that self-published experts can be used as sources for non-BLPs, but that even they are prohibited sources for living people. WP:SPS. Will Beback talk 00:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The publishers of these sites are indeed both well-known and respected experts in research on the genealogy, titulature, monarchical history and successions of non-Western dynasties, both reigning and formerly reigning. I don't know if it's appropriate to give their right names on Wikipedia, but neither is "anonymous": those who frequent royalty websites, newsgroups and online forums in which non-Western hereditary rulers are tracked and discussed have been familiar with and/or in direct contact with both of them for more than a decade. More importantly, although there are more monarchies extant in non-Western than in Western continents, very little is known of them and their dynasties. The vast majority of what is written about them is inaccessible to the Western reading public: little is online and what is available is often cursory, what is in print is simply out of reach. Worse, problems of culture, translation, sourcing and NPOV abound (if you've ever read or edited the information frequently uploaded on these topics, you know to what I'm referring. Although every effort must, of course, be encouraged and appreciated, with the best intentions people can only offer what they have to hand, using the tools and English literacy they bring here -- and barriers to sustained, neutral participation on English Wikipedia are often overwhelming outside the West -- except to the most zealous). Yet Wikipedia's content, audiences and reputation are best served if more information about these institutions is made available in English sooner. Genealogical Gleanings and the Royal Ark have the advantage of being published on stable, dedicated, English-language websites, in familiar formats, the authors (whatever their backgrounds -- I've never met or spoken with either of them, although I know the countries of their location) write in concise prose, understand and apply scholarly research standards, strive for objectivity, update their sites frequently, and -- most critical of all -- have built up stores of documented information about non-Western dynasties that simply isn't to be found elsewhere. They also cross-check each other: The author of Gleaningss is especially expert in Far Eastern dynastic lore, while Ark is paricularly known for the dynasties of Islamic nations and the Christian dynasties (e.g. Transcaucasia) which border them. Both strive to bring indigenous African institutions and history to the attention of Westerners. Both are known to solicit information, feedback and crosschecking regarding their entries online. Because of my areas of interest and forum experiences, I personally rely more on Genealogical Gleanings for objective interpretation and on Royal Ark for factual data, but I value and trust both. They -- we -- should not be penalized because long ago they chose to pass on paper in favor of online publication -- where their work is both more dynamic with rewpect to corrections and updates and more accessible to those beyond the West. They deserve to be treated -- with caveats -- as exceptions to our "published sources" rule (and there are lots of other sites which don't, and whcih would draw my silence rather than my advocacy). And by the way, Will Beback, thanks for asking. FactStraight (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Those websites compile information from print sources and official websites. For each national royal house listed, the detailed references for all information are given on each main section page. It's not the same as ancestry.org or a personal website. brilliancetime (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. The two webmasters, Henry Soszynski and Christopher Buyers, are named on their websites. I don't see any books or magazine articles that they've published. What evidence do we have that they are regarded as experts? Will Beback talk 04:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess I should probably respond here since you've left messages on three lists that I wrote! I agree with FactStraight that Buyers and Soszynski are both well-respected sources for the more obscure dynasties. I should also point out that both authors cite their own sources quite readily, Soszynski here and Buyers on the opening page of each work. I obviously prefer citing additional sources where possible (there are several online almanachs that are good for this), but there is a distinct scarcity of sources in this area of knowledge. While the royal genealogies of Europe have a steady following, that can't be said for the tribal kings of Africa or the rajas of India. Because of our policies, I wouldn't recommend the use of them as sources for biographical articles where better sources exist. The biographical detail on these websites is the barest minimum; if they were the only sources on a particular individual, we shouldn't have an article on that individual to begin with. If there's a point of contention that is sourced to these websites, and no other source can be found, the point should probably be removed. Having said that, I don't see a problem with using them in lists of incumbents that only include a name and a date. Nightw 05:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence that these are well-respected sources? If the best sources for a topic are two self-published websites, then an alternative would be to cover the topic less thoroughly, or to omit the material on living people altogether. Will Beback talk 07:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable approach. If some persons are of such limited interest that only these SPS wrote about them, they could easily be omitted from Wikipedia. See WP:EVERYTHING. On the other hand, if these sites cite harder to access sources, like old newspapers only available in microfilm at a library, I'd give that information the benefit of the doubt for inclusion unless there's some actual evidence of unreliability of these sites, like some of their citations failing independent verification. Having had a look at one of those pages [70], they don't seem to cite any of their sources, so I don't think the information there is of any use for Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Soszynski's bibliography is at the link I provided above. Nightw 20:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue with establishing someone as an expert isn't how many sources they cite, but rather how many times they've been published and cited.

Will, I'm going off the fact that both of them are commonly cited in university theses and other scholarly papers — for example, [71][72][73][74] You can find more by searching them on Google Scholar or the indexes of databases like JSTOR.

One of those was a self-published paper by an amateur historian (and Wikipedia editor). Scholars can cite all kinds of sources that we cannot use, including personal interviews, so that is not a help in and of itself.

The criteria we must use is at WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. It goes on to say, Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. [emphasis in original]. In other words, we cannot use either of these websites for any information about living people, and we can only use them for other topics if we can show that they have been published in the field. Will Beback talk 21:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder sometimes whether strict application of that rule prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. We don't want to cite gossipy blogs, but I can't actually imagine a reason why we would not want to include apparently correct information about the succession of a throne merely because it was published by an apparent expert on a website.

The elephant in the room is that (with the important exception of formal media organizations) almost all websites are self-published: Coca-cola.com is written and published by Coca-cola, Inc. Harvard.edu is written and published by Harvard University. *.gov is written and published by American government agencies. Strict application of that rule would prohibit us from using any FDA documents, court decisions, or any other government sources to support a claim that the various government agencies have repeatedly sued Stanislaw Burzynski, even though the fact that he's been hauled into court is undisputed by anyone at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The sites fail rs and should not be used at all. Also, the fact that the information is only found in these sources means that it lacks notability, another reason to exclude it. People who seek the information on those sites can go directly to them. And yes, WhatamIdoing, the Coca Cola website is self-published which is why we do not use it in articles about kings and queens. TFD (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We also need to consider what the site says. The page I looked at (see my previous post here) makes counter-factual statements that some guy owns 300 Indian villages. India may not have abandoned its caste system, but it's no longer living in feudalism either. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To summarize, no one has shown that either of these webmasters qualify as experts in their fields according to usual Wikipedia standards, meaning their self-published sites may not be used for any purposes on Wikipedia. The foremost violation is regarding living people, and I propose that citations to these sources regarding living people be deleted first, and that all other citations be deleted later. I realize this could have an effect, especially on the minor royalty of India. I can only urge editors to find better sources. Will Beback talk 11:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to dissent from the above recommendation on a couple of grounds. First, it's presented as a summary of the foregoing and, IMO, is not. Responses to the question initially posed, "Should these websites be treated as exceptions to the rule prohibiting the use of self-published websites as sources" are not reflected in the summary, making its conclusions and the recommendation based on it a non sequitor. Rather, it's been a given in this discussion that the websites are self-published, its authors aren't elsewhere published in print media, ipso facto information found on or attributed only to those sites cannot currenttly qualify as RS -- for any use on WP, let alone BLP. Unfortunately, the points I raised, although backed up by the only other editor in this discussion who appears to be significantly familiar with the authors' work, have been dismissed without focused discussion: 1. Those here who are familiar enough with the subject matter to consult sources on it have, for years, found these sources generally reliable. That feedback's limited, but easily verifiable & always correctable. 2. The authors have built up a treasure trove of documented information about non-Western rulers, dynasties and history that simply isn't to be found elsewhere (and not because that information isn't "notable" -- irrelevant to article citations anyway -- but because the barriers I described had discouraged publishing this material in hard copy and, given the 21st century Internet, it is now more likely to be published online than on dead trees) So finding better sources "somewhere" is an unrealistic alternative. 3. RS for Western dynasties is so abundant that WP's coverage of them is disproportionate in a "global" encyclopedia, so carefully selecting a few sources available in RS-friendly formats helps redress that imbalance, bringing more reasonably verifiable non-Western history and culture to our readership's attention and use. Moreover, it's been acknowledged that these 2 sites are already "cited extensively on Wikipedia". I ask that these sources (or a process for evaluating such sources) be positively considered as narrow exceptions to RS criteria for notable topics that otherwise are apt to continue to remain lost in the "Dark Continent" for longer than need be. FactStraight (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the restriction in this case isn't WP:RS, a guideline on evaluating sources, but WP:BLPSPS, which is part of WP:BLP, which is our policy on what we can or cannot say about living people. Our restrictions on living people are and should be far far more strict than our general restrictions. While there may be a case that the sites might qualify as a narrow exception for general information (I'm not saying that for sure, but I'm saying "Even if..."), trying to make an exception to WP:BLP is darn well near impossible. We're strict on BLP because it has real, demonstrable consequences for real, living people, and while it's important for us to get knowledge out into the world, it's not worth potential harm that we might do to living people by using anything other than the best quality sources to discuss them. The truth is that many many things about Africa and India are effectively unreportable on Wikipedia, simply because the sources are inaccessible, or perhaps don't even exist. It's a fundamental "problem" with Wikipedia, but it's one that there really is no way to avoid safely. One thing I should note about these websites--if all they did was collect information in other sources, and they provided complete citeable information about those sources, and we decided that we could trust the site authors at least far enough to know that they wouldn't fake info in sources (I'd say that's a lower bar than "expertise"), then we could always site the original info directly. However, if they aren't providing full citation info, then we have to question their expertise. Furthermore, I am, in fact, concerned about where their material comes from. Having worked a bit in the India area, people routinely want to provide primary sources, including thousand year old poetry, stone carvings, or religious documents, as proof of one point or another. That wouldn't meet Wikipedia's standards; do we know what the author's of this site consider trustworthy? So, for instance, when you say they're collecting hard to find data, are they also critically evaluating that data, cross-checking it, etc.? I see too many questions here to actually consider carving an exception to WP:BLP. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything Qwyrxian said. And a few more points: 1) This wouldn't be a narrow exception; literally hundreds of articles are using these two sites.[75][76] We're relying on them a large amount of material. 2) Much of this material is really highly speculative, in which the webmasters themselves decide on possible lines of succession for long-defunct principalities, give noble titles to people who have never had a reigning sovereign, and adjudicate or suppress disputes. This isn't objective material like the altitudes of peaks in the Alps. 3) If being a count or the grandson of a former king is important then this is important information which requires a higher standard, not a lower one. If any wealth, prestige, or power is gained or lost by these matters then we should be using the best possible sources. 4) This isn't just about royalty. There's a great website with data on elections around the world. It's frequently used by scholars doing research but we can't cite it either because it's also a one-man operation. Will Beback talk 07:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think too be fair these websites present primarily pretty basic stuff, such as dates of birth/death, marriages this type of thing. I have been aware of these websites for years if I was to write an article on a non European royal I would turn to one of these to see when they were born, who they are married to etc in my opinion these websites are reliable. I doubt the websites are that often used on Wikipedia to support a controversial or disputed assertion, I would guess the majority of cites are for very basic facts like genealogical data or who the head of a certain royal house is. If a biographical entry relies solely on these sites and there is no other information out there then there is perhaps the case they are not notable enough for an article of their own. If these websites are forbidden the only ‘reliable source’ in English that I am aware of that covers only part of what is found on these websites is ‘Burke’s Royal Families of the World, Africa and the Middle East’, but this is over 30 years old now. FactStraight has mentioned about publishing this material as a book, these books are not cheap to make or buy, I don’t really see why publishers would put this type of information in print when people would have to pay upwards of £100 for it. If I was a publisher I would be worried if people would buy it as they could get the same information constantly updated for free online at very good websites like Royal Ark and Genealogical Gleanings. I think the fourth point you make Will shows there should clearly be a exceptions to the policy as WhatamIdoing is one to something when she mentions that strict application of the rules prevents people improving or maintaining Wikipedia. I believe especially if the website is a useful, easy access database of basic data such as when someone was born, or how votes a party got in an election. - dwc lr (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What about this book? FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I guess one could use that for the Indian Princely States, but of course its six years old now so I am sure there have been many changes since. We get a preview from Google Books which is useful but to replace cites to the websites someone would have to shell out of their own pocket or try and find a copy of that book in a library. According to Worldcat I see one copy in Germany. For me this is a case of convenience and accessibility . I can either look up when someone was born or succeeded to the headship of a family on a easy to access, free to access, reliable, up to date 'self published' website from my computer, or I can try and find a copy in a library local to me, then have to find the time to travel there and probably pay for the privilege. - dwc lr (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone up-thread mentioned that "The elephant in the room is that (with the important exception of formal media organizations) almost all websites are self-published". To that I would add; as is much printed media deemed entirely acceptable RS for Wikipedia but which is no more than one remove from self-asserted fact and gets zero fact-checking. Why should non-Western content find it so much harder to get its foot in our door. IF WP really wants to absolutely deserve the adjective "authoritative" it would permit nothing to appear that isn't footnoted to a scholarly source (and it's already been pointed out here that dissertation review committees routinely accept sources WP refuses!) The reason we don't do that isn't because that's not an ideal standard, but because it's impractical: it would compel exclusion of too much of the information people reasonably expect an encyclopedia to cover. But no one expects that info to be perfect, or always up to date. Rather, we expect it to reflect the best available sources, neutrally deployed So we set our sights on the ideal standard and meanwhile we largely accept the most accurate, most neutral, most current data we can lay hands on. The criterion of "paper publication" has been a reasonable gateway to screen for that standard -- given that this is a volunteer project -- until it's treated unyieldingly as what it is not: a legitimate presumption that non-publication equals non-reliability. Yes, I assume that the Gleanings and Ark sites have errors, gaps and biases which the future will correct: Name a source which doesn't? But it's also true that "published in print" is an increasingly inadequate and obsolete hurdle to erect for the purpose of screening reliability in sources: it's time to re-consider that standard overall and, here and now, to consider exceptions to it. It's not fair to go microscopic on these sites because I've suggested we explore ways they might be considered as examplses of such. Please, please address the grounds on which I have requested consideration: it appears to be the best information available on a large swathe of historical and political information worth Wikipedia attempting to present to its audience. Under that rubric, all kinds of limitations are possible short of complete exclusion: If BLP standards are sacrosanct, then let's agree that these sites can't be cited for details about BLPs. If Gleanings and Ark don't consistently source every datum (remember, they were uploading findings in widely used formats long before Wikipedia's ever-evolving standards for RS required dissertation-level documentation to state "Shaka Zulu was a man."), maybe they could be encouraged to do so if they knew their work might then be deemed Wiki citable? Bottom line, these sources might be classed "tentatively reliable"; acceptable for inclusion unless challenged for substantive reasons (e.g. contradicted by other sources/data, info unlikely to have been accessible, datum dependent upon another factoid now disproven, etc.) Unrebutted challenges on the talk page, where content disputes about Western dynastic issues are normally resolved, would then be deemed prima facie grounds for deletion of the cite. It's been acknowledged that throwing out this bathwater will dump a lot of Wiki babies. All I'm asking is that we put some thought into salvaging some, rather than summarily dismissing this area of interest and the bulk of the work done in it -- not because we have grounds to believe its sources are more erroneous than most sources cited in Wikipedia, but because they don't meet an across-the-board standard which continues to exclude non-Western far more than Western sources of information. Qwyrxian candidly noted, "The truth is that many many things about Africa and India are effectively unreportable on Wikipedia, simply because the sources are inaccessible", true but some aren't inaccessible -- just rejected. Why not try to do better, rather than resign ourselves to the notion that "better" isn't worth the trouble? In case it goes by unnoticed, I'm asking for help here. FactStraight (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with much that was said above. Sources of this type are typically used in breach of WP:BLP, and to cover topics in much more detail than is done in reliable sources. Wikipedia's coverage of nobility is seriously skewed and often does not follow the norms of the community. This is not an unusual problem. We used to have a similar problem with Pokémon, for example, and numerous other fields with such problems still exist. It appears that the time has come to fix the problem for this particular field. Hans Adler 22:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

FactStraight--the whole point is that it's not better to use information that we have no reason to believe is accurate. If you can provide some solid reason to believe that these people are experts in the field and that they have done good, due dilligenve to verify that the information is accurate, then they would be fine sources. But it's always better to have no information than it is to have information whose provenance we have no reason to believe is accurate. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well said. I agree entirely. Will Beback talk 11:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Where it comes to BLPs, if we can't find the information in clearly reliable sources we shouldn't be adding it to their articles, and these aren't clearly reliable. I guess we need to find a way to remove it from the relevant articles, I'll help if someone sets up a list like we do for copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I just came across two similar self-published websites used in royalty articles.

I can't find any indication that the webmasters are published experts. Will Beback talk 04:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I won't be able to participate in the actual scrubbing of those non-reliable resources; one question though--is this going to result in cases where articles are now no longer sourced, or undersourced to the point of needing to be AfD'd? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any in the few articles I've looked at. While GNG applies everywhere, I think that there's a certain inherent notability in being a duke or a pretender. However some of the specific claims, like being a duke, may be hard to establish from other sources. Will Beback talk 04:41, 22 August 2011 (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.

Mona Lisa

The editor Simple Blue (talk · contribs) has been insistent upon inserting a reference into various articles regarding the Mona Lisa for some months now despite being informed by multiple editors that the theory expressed (apparently originally by Relpmek (talk · contribs) is original research. I would appreciate some evaluation regarding the reliability of the reference in question.

The reference being inserted is this page. There is no indication of whether this statement has been peer-reviewed, published elsewhere, or otherwise given credence.
It has been inserted multiple times into the articles Mona Lisa, Lisa del Giocondo and Speculation about Mona Lisa.
The origin of the theory that the Mona Lisa is Da Vinci's mother appears to have been inserted first by User:Relpmek here; User:Relpmek self-identifies as Roni Kempler.
A look through the contributions of both editors will give a good indication of their efforts to have this theory included. Talk page discussion has generally been less than constructive.

Opinions would be appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The page of Roni Kempler that user:Simple Blue has entered in several pages is, of course, of no reliability whatsoever. Ron Kempler (be it or not user:Relpmek) is not a reliable source. Neither is a reliable source Serge Bramly, who is a fictional writer, not a historian, and in particular, not an art historian.Divide et Impera (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Yup. Not reliable. A personal website like this wouldn't be acceptable even if there weren't a vast corpus on the Mona Lisa. Has someone filed a SPI, by the way? Relpmek isn't editing anymore, but Simple Blue, y'know, just happened to start editing right around when Relpmek stopped... Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I figured I'd do this first, see how it goes. I doubt we'll need an SPI to deal with things. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The idea that the painting at some level represents Leonardo's mother dates back to Freud. It's notable for being one of Siggy's attempts to apply Psychoanalytic theory to Leonardo's work, but even Freud did not claim that the painting literally depicts his mother, rather that unconscious memories of his mother affected the way the image was painted, particularly the famous smile. Of course it is a purely speculative and entirely unfalsifiable argument. There are no images of Leo's mother, or home movies of her smiling, so we can't possibly make any actual comparison. What Freud says is notable, but it has nothing to do with normal art historical methods or standard scholarship on the painting. R Kempler's views are neither notable or reliable. Paul B (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, ..." (about their thoughts).

"Speculation by scholars and hobbyists assigned Lisa's name to at least four different paintings and her identity to at least ten different people". See the article Lisa del Giocondo.

The issue is Mona Lisa's identification as Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory.

The issue is not Kempler. The consistency of a theory is not measured by the person standing behind it but by the ability of that theory to stand on its own merit and provide a plausible explanation and answers. The name of the person proposing the theory should be mentioned simply to provide an address for future questions or debate. (If the theory neither addresses relevant questions nor provides a credible explanation then such theory should be dropped.)

This material is not unduly self-serving;

It does not involve claims about third parties;

It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

The article is not based primarily on such sources. Ago Ves (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never learned how to bump stuff up properly, sorry, so I've just copied this from the archives. The issue is of course partially Kempler, as I can't see any good reason to use him. It's also an interpretation of our policy which would allow any blog or web page or self-published book to be used. There's another issue to which I'll deal with, I think it's time for SPI. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This source is not "any blog or web page or self-published book". This source is the main source for the Mona Lisa's identification as Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory. Ago Ves (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF says self-published or questionable sources can be used as sources on themselves ... usually in articles about themselves or their activities" If the article were about Kempler this webpage would be fine. It's not. Brmull (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"...sources on themselves ... usually in articles about themselves or their activities", so this source is about Kempler's thoughts and suggestion. Ago Ves (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out repeatedly, Kempler's thoughts about Mona Lisa are not notable. The proof of this is that there is no reliable source that discusses K's theory or mentions it even in passing. The theory appears to have no existence whatsoever outside of its countless reverted insertions in Mona Lisa-related wikipedia articles, and on K's recently created webpage. I have a theory of my own about K's theory, but my theory is exactly as non-notable as K's theory, and therefore has no place in any wikipedia article, despite the outstanding ability of my theory to "stand on its own merit and provide a plausible explanation" for K's thought patterns. Creating a webpage and then citing it as a source would not make my non-notable theory notable. Ewulp (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It is very clear that there are some frustrated wiki members. Kempler's thoughts about Mona Lisa are notable. The proof of this is that this theory was published here for almost three years. Your theory wasn't published here, not even for a minute.

"The sitter's identity was ascertained at the University of Heidelberg in 2005 by a library expert who discovered a 1503 margin note written by Agostino Vespucci.^[1] Scholars have been of many minds, identifying at least four different paintings as the Mona Lisa^[2]^[3]^[4] and several people as its subject. Leonardo's mother Caterina Buti del Vacca in a distant memory,^[5]Isabella of Naples or Aragon,^[6] Cecilia Gallerani,^[7] Costanza d'Avalos, Duchess of Francavilla‎ who was also called the "merry one" or La Gioconda,^[4] Isabella d'Este, Pacifica Brandano or Brandino, Isabela Gualanda, Caterina Sforza, and Leonardo himself have all been named the sitter.^[8] Today the subject's identity is held to be Lisa, which has always been the traditional view.^[1]" See the article Mona Lisa.

Kempler's theory was published here by Kempler on October 17, 2008 and was deleted by Paul Barlow on August 6, 2011.

Now it is too late to say that this theory appears to have no existence. You don't mean that our readers are stupid ?! This theory couldn't disappear by deleting here its written words. Ago Ves (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't make a lot of sense. His hypothesis is real, just not significant, ie not discussed in reliable sources for instance, and its existence in an article hasn't changed that or someone made it notable. Sure, we can use reliable sources to discuss it, just not Kempler who isn't a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ago Ves disputes my argument that the Kempler theory has "no existence whatsoever outside of its countless reverted insertions in Mona Lisa-related wikipedia articles, and on K's recently created webpage". Existence here means existence in the public sphere (of course it may exist in Kempler's mind, or in a spiral notebook where Kempler has scribbled it, but what is at issue is its notability). Ago Ves cites publication in wikipedia as proof of notability, and seems to think that with each day that original research passes undetected in a wp article its notability is enhanced. Even if this were true—which it is not—a glance at Kempler/Relpmek's edit history reveals that Ago Ves has represented the chronology rather misleadingly.

Relpmek's October 17, 2008 edit of the Mona Lisa article (diffs here) was a minor addition to, and repositioning of, a sentence that already named Leonardo's mother as one of many possible subjects that have been proposed by notable persons who have published notable speculations about the famous painting. This preexisting paraphrase of Freud's idea was properly sourced to an article by Charles Nicholl in the Guardian. Relpmek's objectionable OR began much later, on July 30, 2010, in Speculation about Mona Lisa (diffs here), and were enlarged upon more boldly on August 28, 2010 in the same article here. By this time Relpmek was naming Kempler as the author of a more elaborate theory, while citing no sources. This OR began to be challenged by several editors in February 2011, meaning that the charade lasted about six months. When Relpmek tried to insert similar material into the Mona Lisa article in February 2011, it was swatted down in four hours (see diffs). The difference is that Mona Lisa is a high-profile article, while the Speculation about article gets fewer hits and less attention, and in any case is a repository of (sourced) nutty theories where Kempler's additions were not especially conspicuous. Ewulp (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Again and again and again...

"Speculation by scholars and hobbyists assigned Lisa's name to at least four different paintings and her identity to at least ten different people". See the article Lisa del Giocondo.

Relpmek's October 17, 2008 edit of the Mona Lisa article (diffs here) was not a minor addition. There is a difference between Leonardo's mother Caterina (seemed to be not serious) and Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory; Lisa del Giocondo's job was to be the model only. The second makes a lot of sense. See also Relpmek's October 8, 2008 edit of the Lisa del Giocondo article.
The issue that Lisa del Giocondo was identified here as the painting's model and not as the painting's subject was because of the Kempler's theory. So this theory has Existence in the public sphere and not only in Kempler's mind. See also the article Agostino Vespucci's edit history.
There are many sources for Mona Lisa's identification as Leonardo's mother Caterina. See Serge Bramly, Rina de Firenze, and[77]..... Kempler's theory is the main source for Mona Lisa's identification as Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory, and so I think that this source is much more better.
"just not Kempler who isn't a reliable source". This doesn't make a sense. This theory is Kempler's suggestion and not Dougweller's suggestion. The consistency of a theory is not measured by the person standing behind it but by the ability of that theory to stand on its own merit and provide a plausible explanation and answers. The name of the person proposing the theory should be mentioned simply to provide an address for future questions or debate.
"His hypothesis is real, just not significant". This doesn't make a lot of sense. Sorry, just not Dougweller !!! Ago Ves (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You're on your own with all this, you simply don't understand/want to understand/agree with our policy. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you folks let things drag on so long? Simple Blue and Ago Ves are now indefinitely blocked. Editors that make this argument are always Roni Kempler, and Roni Kempler is indefinitely blocked, so all of his new identities can be indefed without discussion.—Kww(talk) 11:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As I was the one who started the SPI, I didn't want to block. I thought it was pretty obvious but I shall not hesitate next time! Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b "Mona Lisa – Heidelberg discovery confirms identity". University of Heidelberg. Retrieved 4 July 2010.
^ Stites, Raymond S. (January 1936). "Mona Lisa—Monna Bella". Parnassus. 8 (1) (vol 8 ed.). College Art Association: 7–10, 22–23. doi:10.2307/771197. JSTOR 771197. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
^ (Littlefield 1914, p. 525)
^ ^a ^b (Wilson 2000, p. 364–366)
^ This theory was suggested initially by Sigmund Freud. Nicholl, Charles (28 March 2002). "The myth of the Mona Lisa". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
^ Debelle, Penelope (25 June 2004). "Behind that secret smile". The Age. Melbourne. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
^ Johnston, Bruce (8 January 2004). "Riddle of Mona Lisa is finally solved: she was the mother of five". The Daily Telegraph. UK. Archived from the original on 11 October 2007. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
^ Nicholl, Charles (28 March 2002). "The myth of the Mona Lisa". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 6 October 2007.

Self-published royalty websites

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After over a week's debate, consensus is that these self-published ancestry sources should not be used as sources in biographies of living people. Closing per request at WP:AN/I. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There are at least a couple of self-published websites devoted to detailing the lists of succession to mostly defunct thrones which are cited extensively on Wikipedia. Two that have come up recently are:

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ "Genealogical Gleanings" [78]
http://www.royalark.net "Royal Ark" [79]