Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

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: [1]. See also all the entries in Worldcat: [2]. 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 [3] 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."[4]. 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[5][6][7]. He also replaced my request for a third opinion to try to make it seem that this is strictly a formatting issue[8]. He then gamed 3RR(28 hours - [9]) 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[10]. That past round, the only edit war he could pick on this particular article was with a bot[11].

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[12]" And six minutes later: WLU@RSN "Page 572 does mention infantilism..the two are different paraphilias."[13].

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[14][15][16][17]) 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[18]. 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[19], you and I had recently had a debate[20], and now we have recently had a debate again[21]. 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" [22] - 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 [23].

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[24], 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[25] 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 [26]).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[27], I'm the one who restored it to the definition from the DSM [28]. 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" [29] 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[30], 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[31].) 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[32].

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[33]. 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"[34], but there were no edits to the page between the two posts. This change might have been brought about by my 6:17 post[35] pointing out that the mess at that article was WLU's doing[36]. 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 [37] (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 [38]. On the ANI page Bittergrey states that he "allowed" WLU to make those edits [39] 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[40], 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."[41] 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[42]. 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[43] after hitting 3RR to modify DSM citations.
• "The word diapers does not appear in the DSM IV-TR." FiachraByrne[44], 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)

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)

Falkland Islands

David Tatham (1 June 2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 9780955898501. http://books.google.com/books?id=0D0VNAAACAAJ. Retrieved 17 March 2011.

Is extensively used in this article. The work, however, is clearly and absolutely "self-published." Seeking a library to borrow it from finds one copy in Germany and one in South Africa, which means that they are the only two in the world AFAICT.

I suggest it is not a "reliable source" as a result, but would appreciate input from others here or at the article talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6136120 "published by editor" its an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I know it and you know it, but one editor insists it is RS and not self-published at all <g>. The review makes clear that he compiled a group of autobiographies and the like, and even had to have some "embellished" <g>. One editor gave me a 3RR notice after 1RR <g> and I would prefer to have others also point out to him that his views may be errant here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

When the publisher matches the author name, that is a definite red flag. Not RS, unless someone claims that the SPS is from a recognized expert in the field, which is one of the exceptions of SPS (if memory serves me at this time)(and even then to be used with caution). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish it to be noted that I was not made aware of this thread and only found out by a comment he placed on another users talk page see [45]. [46] Tatham is the editor, there are a myriad of contributors and it is not a self-published source. The book was the result of a project to create a definitive biography of the people of the Falkland Islands. Its well researched, impeccable for its fact checking and has a number of noted contributors. I got my copy from the Falkland Islands Government Office in London. For the record I didn't give a 3RR notice and I'm still waiting for the editor who started this thread to name his sources and have asked him to do so three times now.

Further read the very review you cite [47] A remarkable compilation of facts that will not only act as a reference volume for all time but one from which a great deal of instruction and even entertainment may be derived.

Further I don't accept this is the accepted definition of an SPS as it is neither a personal web page or a book which the author paid to have published. It reflects neither criteria and anyway per 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. Tatham read history at Wadham College Oxford and has had written a number of articles on Falkland Islands history, is chairman of the Falkland Islands Association, a founder member of the South Georgia Association, Chairman of the Shackleton Scholarship fund and was governor of the Falkland Islands from 1992-1995. The work meets the requirement of a WP:RS and should not be excluded as the editor demands. Rather than providing the sources for his own edit, he is trying to negate a well researched reference work that is absolutely invaluable for anyone writing on Falkland Islands history. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I wrote in the article's talk page, David Tatham is the chair of the editorial board of that book not its author. And the book is a reliable source, reviewed by the Polar Record Journal as linked above. Apcbg (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The review makes clear that it is self-published. That the articles were autobiographies of islanders which were then "embellished." The work is unavailable for a number of reasons, and is not used as a cite by anyone per Google Scholar. It is available if I travel to Germany or South Africa <g>. The "editorial board" exists only with regard to the book - making use of it as somehow increasing his notability rather outre. The editor of a book is perforce the head of the "editorial board" for the book. So scratch that one. <g>. By the way, being Her Majesty's Governor does not make one an historian of any great repute. As for the 3RR notice:

===3RR===

Do I have to resort to a formal 3RR warning for an established editor? You did not even read my talk page reply before reverting. Siding with editors who resort to disruptive editing to get their own way, will only encourage them to continue in the same vein. The wording reflects the source and is neutral in content. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a 3RR notice by any standards I have ever seen. I take it that the big "3RR" at the top refers to the three main railroads in the Falklands? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Reading history does not make you an expert, nor does holding a govenment possition make you an expert. Where did these artciels appear? As editor Mt Latham published his own book, its an SPS. Also a review does ot establish its RS, nor thats its not SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Falkland Islands is very much a niche topic in the English language and as such sources are rather difficult to obtain. It has taken me years to track down the 1960 copy of Mary Cawkell's The Falkland Islands for example. But on this occasion that claim is utter nonsense, the work is readily available [48] albeit expensive. You don't have to go to Germany or South Africa, there is a copy in the British Library, which means you can obtain a copy from any public library upon request. You simply fill in an inter-library loan request, the fee is around £25. Similarly there is more to Tatham's qualifications that his service as the Falkland Islands Governor, yet you seem hell bent on ignoring that to launch attacks on his integrity and credibility. Really you have lost your sense of perspective when you have to resort to such hyperbole in order to rubbish a source in this manner. Finally, that was not intended as a 3RR warning, if you take it as such that is your problem not mine. Pointedly I was trying to initiate a discussion and to stop your edit warring to impose a change claiming a consensus that doesn't in fact exist. The alleged consensus you refer to was disruptive editors who have plagued the page for months, including the prodigious use of sock puppets and these are the editors you've chosen to back. You have seriously lost the perspective here. As regards Tathams use in reliable 3rd party sources, cited here [49], Google Scholar turns up plenty [50], [51],[52],[53], [54] it is regularly cited in works related to the Falkland Islands. It is a WP:RS and should not be excluded as demanded. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Contributors include, for example Clive Abbott BA BLitt(Oxon) FRSA, Patrick Armstrong, Univ of Western Australia, Malcolm Barton MA Cantab, Bjorn L Bassberg Professor in Economic History,. Bergen, Wayne Bernhardson PhD (UC Berkley), Jane Cameron Falkland Islands Government Archivist, Prof John Croxall, Bernadette Hince PhD, Graham Pascoe MA (Oxon). Those are just a brief sample. This is a reliable source. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"Board of Editors" != "contributors." "Oxford graduate" != notable historian "Published by self" = "self-published." "3RR" != "three railroads in the Falklands." Stating a source which is self-published is self-published is not an attack on anyone's "integrity and credibility." The project name is "Wikipedia" and editors are expected to know that articles must meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Attacking the messager is quite rarely a good idea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Would WP policies and guidelines include WP:RS seeing as the last time I looked Websters was not considered an authority on the history of the Falkland Islands. But you named it as the source of your edits. I've just named a list of contributors who are all noted academics, the book is a reliable source and meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines but you don't wish to listen when this is pointed out to you. You try and pick at minor points, but this doesn't detract from the main point that it is a reliable source cited in reliable third party citations. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As I repeatedly stated Websters is good for noting that "claimed" has several distinct meanings, and that the use to which it was being put (Vernet claimed a settlement was burned) was better answered by using the common word "said." Please avoid such straw man arguments. The "contributors" are listed as a board of editors, and the review states specifically that the subjects of the book wrote their own biographies. Meanwhile, you state you found some actual third-party reliable sources for verifying some of the material? And you can show that D. Tatham is not D. Tatham the publisher? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I asked you what the source was for your edit and you said "Websters" repeatedly. My comments reflected your reply to my request to name a source for your edit, no strawman, just an accurate reflection of your conduct today. I've shown this to be a reliable source, repeatedly used by 3rd parties in citations above and don't feel the need to repeat myself. The source meets the requirements of wikipedia policy and guidelines. Your conduct is now bordering on hounding. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I stated exactly as follows:

Consensus. And Webster. Vernet may have filed a "claim" (formal claim) against a government, but he "said" the settlement was destroyed. [8] note that the "statement" is different from "Something claimed in a formal or legal manner, especially a tract of public land staked out by a miner or homesteader." Understand the difference?

Which I regarded as a civil answer.

Your response was precisely:

Which SOURCE says that? Which SOURCE did you use?

To which I replied civilly:

Webster. Your source is not available for anyone to check, is self-published, and not written by an expert on Falkland history - it was based on solicited autobiographies from islanders. I think you will note the outcome of the RS/N discussion. Cheers

Which I rather feel was cordially worded. I do not see how any of my posts can conceivably be treated as "hounding" by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Where and in which source is the statement "Vernet said" and which historical work did you base your edit on? Your reply was "Websters". Could you also go back and add the sly little digs with the <g> emoticon and your remarks about your "magic 8 ball". You claim to have gone out of your way to be civil, when clearly you haven't. As for hounding you follow me to a friends talk page when I ask for a little sanity and every time I edit you're there within seconds. You ask again for material already provided and some of your arguments are frankly ridiculous. Yes you're hounding me and I'm rapidly tiring of it. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Recommend you stop dodging the question, which is - is this a collection of autobiographies published by the chap who collected them? If they were 'embellished', do we even know if the contributors approve of their contributions? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which question I am supposedly dodging? I do not believe the question of "embellishment" has arisen. I've already answered a number of allegations including the claim it was only available in Germany and South Africa, not readily available and not used in 3rd party citations - all false. I've even seen it claimed that its use in 3rd party citations detracts from its use as a WP:RS.

The book is a collection of essays, some are written by the descendants of individuals as it was in part an attempt to capture history that was only available orally. Where content was short the article was asked to be expanded by 3rd parties and yes approval was obtained. The biographies of noted people like Vernet are the work of scholars such as Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe who are acknoweldged experts on Falkland Islands history and on Vernet in particular. It has a list of noted academic contributors, an editorial board that vetted content and peer review before publication. It is regularly cited by 3rd parties and the reviews cited above note the accuracy of its content. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The review uses the word "embellish" and this was stated above. The library search I made only showed one library in Germany and one in South Africa having it - I never said it was only available there, and the price on Amazon is from outside sources offering it for over $200 a copy, not from Amazon.com [55] a total of a single seller at this point). The review made no claim of the book being "peer reviewed" by the way, and no outside cites are found in academic papers according to Google Scholar, so it is not "regularly cited" by a mile. . Meanwhile, the issue of self-published is now fully established as correct. Cheers. I leave this in the hands of the others here lest you post more errant claims about my posts. Collect (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OK a review of this thread

A) Availability in libraries. See [56] Copy is available in the British Library, any public libary in the UK can obtain a loan via a BL request.
B) Availability: see [57],[58]. It is available new and second hand from Amazon UK and it seems Amazon US. Its covering a niche topic so the fact it is only available from specialists is not significant.
C) It is claimed again that it is not widely cited in 3rd party sources. See [59], Google Scholar turns up plenty [60], [61],[62],[63], [64]. I would point out that constructing an academic search with the format '"David Tatham" Falkland Islands' would bring up significantly less hits as most academics use Turabian and would only use the Author's initial. Note again this is a niche topic and you would not expect a huge number of hits anyway.
D) The editorial process is described in the book itself, I have accurately transcribed how it was compiled. In particular I addressed the claim of "embellishment" and noted that the biographies were peer reviewed. In addition, academic reviews cited to claim it as an "SPS" acknowledge the accuracy of the content.
E) It is neither a personal website, nor did David Tatham pay for the book to be published. This is the criteria for WP:SPS. It was published by the editorial board led by Tatham, if we apply this new criteria then we exclude many academic journals as "SPS".
F) Although David Tatham led an editorial board, the contributors on articles of noted individuals are noted academics I can name any on request. Tatham did not write the article on Vernet I quoted, that was compiled by the noted experts in the field Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe.
G) David Tatham is noted for being published in 3rd party sources for this project [65] Note ready availability in numerous libraries.
H) Tatham has other qualifications for having expertise on the Falkland Islands. Tatham read history at Wadham College Oxford and has had written a number of articles on Falkland Islands history, is chairman of the Falkland Islands Association, a founder member of the South Georgia Association, Chairman of the Shackleton Scholarship fund and was governor of the Falkland Islands from 1992-1995.
I) Re-inforcing the point that Tatham was the editor, other noted contributors include as a sample Clive Abbott BA BLitt(Oxon) FRSA, Patrick Armstrong, Univ of Western Australia, Malcolm Barton MA Cantab, Bjorn L Bassberg Professor in Economic History,. Bergen, Wayne Bernhardson PhD (UC Berkley), Jane Cameron Falkland Islands Government Archivist, Prof John Croxall, Bernadette Hince PhD, Graham Pascoe MA (Oxon).

The start of this thread was misleading as to the availability of the book, how it was published, the compilation process. Nor it is extensively used for cites it is used for 4 of 126.

Further, WP:SPS (and I don't accept this is an SPS for the reasons stated above) has an exception for 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. Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe certainly meet that criteria and David Tatham would as well. This work meets every requirement to be a WP:RS. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not an ideal source but I'd support it's use in the article with some conditions.

Given the nature of the article and where controversial topics within the article are dealt with I think ideally only the best and most authoritative sources should be referenced.

This is a problematic source for a number of reasons and I don't think that it is wise to give it the same weight as an "academic" source and by all indications it was not intended as an academic text. This is evident in the absence of citations in the text and the solicitation in many instances of articles from people with personal connections to the subject matter rather than expertise.

Other difficulties with the text are that: 1) It hasn't been published by an academic press. 2) It has clearly been published by David Tatham, the editor of the collection, a major contributor to the collection and founder of one of the funding bodies for this and related projects. 3) The quality of the editorial board is mixed and, while not without expertise, they may lack authority in the historical areas that are contentious in the article. The board includes: David Tatham; Malcolm Barton who has published a book on the stamps of the Falkland Islands; Graham Bound, editor of a Falkland Islands newspaper; Jim McAdam, a published expert on the plant types in the Falkland Islands; Frank Mitchell, another philatelist; Ann Savours Shirley, a widely published authority on the history of polar expeditions; and Ronnie Spafford, an eccentric ex-soldier.

It should be kept in mind that the text in certain instances has been crafted to address and counter specific claims regarding the history of the islands as relevant to the Argentine claims of sovereignty. Given Tatham's http://www.falklands.info/factfile/fiassociationlatest.html own position] it would be naive to regard this as a disinterested source. This point is particular relevant for the contribution by Pascoe and Pepper which was presented to the U.N.'s decolonisation committee in the annual debate about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

Given that this is a collective work, involving diverse bodies and persons, I don't think that it meets the criteria of a self-published work.

The Dictionary does have a presence in the scholarly literature but it is extremely limited - at least two instances are by a contributor to the dictionary who is citing his own work. Also, given the diversity of the collection in terms of topics covered it would have been helpful if, say, Pascoe and Pepper's article had been cited.

If it's to be used I'd like a proper citation that contains the author of the article. This is necessary to judge the authority of any given article. I'd exclude all articles written by the subject of an article (not used in here in any case, I think). In fact, I'd ultimately favour establishing whether a given article in the collection meets acceptable rs standards rather than for the collection as a whole.

I think where this source is used to support a contentious historical point with implications for the sovereignty debate it should either be supported by another more authoritative source or, where the point is contested, alternative sources should be introduced to represent alternative points of view.FiachraByrne (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am mostly agreeing with Byrne up above, but would like to note additional concerns with WP:PRIMARY as an autobiography is. That being the case I do support its use in a more limited fashion within the article, so long as it is reasonably handled. I would like to say to Collect above that comments such as these, "The work is unavailable for a number of reasons, and is not used as a cite by anyone per Google Scholar. It is available if I travel to Germany or South Africa <g>." are not helpful. Not only have both been subsequently disproved, but your use of the grinning emoticon each time you make a point comes across poorly. I am not sure what you are doing to look for libraries, but a simple world cat search returns 508 libraries with possession of a copy.

More importantly, in the time since its original publication it appears this work has been republished by Polar Record which is a reliable source. It's current citation thus reads:

Tatham, D, and I.R Stone. "The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (including South Georgia): from Discovery Up to 1981." Polar Record. (2009): 384. Print.

AerobicFox (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

More than 10% of the "work" was written by the editor. That much is "self-published." The autobiographies were "embellished" which reduces any reliablilty further. ThePolar Record use is for the review - it is not a reprint of the work -- in fact the review is on page 384 <g>. Sorry - this does not establish the work as being anything more than what ist is - a collection of embellished autobiographies supplemented by 50 biographies written by Tatham <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that AerobicFox, that is most helpful. So it is a reliable source . In answer to the two latest comments, it use is limited in the article (4 of 126 inline citations). Am I also right in thinking that where an article is written based on research from 3rd party sources, WP:PRIMARY would not be of consideration? I am thinking specifically of the Vernet article that was written by Pepper and Pascoe. Responding specifically to Byrne, if you could suggest a better way of formatting the cite to include the author names I would be most grateful. Although I am an experienced editor I struggled to find the best way of doing it. BTW Ironically the point that was supported is actually in favour of Argentina's sovereignty claim, repeating the Argentine position the settlement was destroyed in 1831. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Try this for the citation <ref>{{cite book|last=Foo|first=General Eustace|title=Dictionary of the Falklands|year=1981|publisher=Polar news|editor=David Tatham|chapter=2: Dont mention the war}}</ref>

References

• AerobicFox - what makes you think Polar Journal reprinted the work? I think they just reviewed it. Regardless, If David Tatham didn't write the articles, and it is possible to cite the contributions as shown above, that makes it less problematic to my mind, particularly if the authors of the contributions have some kind of academic reputation. Since sources in this area seem so meagre, one probably should phrase it "Foo has opined that....." since there probably isn't a scholarly consensus on some of this stuff. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Polar Record is a Cambridge Journal. As stated above they have not republished this book. I.R. Stone wrote a largely positive review of the work which is available for free here.

For the citation, this is an example of the form I have used for a multi-authored text in an edited collection -

{{Cite book | chapter = Deep brain stimulation in psychiatric disorders | publisher = Verlag | isbn = 9783837614336 | last = Mareke | first = Arends | coauthors = Fangerau, Heiner | editor = Fangerau, Heiner; Jörg, Fegert; Mareke, Arends | title = Implanted Minds: The Neuroethics of Intracerebral Stem Cell Transplantation and Deep Brain Stimulation | date = 2010 | page = 138 | url = http://books.google.ie/books?id=pzI0Kj21KIcC&pg=PA138 }} :::::: This produces: :::::: Mareke, Arends (2010). "Deep brain stimulation in psychiatric disorders". In Fangerau, Heiner; Jörg, Fegert; Mareke, Arends (ed.). Implanted Minds: The Neuroethics of Intracerebral Stem Cell Transplantation and Deep Brain Stimulation. Verlag. p. 138. ISBN 9783837614336. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

FiachraByrne (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I would like to shift the focus from the eligibility of the collected work as an RS to that of the individual articles within the text that have been cited.

The claim is made above that Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper are acknowledged experts in the field. Pascoe appears to be a language teacher and Pepper is a geologist. I cannot find any publications by these authors on the history of Falkland Islands in any peer reviewed journal or in book form - if we exclude this collection. They have written a long treatise on the history of the Falklands but this seems to be unpublished as of yet. There is also available online a rebuttal of pamphlet outlining the Argentinian case for sovereignty over the islands. As far as I can determine they have no established expertise. Moreover, it is clear that they are a biased source given that their contributions are aimed directly at supporting the British claims to sovereignty. I can find no evidence that they are acknowledged experts in the field.

Ditto for Tatham. His only publication in a peer reviewed journal that I can find is one recounting his experience of compiling the collection. He certainly has no publication record in academic formats relating to the history of the Falklands.

Unless there is some overwhelming argument for the inclusion of these sources due to their coverage, for instance, of aspects entirely ignored by other sources, I would tend to exclude them.

I wouldn't exclude all articles from this collected text, but there must be better sources available for historical treatments of the history of the islands than that which they provide.FiachraByrne (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Reliable WP:SPS says, "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." The book review in Polar Record said, "this is a very significant contribution towards any history of the Falkland Islands...."[66] It is similar to many of the local history books used throughout many articles. However, neutrality provides a limit - we cannot assume that the opinions expressed in the book have any weight and should use better sources where they are available. I would not use it for example as a source for the dispute between the UK and Argentina. TFD (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with The Four Deuces's succinct evaluation.FiachraByrne (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In point of fact, it is being used to characterize a dispute between Vernet and the US government (akin to the UK/Argentina level of dispute). I suggest its biographical value exceeds it historical value as a resource - the primary author (over 10%) and editor is not an authority as far as historians are concerned. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

NO, again NO, it is not being used for that purpose. It was used for an uncontroversial fact that Vernet claimed the US destroyed the settlement, whereas the log of the Lexington reports significantly less. Please get your facts straight. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am in agreement with TFD. I would like to add that the review calls the book

"A remarkable compilation of facts that will not only act as a reference volume for all time but one from which a great deal of instruction and even entertainment may be derived. "

"Academics are prominent, from Britain and a large number of other countries, and some very famous names have thought the project sufficiently worthwhile to deserve support and in which to involve themselves. "(emphasis mine)

"All with interests in the Falkland Islands should have it in their libraries."

It seems fairly clear that Polar Express considers this a RS. Although there are instances—as have been noted above— in which is should be more carefully used.AerobicFox (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

See [67], publisher is listed as POLAR RECORD in 2009 in this library catalogue. I believe AerobicFox was correct, unless you can tell me the library record is wrong?

Pepper and Pascoe are noted experts in the field, it is a field of mainly amateurs. Klaus Dodds is the only UK historian I'm aware of to have interest since the death of Professor Metford. Mary Cawkell is also a noted expert but an amateur and the only other English language history was written by Ian Strange a naturalist.

The citation is not used for any controversial claims and the reference work is particularly useful as it includes information you won't find elsewhere. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Addendum, its been claimed the above link is for the review. The review [68] appeared in Polar Record 45, the link refers to the publication in 235. Its not the review. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The citation is wrong, but only because it lists D Tatham and I R Stone as the author of that book review instead of just Stone. The citation is clearly referring to the book review though since Stone is the reviewer, and he would not be listed as an author otherwise. I am not sure what the different no. is referring to, but both articles have a 384 which is in reference to what page they are on, so they are indeed the same. The use of this book for uncontroversial material is definitely okay. I think I may have found some other stuff relevant to this discussion, but must be going.AerobicFox (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks for that. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No one has yet addressed the fact that this book is a collection of biographical essays and autobiographies. Who is the author of the essay which is cited as the source, Tatham or someone else? This has not yet been answered - nor has the question of whether or not the specific essay cited has been "embellished", and whether or not that "embellishment" has taken place with or without consent of the subject being treated.

In any case, clearly the author is also editor and not a recognized expert in the field. As other editors have pointed out above, this is a self-published source, prohibitively expensive for most editors to check, based on solicited essays and autobiographies, not peer-reviewed, not referenced in any outside citations. Polar Record is not a reprint and only constitutes a review. Note the link provided by Wee Curry Monster also refers to pp.384, which is the review and not the actual work. As for Pascoe and Pepper, they have no other publications on the islands' history, at least that I have found.

Tatham in my view fails WP:SPS outright and by definition WP:RS. It is clearly an attempt by an editor to support a contentious historical point withing the framework of the sovereignty dispute context. No other, more authoritative sources are provided. No other alternative sources are introduced or represented in the article's text. It is being used to characterize a historical fact reported differently by two entities, highlighting the difference between the two, with a subtext of lending credibility to one source and discrediting the other. This material is clearly being used for controversial use and should be excluded from the article in the manner used.Alex79818 (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

1. See Talk:Falkland Islands#Claimed vs. stated the facts this is used to cite is neither contentious or disputed. 2. See this diff [69] I fixed the problem of attribution. 3. You might care to look at [70], see also his contribution history [71] and the SPI report (not filed by me by the way) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818. Alex has been disrupting Falkland Islands articles since 2007, this is just another example of him using wikipedia's processes to be disruptive. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, it is not the facts which are in dispute, but the characterization of the facts, which lends a subtext of credibility to one report and not to the other, which is what the citation is being used for. Apart from the highly controversial context that this reference alludes to, Wee Curry Monster has still failed to identify the author of the essay in the book which he uses as a reference. The SPI against me was declined, and for good reason. Personal attacks seem to be a trademark move of this editor who consistently fails to [WP:AGF] and because of his behavior toward me and other editors in this discussion I've referred the matter to WQA. Feel free to comment regarding your interactions with this editor.Alex79818 (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Right so now the facts aren't in dispute a moment ago they were. Regarding "characterised" btw it would be worth at this point bringing up the RFC previously initiated which concluded my edits were meticulously cited and NPOV where Alex and his friend were disruptive. Also I have identifed the authors see [72] (posted above ironically) which merely demonstrates Alex is so focused on disruption he fails to notice when he has actually got what he wanted (against my better judgement).

The SPI case is ongoing and has not been declined. Checkuser was declined as the sock puppets are IP addresses. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

When you agree to changes it is courtesy to advise other users of this fact. You have not done so. The SPI case has had no activity for two days. The RFC hasn't even been up for a day and only regular editors have posted thus far. Your continued accusations and failure to WP:AGF will only lead to more dispute resolution activity on my part, and once again I am asking you to desist.Alex79818 (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

SDANet on Seventh Day Adventist topics

Is SDANet a WP:RS on topics related to the Seventh Day Adventist Church? Is it an "independent" source on these topics? The reason I ask was that it was recently raised as a source on Leonard R. Brand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The supporting editor pointed to the article on the author Arthur Patrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (whose article is itself sourced mostly to SDANet, rendering the whole thing more than a little incestuous). It describes itself as:

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)

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)

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)

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 [73] as well.

Publisher is named as Edipress. See [74], 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, [75] 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 [76]. 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)

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.

• [77] - Soapcentral just appears to be a mammoth fansite that has been running for a while.
• SoapOperaSource looks better than most.. [78]
• AllSoapScoops [79] <- 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' - [80]
• I'm not familiar with Daytime confidential - [81] - 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" - [82]. 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)

Self-published royalty websites

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" [83]
• http://www.royalark.net "Royal Ark" [84]

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 [85], 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, [86][87][88][89] 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)

wired.com and whosnews.usaweekend.com

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 [[90]] and [[91]] 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.

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 3, 2010), "The mystery of Frenchman's Tower", San Jose Examiner, San Jose {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

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[92].

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 [93].

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)

EWTN as reliable source on Catholics for Choice

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)

References to soure material added for James Palumbo

Reliable references to souce material have now been added to the James Palumbo Wikipedia page...

How do we go about having the notice requesting reliable sources removed from the top of the page?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)