Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and Jessica Nigri: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Light current (talk | contribs)
30,368 edits
Whats your problem ? Im trying to make things easier to follow. Are you wanting to create maximum obfuscation?
 
Revert. We are not restoring user-generated YouTube videos and personal blogs as sources, whose removal was valid, and in keeping with policy. The consensus on the talk page also agrees that the modeling appearances shouldn't be here anyway.
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{shortcut|[[WT:V]]}}
{{pp-dispute|small=yes}}
{{fansite}}
{| class="infobox" width="150"
{{Infobox person
|-
| name = Jessica Nigri
!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|75px|Archive]]<br>[[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/toc|Archives]]
| image = Jessica Nigri.jpg
|}
| imgw =
| caption = Jessica Nigri in 2012
| birth_name =
| birth_date = August 5, 1989
| birth_place = [[Reno, Nevada]], United States<ref name=BleedingCool>{{cite web|last=Johnston|first=Rich|title=Talking To Jessica Nigri About Cosplay|url=http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/06/01/talking-to-jessica-nigri-about-cosplay/|accessdate=March 3, 2013|publisher=Bleeding Cool|date=June 1, 2012}}</ref>
| height =
}}
'''Jessica Nigri''' (born August 5, 1989) is an American [[cosplay]] celebrity, [[promotional model]] and [[fan convention]] interview correspondent. She has served as an official spokesmodel for several video games and comic book series, including ''[[Lollipop Chainsaw]]'' and ''[[Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag]]''.


==Early life==
==Please do not feed the trolls==
Jessica Nigri was born in the United States, but grew up in New Zealand, from which her mother hailed.{{fact|date=December 2013}}
Naming no names here, but please do not support any trolling that may be occuring. I, for one, have not been participating in much of the previous discussion for this reason. Thanks for your time! [[User:JesseW/sig|JesseW, the juggling janitor]] 06:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


==Career==
==A thought: Tacitus' recommendation==
Nigri has been [[cosplay]]ing since 2009,{{fact|date=December 2013}} when her cosplay of "Sexy [[Pikachu]]" she wore to [[San Diego Comic-Con International]] went [[Viral video|viral]] on the Internet.<ref name=e3>{{cite web|url=http://screen.yahoo.com/jessica-nigri-e3-2013-interview-181216091.html |title=Jessica Nigri E3 2013 Interview|publisher=[[GameZone]]/[[Yahoo Screen]]|accessdate=2013-12-5}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theaureview.com/interviews/the-au-interview-at-avcon-2013-jessica-nigri-nevada |title=the AU interview at AVCon 2013: Jessica Nigri (Nevada) |publisher=the AU review |date= |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref> In 2011, she promoted ''[[Gears of War 3]]'' for [[Microsoft]] and [[GameStop]], dressed up as the game's character Anya Stroud for the game's release.{{fact|date=December 2013}}
:{|
|-
| valign="top" | ''nos consensum auctorum secuturi, quae diversa prodiderint sub nominibus ipsorum trademus.''
| | &nbsp;
| valign="top" | Proposing as I do to follow the consentient testimony of historians, I shall give the differences in their narratives under the writers' names.
|-
| align="right" colspan="3"|[[Tacitus]], ''[[Annals (Tacitus)|Annals]]'' XIII, 20 &ndash; [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Tac.+Ann.+toc Church/Brodribb translation]
|}


[[File:JNig_AssCreed1.jpg|thumb|Nigri dressed as a female version of Captain Edward Kenway (''[[Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag]]'') at [[Gamescom]] 2013]]
== Definition of term ==
In 2012, in a breakthrough event, Nigri won [[IGN]]'s contest for a model to portray Juliet Starling, protagonist of [[Suda51]]'s video game ''[[Lollipop Chainsaw]]'', and was hired as a spokesmodel by [[Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment|Warner Bros. Games]].<ref name="crave">{{cite web | title = Lollipop Chainsaw 'Search for Juliet' contest winner is ... | url = http://www.craveonline.com/gaming/articles/184063-lollipop-chainsaw-search-for-juliet-contest-winner-is- |publisher=CraveOnline |date = March 12, 2012|accessdate=November 1, 2012}}</ref><ref name="complex">{{cite web | title = Interview: Jessica Nigri Talks Life As "Juliet Starling" | url = http://www.complex.com/video-games/2012/06/interview-jessica-nigri-talks-life-as-juliet-starling |publisher=''Complex''| date = June 7, 2012|accessdate=November 1, 2012}}</ref><ref name=opm>{{cite web|url=http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2012/06/11/jessica-nigri-cosplay-gallery/ |title=Jessica Nigri cosplay gallery: 'Juliet is the best heroine' &#124; Features |publisher=Official PlayStation Magazine |date=June 11, 2012 |accessdate=August 4, 2013}}</ref><ref name=Kotaku>{{cite web | title = Skimpy Outfit Gets Lollipop Chainsaw Cosplayer Asked to Change Or Leave PAX Show Floor |publisher=Kotaku |url = http://kotaku.com/5900134/skimpy-outfit-gets-lollipop-chainsaw-cosplayer-asked-to-leave-pax | date = April 8, 2012|accessdate=November 1, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR4clE4M1BI |title=IG Extended - PAX East 2012 - Lollipop Chainsaw Interview - Suda51/Jessica Nigri |publisher=[[YouTube]]|date=2012-04-14 |accessdate=2013-11-28 |author=Machinima}}</ref> When she appeared as Juliet at the 2012 [[Penny Arcade Expo|Penny Arcade Expo East]], convention officials, having received complaints that the pink outfit she was wearing was too revealing, asked her to either change or step off the floor and restrict her presence to a demonstration area inside a bus at the booth for that game; Nigri changed into a Juliet Starling costume, but that costume was deemed too revealing as well, and she was asked to leave.<ref name=Kotaku/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.destructoid.com/two-fun-people-were-asked-to-leave-pax-east-225430.phtml |title=Two fun people were asked to leave PAX East |publisher=Destructoid |date= |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref><ref>Kain, Erik (April 12, 2012). [http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/12/scantily-clad-cosplayer-booted-from-family-friendly-pax-east/ "Scantily-Clad Cosplayer Asked To Change Clothes Or Leave Family-Friendly PAX East"]. ''Forbes''.</ref><ref name=sign/> As part of the deal, [[Kadokawa Games]] brought her on ''Lollipop Chainsaw'' tour to several Japanese magazines and blogging websites, including ''[[Famitsu]]'' and ''[[Dengeki PlayStation|Dengeki]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120622094229/http://www.jessicanigriofficial.com/lollipop-chainsaw-tour-interviews-pom-poms-tiny-skirts-and-more/ |title=Lollipop Chainsaw Tour; Interviews, pom-poms, tiny skirts and MORE! |publisher=Web.archive.org |date=2012-06-22 |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref> Nigri also signed up to promote [[Kill3rCombo]]'s video game ''[[Elsword]]'',<ref name=sign>{{cite web|url=http://www.complex.com/video-games/2012/05/the-pro-cosplayer-who-was-too-sexy-for-pax-east-signs-on-for-elsword-gig-at-anime-expo |title=The Pro Cosplayer Who Was Too Sexy for PAX East Signs on for "Elsword" Gig at Anime Expo |publisher=Complex |date=2012-05-23 |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://canadianonlinegamers.com/2012/05/kill3rcombo-signs-jessica-nigri-for-official-elsword-cosplay-at-anime-expo-2012/ |title=Kill3rCombo Signs Jessica Nigri for Official Elsword Cosplay at Anime Expo 2012 |publisher=Canadian Online Gamers |date= |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Carmichael |first=Stephanie|url=http://www.gamezone.com/news/2012/05/24/jessica-nigri-to-represent-elsword-at-anime-expo-2012 |title=Jessica Nigri to represent Elsword at Anime Exp... |publisher=[[GameZone]]|date=May 24, 2012}}</ref> as well as comic book series ''[[Grimm Fairy Tales (comics)|Grimm Fairy Tales]]'' (for [[Zenescope Entertainment]])<ref>{{cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120622231838/http://www.jessicanigriofficial.com/phoenix-comic-con-line-up/ |title=Phoenix Comic Con Line UP! |publisher=Web.archive.org |date=2012-06-22 |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref> and ''Knightingail'' (by Crucidel Productions).<ref name=grwc>{{cite web|author=Agent Burgos |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120716035054/http://www.jessicanigriofficial.com/get-ready-for-wondercon |title=Get Ready For WonderCon! |publisher=Web.archive.org |date=2012-07-16 |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref> In 2013, she was again approached by Suda51 to portray the character Vivienne Squall from [[Grasshopper Manufacture]]'s new video game ''[[Killer Is Dead|KILLER IS DEAD]]'', which she did.<ref>{{cite web|title=Jessica Nigri is back to promote Suda51's Killer is Dead|url=http://www.gamezone.com/news/2013/04/26/jessica-nigri-is-back-to-promote-suda-s-killer-is-dead|publisher=GameZone|date=April 26, 2013|accessdate=May 5, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Liebl |first=Matt |url=http://www.gamezone.com/previews/2013/06/14/talking-killer-is-dead-with-jessica-nigri-err-vivienne-squall |title=Talking Killer is Dead with Jessica Nigri.. err... |publisher=GameZone |date= |accessdate=2013-11-28}}</ref> That same year, after cosplaying Connor Kenway from ''[[Assassin's Creed III]]'',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.destructoid.com/jessica-nigri-becomes-an-assassin-with-her-latest-cosplay-241884.phtml |title=Jessica Nigri becomes an Assassin with her latest cosplay |publisher=Destructoid |date= |accessdate=2013-12-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://geektyrant.com/news/2013/1/17/assassins-creed-3-jessica-nigri-comes-out-of-hiding-for-this.html |title=ASSASSINS CREED 3: Jessica Nigri Comes Out of Hiding for this Stunning Cosplay Shoot — GeekTyrant |publisher=Geektyrant.com |date=2013-01-17 |accessdate=2013-12-02}}</ref> she was also hired by [[Ubisoft]] to portray a female version of Captain Edward Kenway, protagonist of the video game ''[[Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag]]''; at [[E3 2013]], she portrayed both Vivienne Squall and Edward Kenway.<ref name=e3/>
Has anybody looked at the actual definition of [[verifiability]] lately? You may find it means something different fromn the WP defn! 8-|--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
*I'm not sure what your point is. The link you reference is (as of this writing) a redirect to [[Formal verification]], which is a specific term of art, and not the normal English meaning of the word. The WP usage is also a term of art specific to the project, but even so is nearly identical with normal English usage. A claim is verifiable if an interested reader can verify that the claim appears in one or more sources that are cited in the bibliography and/or notes of the article. Sounds very close to the normal meaning to me. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Nigri was spokesmodel for Amazing Arizona Comic Con 2011,{{fact|date=December 2013}} was invited to multiple conventions including [[Anime Expo]] 2012,<ref name="AX2012">{{cite web|author=Moore, Marlon|title = Know Your GoH! – Jessica Nigri| url =http://inside.anime-expo.org/ax-scoop/2012-06/know-your-goh-jessica-nigri/|publisher=Anime-Expo | date = June 8, 2012}}</ref><ref name="nerdreactor">{{cite web | title = Anime Expo announces Jessica Nigri, Nobuhiko Okamoto, Ryo Horikawa and Rikiya Koyama as 2012 Guest of Honors | url = http://nerdreactor.com/2012/06/01/anime-expo-announced-jessica-nigri-nobuhiko-okamoto-ryo-horikawa-and-rikiya-koyama-as-2012-guest-of-honors/|publisher=Nerd Reactor | date =June 1, 2012|accessdate=November 1, 2012}}</ref> Anime Revolution 2012<ref>[http://www.animerevolution.ca/guests/#jessica_nigri "Guests"]. Anime Revolution. Retrieved October 2, 2012.</ref> and 2013,<ref name=ann>{{cite web|url=http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2013-06-17/anime-revolution-welcomes-jessica-nigri-back-to-canada |title=Anime Revolution Welcomes Jessica Nigri Back to Canada |publisher=Anime News Network |date= |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.animerevolution.ca/ar2013-news/2013-guests/jessica-nigri-returns-to-ar2013/ |title=Jessica Nigri Returns to AR2013! - AniRevo 2014 |publisher=Animerevolution.ca |date=2013-03-06 |accessdate=2013-11-28}}</ref> [[AVCon]] 2013,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.avcon.org.au/rss/97-first-guest-announcement-jessica-nigri.html |title=First Guest Announcement - JESSICA NIGRI |publisher=AVCon |date= |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref> [[Montreal Comiccon]] 2013,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.montrealcomiccon.com/en/our-guests/41-jessica-nigri/ |title=Jessica Nigri - Our Guests - Comiccon |publisher=Montrealcomiccon.com |date=2013-09-04 |accessdate=2013-11-28}}</ref> and Ottawa Pop Expo,<ref name=ope>{{cite web|url=http://www.ottawapopexpo.ca/en/our-guests/20-jessica-nigri/ |title=Jessica Nigri - Our Guests - Pop Expo |publisher=Ottawapopexpo.ca |date= |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref> as a guest of honor, and hosted the cosplay contest at Rhode Island Comic Con.<ref>[http://www.ricomiccon.com/#!cosplay/ce5z "Rhode Island Comic Con: Cosplay"]. ricomiccon.com. Retrieved December 5, 2013.</ref> She has been featured in [[YouTube]] shows such as [[KassemG]]<ref>[[KassemG]] (February 23, 2011). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFOVT57dRog "My Birth Certificate Is An Apology From The Condom Factory"]. YouTube.</ref> and ''[[The Philip DeFranco Show]]'',<ref>{{cite web|author=Philip DeFranco|url=http://revision3.com/philipdefranco/jessica-nigri-wins|title=Jessica Nigri Wins, YouTube Sues and Sarah Silverman Scissors|publisher=Revision3|date=July 16, 2012|accessdate=November 1, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Philip DeFranco|url=http://revision3.com/philipdefranco/nigri-tease|title=A Jessica Nigri Tease, $50,000 Ideas & the iPhone 5 Is Selling Like Crazy!|publisher=Revision3|date=September 18, 2012|accessdate=November 1, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=[[DeFranco, Philip]]|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYD7GaZ_e4s |title=Jessica Nigri & Carlos Danger Save The Day |publisher=YouTube |date=2013-07-24 |accessdate=2013-11-28 |author=Philip DeFranco}}</ref><ref name=np>{{cite web|author=DeFranco, Philip|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0AsI2yO4Iw|title=NIGRI PLEASE!! DeFranco Inc. Security At Work.|publisher=YouTube|date=September 28, 2012|accessdate=November 1, 2012}}</ref> and in a unique card in the downloadable trading card game ''Z.''<ref>{{cite web|author=Best Inventions of 2010 |url=http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/downwardviral/z-2/posts/250328 |title=Z. by Downward Viral » A wild Jessica Nigri appears! — Kickstarter |publisher=Kickstarter.com |date= |accessdate=August 4, 2013}}</ref> Aside from appearing on the ''PDS'' in the past, Nigri is a friend of [[Philip DeFranco|DeFranco's]], including having her merchandise hosted in his store [[ForHumanPeoples]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forhumanpeoples.com/products/nigri-please|title=Nigri Please! Poster feat. Jessica Nigri|publisher=''ForHumanPeoples''|accessdate=November 17, 2013}}</ref> She has been active as a member of the cosplay group XX Girls<ref name=sign/> and the [[Mad Catz]] professional gaming team LT3 (cosplay division),<ref>{{cite web|url=http://madcatz.com/players/jessica-nigri/ |title=Jessica Nigri |publisher=Mad Catz |date= |accessdate=2013-12-02}}</ref> and has worked with [[theCHIVE]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thechive.com/2012/07/12/the-reigning-queen-of-the-con-jessica-nigri-36-photos/ |title=The reigning queen of the ‘Con, Jessica Nigri (36 Photos) |publisher=theCHIVE |date=2012-07-12 |accessdate=2013-12-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://thechive.com/2013/05/08/jessica-nigri-is-the-chivette-of-the-week-27-photos/ |title=Jessica Nigri is the Chivette of the Week (27 Photos) |publisher=theCHIVE |date=2013-05-08 |accessdate=2013-12-02}}</ref> After Nigri reportedly declined to appear on the 2013 controversial reality show ''[[Heroes of Cosplay]]'',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/feature/2013-09-10 |title=5 Things I Learned From SyFy's "Heroes of Cosplay" |publisher=Anime News Network |date=2013-09-10 |accessdate=2013-12-02}}</ref> the [[Syfy]] network's producers manufactured what appeared to be a fierce rivalry and dislike between her and the show's star [[Yaya Han]] in order to make the series look more dramatic;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://comicsalliance.com/heroes-cosplay-syfy-review-commentary-video-criticism/ |title=Comics Alliance Reviews SyFy’s ‘Heroes of Cosplay’ [Video&#93; |publisher=Comicsalliance.com |date=2013-08-30 |accessdate=2013-12-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Gallagher |first=Luke |url=http://nerdbastards.com/2013/08/21/sexuality-vs-talent-why-manufactured-drama-on-syfys-heroes-of-cosplay-is-ruining-cosplay/ |title=Sexuality vs Talent – Why Manufactured Drama on Syfy’s ‘Heroes of Cosplay’ is Ruining Cosplay |publisher=nerdbastards.com |date=2013-08-21 |accessdate=2013-12-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.toplessrobot.com/2013/09/seven_reasons_why_heroes_of_cosplay_is_terrible_1.php |title=Seven Reasons Why Heroes of Cosplay Is Terrible - Topless Robot - Nerd news, humor and self-loathing |publisher=Topless Robot |date=2013-09-03 |accessdate=2013-12-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://pulse.therpf.com/article/122801/yaya-han-vs-jessica-nigri-battle-of-the-cosplay-titans-in-heroes-of-cosplay |title=Yaya Han vs Jessica Nigri - Battle of the Cosplay titans in Heroes of Cosplay &#124; The RPF Pulse |publisher=Pulse.therpf.com |date=2013-08-20 |accessdate=2013-12-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Stuart |url=http://www.mcmbuzz.com/2013/09/19/yaya-han-vs-jessica-nigri-what-a-difference-an-edit-makes/ |title=MCM BUZZ – Movies, TV, Comics, Gaming, Anime, Cosplay News & Reviews » YaYa Han vs Jessica Nigri: What a difference an edit makes! |publisher=Mcmbuzz.com |date=2013-09-19 |accessdate=2013-12-02}}</ref> the two later appeared together to explain they are actually friends in real life and the show is not necessarily an accurate representation of cosplay subculture.<ref>{{cite web|author=[[Han, Yaya]]|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLoE8XZX_Ck |title=Jessica Nigri and Yaya Han - real friends or reality TV characters? |publisher=YouTube |date=2013-09-05 |accessdate=2013-12-02}}</ref>
**I thought about this some more, and realized that the article on formal verification is ''apropos'' after all, and that what we are talking about is indeed analogous to formal verification. '''Validation''' would be trying to determine whether an article (or portion thereof) is true. Wikipedia does not attempt to validate. '''Verification''' is determining whether the article has been written to specification: an NPOV rendition of what can be found in reliable secondary sources. We attempt verification by looking up the claims in the sources cited. A verifiable article allows this. Non-verifiable articles are prohibited as a matter of practicality: absent citations, the process will not work. So, now I am even more at a loss what Light current's point is. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Nigri has worked as an interviewer for media outlets such as [[GameZone]],<ref name=gz/> RUGGED TV,<ref>{{cite web|author=August 9, 2011 |url=http://tribwekchron.com/2011/08/costumes-still-a-major-part-of-comic-con-experience/ |title=I.V. Weekly-Chronicle &#124; Costumes Still A Major Part Of Comic-Con Experience |publisher=Tribwekchron.com |date=2011-08-09 |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref> and Comic Book Therapy.{{fact|date=December 2013}} She also starred in several commercial video advertisements and music videos, and did charity work.<ref name=ann/><ref name=ope/> According to ''[[PlayStation Official Magazine]]'', Nigri is "not just a cosplayer but also a massive [[gamer]];"<ref name=opm/> she has played video games since her early childhood, starting at an age of seven,<ref name=e3/> having been first exposed to them by her father.{{fact|date=December 2013}} She plans to eventually retire from modeling and to study and pursue a career in the "behind the scene" aspects of marketing and advertising.{{fact|date=December 2013}} {{-}}


==Public cosplay and modeling==
===Dictionary definitions ===
{{incomplete list|date=November 2013}}
[[File:Saboten-Con Portraits - Jessie Nigri as Yoko S.T.A.R.S. 4.jpg|thumb|upright|Nigri as Yoko Littner (''[[Gurren Lagann]]'') at [[Saboten Con]] 2009]]


{| class="wikitable"
Verification to me means the establishment of TRUTH! (Latin - veritas = truth?) Verifiability therfore means the ability of something to be established as truth.
|-
!| Event
Verifiable:
!| Character
*able to be verified.''
|-
| [[San Diego Comic-Con]] 2009
| Human-female [[Pikachu]] (''[[Pokemon]]'')<ref name=ign/> <br> [[Rikku]] (''[[Final Fantasy X-2]]'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK--Zvs_DGc |title=California On Comic-Con 1 |publisher=YouTube |date=2009-07-27 |accessdate=2013-11-28 |author=Kassem G}}</ref>
|-
| [[Saboten Con]] 2009
| Yoko S.T.A.R.S. (''[[Gurren Lagann]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| [[Phoenix Comicon]] 2010
| Human-female Jolteon (''Pokemon''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| San Diego Comic-Con 2010
| White [[Morrigan Aensland]] (''[[Darkstalkers]]'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA9um40HWE0 |title=JESSICA NIGRI at COMIC-CON (Full Version) |publisher=YouTube |date=2010-07-26 |accessdate=2013-11-28 |author=Kassem G}}</ref>
|-
| Fiesta Bowl Parade 2010
| [[Black Cat (comics)|Black Cat]] ([[Marvel Universe]]){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Saboten Con 2010
| Zero Suit Bunny [[Samus Aran]] (''[[Metroid]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Tucson Comic-con 2010
| [[Ms. Marvel]] (Marvel Universe){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Amazing Arizona Comic Con 2011
| Black Cat (Marvel Universe){{fact|date=December 2013}}<br> Human-female Pikachu (''Pokemon''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| OrcCon 2011
| Succubus (''The Laughing Moon Chronicles''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Arizona Renaissance Festival 2011
| Onion the Faun (original character){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| [[Con-Nichiwa]] 2011
| Panty (''[[Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Phoenix Comicon 2011
| Human-female Pikachu (''Pokemon'') <br> Knightingail (''Knightingail''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| [[Anime Expo]] 2011
| Anya Stroud (''[[Gears of War]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Saboten Con 2011
| Classic Morrigan Aensland (''Darkstalkers''){{fact|date=December 2013}}<br> Female [[Finn the Human]] (''[[Adventure Time]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| San Diego Comic-Con 2011
| Anya Stroud (''Gears of War'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rROBXHa26eA |title=Jessica Nigri (Unedited Version) |publisher=YouTube |date=2011-07-25 |accessdate=2013-11-28 |author=Kassem G}}</ref> <br> Eloa (''Knightingail''){{fact|date=December 2013}} <br> Human-female Pikachu (''Pokemon''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| [[Comikaze Expo]] 2011
| Anya Stroud (''Gears of War'')<ref>{{cite web|author=Weiland, Jonah|url=http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=35423 |title=2011 Comikaze Expo Photo Parade |publisher=Comic Book Resources |date=2011-11-12 |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref> <br> Human Fluttershy (''[[My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic]]'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pcmesh.com/comikaze-expo-2011-hottest-tech-girls/ |title=Comikaze Expo 2011 Hottest Tech Girls |publisher=PCMESH |date= |accessdate=2013-12-04}}</ref>
|-
| DEVASTATION 2011 Gaming Convention & Tournament{{fact|date=December 2013}}
| Anya Stroud (''Gears of War''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Pop Culture Paradise 2011
| [[Poison (Final Fight)|Poison]] (''[[Final Fight (series)|Final Fight]]''/''[[Street Fighter]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Amazing Arizona Comic Con 2012
| Kaeli (''Knightingail''){{fact|date=December 2013}}<br> Juliet Starling (''[[Lollipop Chainsaw]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| [[Katsucon]] 2012
| Dragonborne (''[[The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}} <br> [[Sonya Blade]] (''[[Mortal Kombat]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}} <br> [[Supergirl]] ([[DC Universe]]){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| SXSW Gaming Expo 2012
| Juliet Starling (''Lollipop Chainsaw''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| [[Penny Arcade Expo|Penny Arcade Expo East]] (PAX East) 2012
| Juliet Starling (''Lollipop Chainsaw''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| [[WonderCon]] 2012
| Eloa (''Knightingail'')<ref name=grwc/> <br> Juliet Starling (''Lollipop Chainsaw''){{fact|date=December 2013}} <br> Knightingail (''Knightingail''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| [[Texas Frightmare Weekend]] 2012
| Juliet Starling (''Lollipop Chainsaw''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Phoenix Comicon 2012
| Babydoll (''[[Sucker Punch (2011 film)|Sucker Punch]]'') <br> Black Queen [[Emma Frost]] (Marvel Universe){{fact|date=December 2013}} <br> [[Little Red Riding Hood|Red Riding Hood]] (''[[Grimm Fairy Tales (comics)|Grimm Fairy Tales]]'') <br> Squirrel Girl (Mike DeBalfo){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| [[Electronic Entertainment Expo]] (E3) 2012
| Juliet Starling (''Lollipop Chainsaw'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxi-noST1UM |title=E3 2012 Jessica Nigri Lollipop Chainsaw Cheerleader Interview |publisher=YouTube |date=2012-06-12 |accessdate=2013-11-29 |author=MACHINIMA II}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mU-oU7Bxj8 |title=Nancy Roxx Meets Jessica Nigri |publisher=Youtube.com |date=June 6, 2012|accessdate=August 4, 2013|author=ZoominGames |author=ZoominGames}}</ref>
|-
| San Diego Comic-Con 2012
| Babydoll (''Sucker Punch'') <br> Grand Archer Rena (''Elsword'')<ref>{{cite web|author=Lee, Leonard|url=http://www.mtv.com/photos/sexy-cosplay-girls-san-diego-comic-con-2012/1689626/7330700/photo.jhtml#7330700 |title=Sexy Cosplay Girls: San Diego Comic-Con 2012|publisher=[[MTV]]|date= |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref> <br> NetherRealm [[Harley Quinn]] (''[[Injustice: Gods Among Us]]'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYD_s9tGolk |title=Jessica Nigri 4 (Unedited Version) |publisher=YouTube |date=2012-07-16 |accessdate=2013-11-28 |author=Kassem G}}</ref> <br> Valentine (''[[Skullgirls]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Anime Revolution 2012
| Black Goat Daughter (Keumaya){{fact|date=December 2013}} <br> Human Rainbow Dash (''My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Comikaze Expo 2012
| Female [[Joker (comics)|Joker]] (DC Universe){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Edmonton Expo 2012
| Human Rainbow Dash (''My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| [[New York Comic Con]] 2012
| Human-female [[Fox McCloud]] (''[[Star Fox (series)|StarFox]]'')<ref>{{cite web|author=Lee, Leonard|url=http://www.mtv.com/photos/cosplayers-new-york-comic-con-2012/1695495/7565836/photo.jhtml#7565836 |title=Cosplayers: New York Comic Con 2012|publisher=MTV|date=2012|accessdate=2013-12-5}}</ref> <br> Mad Moxxi (''[[Borderlands 2]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}} <br> Robyn Hood (''Grimm Fairy Tales'')<ref>{{cite web|author=Pierce, Josh|url=http://www.thegeekality.com/zenescope-entertainment-give-fans-what-they-wanted/ |title=Zenescope Entertainment Give Fans What They WANTED |publisher=Geekality|date=2013-02-27 |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref>
|-
| Amazing Arizona Comic Con 2013
| Black Cat (Marvel Universe)<ref>{{cite web|author=Dimalanta, Zedric|url=http://thecomixverse.com/2013/01/25/news-round-up-week-of-january-25-2013/ |title=NEWS Round-up: Week of January 25, 2013|publisher=The Comixverse|date=2013-01-25}}</ref> <br> Classic Morrigan Aensland (''Darkstalkers'') <br> Female Connor (''[[Assassin's Creed III]]'') <br> Robyn Hood (''Grimm Fairy Tales'') <br> Steampunk Harley Quinn (DC Universe){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Arizona Renaissance Festival 2013{{fact|date=December 2013}}
| Demon Hunter (''[[Diablo 3]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| WonderCon 2013
| Kotobukiya [[Lili (Tekken)|Lili]] (''[[Tekken]]'')<ref name=wc/> <br> Mad Moxxi (''Borderlands 2'')<ref name=wc>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLYGVRUukJI |title=Jessica Nigri (Unedited) |publisher=YouTube |date=2013-04-02 |accessdate=2013-11-28 |author=Kassem G}}</ref>
|-
| Port City Pop Con
| Female [[Deadpool]] (Marvel Universe){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Phoenix Comicon 2013
| Female [[Nathan Drake (character)|Nathan Drake]] (''[[Uncharted]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}} <br> NetherRealm Harley Quinn (''Injustice: Gods Among Us''){{fact|date=December 2013}} <br> Ramona Flowers (''[[Scott Pilgrim]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| E3 2013
| Female Edward Kenway (''[[Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag]]'')<ref name=e3/><ref name=gz>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dLIFvHsoBY |title=Jessica Nigri E3 Trivia Answers |publisher=YouTube |date=2013-06-17 |accessdate=2013-11-28 |author=[[GameZoneOnline]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Mannion, Gavin|url=http://www.lazygamer.net/video/we-interview-jessica-nigri-at-gamescom-2013/ |title=We interview Jessica Nigri at Gamescom 2013 |publisher=Lazygamer |date=September 4, 2013}}</ref> <br> Vivienne Squall (''[[Killer Is Dead]]'')<ref name=ign>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G6Jq6hzcGM |title=E3 VIP: IGN Meets Jessica Nigri - E3 2013 |publisher=[[IGN]]/YouTube |date=2013-06-13 |accessdate=2013-11-28}}</ref>
|-
| [[Emerald City Comicon]] 2013
| Original character (breast cancer awareness){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| [[AVCon|Anime and Video Games Convention]] (AVCon) 2013
| Female Edward Kenway (''Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Anime Expo 2013
| Female [[Goku]] (''[[DragonBall]]'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.alfabetajuega.com/noticia/a-goku-le-sale-competencia-jessica-nigri-n-27131 |title=A Goku le sale competencia: Jessica Nigri – Alfa Beta Juega |publisher=Alfabetajuega.com |date= |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref> <br> Human-female Teemo (''[[League of Legends]]'')<ref>{{cite web|author=7/08/13 9:30pm 7/08/13 9:30pm |url=http://kotaku.com/awesome-league-of-legends-cosplay-from-this-years-anim-710227694 |title=Awesome League of Legends Cosplay From This Year's Anime Expo |publisher=Kotaku.com |date= |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref> <br> Rikku (''Final Fantasy X-2'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N9u5Ffe99I |title=Jessica Nigri (Rikku) Interview: Anime Expo 2013 |publisher=YouTube |date=2013-07-16 |accessdate=2013-11-28 |author=Schadenfreude Industries}}</ref>
|-
| [[Gamescom]] 2013
| Female Edward Kenway (''Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YTIiU62MtA |title=gamescom 2013: Jessica Nigri im Interview über Cosplay und Gears of War |publisher=YouTube |date=2013-09-03 |accessdate=2013-11-28 |author=[[IGNDEUTSCHLAND]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rtl2.de/rtl-ii-spiele/video/6961-gamescom-2013/19239-cosplay-star-jessica-nigri-im-interview/ |title=gamescom 2013 – Cosplay-Star Jessica Nigri im Interview – RTL II Spiele – Video – RTL2 Mediathek |publisher=Rtl2.de |date=2013-08-27 |accessdate=2013-12-02}}</ref>
|-
| PAX East 2013
| Female Deadpool (Marvel Universe){{fact|date=December 2013}} <br> Miss Monday (''[[Yaiba: Ninja Gaiden Z]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Anime Revolution 2013
| Female Portgas D. Ace (''[[One Piece]]'') <br> Senkaku Mei (Anime Revolution mascot)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2013/08/jessica-nigri-photos-anime-revolution/ |title=Anime Revolution 2013: Jessica Nigri Photos &#124; Vancity Buzz &#124; Vancouver Events, News, Food, Lifestyle and More |publisher=[[Vancity Buzz]]|date= |accessdate=2013-11-28}}</ref>
|-
| [[Montreal Comiccon]] 2013
| Mad Moxxi (''Borderlands 2'')<ref>{{cite web|author=Momesso, Danilo|url=http://www.mtlblog.com/photos/montreal-comicon-2013-where-we-met-jessica-nigri-along-with-7-boba-fetts-part-2/ |title=Montreal Comiccon 2013 Where We Met Jessica Nigri Along With 7 Boba Fetts Part 2 |publisher=MTL Blog |date=2013-09-15 |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref> <br>Not-so Tiny Tina (''Borderlands 2''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Edmonton Expo 2013
| San (''[[Princess Mononoke]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| Rhode Island Comic Con 2013
| Female [[Tenth Doctor]] (''[[Doctor Who]]'') <br> Human Wampa / "Sexy Yeti" (''[[Star Wars]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
| New York Comic Con 2013
| Dragonborne (''The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim'')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI3_1PPXENU |title=NYCC 2013 Pt. 2 - LeeAnna Vamp - I Love Nerd Girls - New York Comic Con |publisher=YouTube |date= |accessdate=2013-11-29 |author=vamp}}</ref> <br> Steampunk Harley Quinn (DC Universe)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nerdreactor.com/2013/10/21/new-york-comic-con-hula-cam/ |title=New York Comic Con 2013 Hulacam Video Nerd Reactor |publisher=Nerdreactor.com |date=2013-10-21 |accessdate=2013-11-29}}</ref>
|-
| [[BlizzCon]] 2013
| Blood Elf sorceress (''[[World of Warcraft]]'')<ref>{{cite web|author=Hernandez, Patricia|url=http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/11/some-of-the-best-cosplay-from-blizzcon-2013/ |title=Some Of The Best Cosplay From BlizzCon 2013 &#124; Kotaku Australia |publisher=[[Kotaku]]|date=13 November 2013|accessdate=2013-12-02}}</ref>
|-
| Ottawa Pop Expo
| Human-female Teemo (''League of Legends'') <br> [[Nausicaä (character)|Nausicaä]] (''[[Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga)|Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind]]''){{fact|date=December 2013}}
|-
|}


==Filmography==
Verify:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
*to confirm, or test, the '''truth''' or accuracy of
|-
*to cause the '''truth''' (of something) to be percieved
! Year
*(law) to affirm at the end of a pleading , the '''truth''' of (matters alleged in the pleading
! Title
*(law) to substantiate by proofs
! Role
REf Longman Modern English dictionary, Longman 1976
! class="unsortable" | Notes
my bolding.
|-

|2011
There seems to be no doubt that verifiabilty involves truth from these defintions. Therefore the policy as it stands (Verifiability NOT truth) is nonsense! Thats all Im saying 8-)--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 02:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
|"Chalkskin: T 'n A"{{fact|date=December 2013}}

|Cos-Play Girl
:Playing devil's advocate here, that dictionary could be outdated or just plain full of crap, or could be omitting some definitions, such as the one used here in Wikipedia. Yet, since it's heavily edited, perhaps peer-reviewed by nature, widely cited, and published by a reputable company, I am pretty confident that it's a reliable source of information about definitions of "verify" and "verifiable". Or at least, I am confident that, ''to the extent that it makes specific claims'' about those topics, it is a reliable source, and therefore whatever ''paraphrases of those claims'' are made in Wikipedia are ''"verifiable"'' by WP:V criteria. The distinction is that WP supposedly eschews pretension of being an authority, itself, and rather claims to be "true" only to the extent of "we have it on good authority" / "it comes from a reliable source". The dates that claims are made, both in WP and in cited sources, make a difference, too; what is true today may not be true tomorrow, or may be found to have been untrue all along, and WP must still be able to report on it responsibly in the meantime. Personally, I think it could be argued that WP:V is a half-arsed form of testing and ascertaining a level of "truth", but I suspect that that particular philosophical argument is a dead horse around here.
|Music video
:Having said that, I do feel that if verifiability has a common definition and connotations in the real world that render the Wikipedia definition rather counterintuitive, then we have a responsibility to address that point in the policy article.—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 02:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
|-

|2012
Yes but the phrase 'Verifiability not truth' is, by the above definition, patent nonsense and should not be used in any policy statement. If we cant get the main catchphrase right, what hope do we have of everyone understanding the
|"NIGRI PLEASE!!"<ref name=np/>
details of the policy? The verifiability 'policy' is in such a hell of a mess right now and needs rebuilding from the ground up with ALL users involved in discussions.
|[[Sonya Blade]] (''[[Mortal Kombat]]'')

|Music video
A good place to start would be to choose the right words. 'Verifiability' is not one of them (unless you mean affirming the truth).
|-

|2012
I suggest two new words:
|"Lollipop Chainsaw: Zom-Be-Gone"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVhbgBGL8Bk |title=ZOM-BE-GONE - Lollipop Chainsaw Live Action Trailer |publisher=YouTube |date=2012-04-05|author=[[GameSpot]]}}</ref>
*Referencablity (or 'referability') and
|Juliet Starling (''[[Lollipop Chainsaw]]'')
*Truth
|Commercial
Of course WP is not interested in the truth at the moment -- I think it should be. --[[User:Light current|Light current]] 03:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
|-
: Light current, "truth" has so many applicable definitions. A datum is previously published to the public. Then it is included into a Wikipedia article. It has to be "previously published to the public", it has to be "verifiable" (a person must be able to pick up that exact publication on that exact page and read those exact words, if quoted), and the published source must be "reputable", that is, of good quality. Truth is ''usually'' published in this manner, but sometimes lies are published in the same manner. So, certainly, you have a point. But NPOV tells us that "widely published" is our foundation and that, generally, we can expect "widely published" (by good quality publishers) to be the foundation of Wikipedia articles. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
|2012

|"Buzzzzzz Kill"{{fact|date=December 2013}}
Your understanding of the term 'verifiable' is false. Look it up in a dictionary.
|Juliet Starling (''Lollipop Chainsaw'')
Are we interested at all in truth, or are we prepared to include any old crap as long as someone has published it before? That is one on the fundamental questions that no one wants to answer! 8-(--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 23:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
|Commercial

|-
==Are these edits contentious?==
|2013
Since in my recent edits some content was rearranged, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVerifiability&diff=56203241&oldid=56019726 the diff] looks a bit more drastic than it actually is. [[User:Francis Schonken]] reverted them, explaining "found no real discussion about this on talk". I'm a bit mystified by this, as I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AVerifiability&diff=56213037&oldid=56025804 clearly did] raise the issues or chime in on the already-raised issues here. I suspect that either the diff looked too drastic or the discussion points on the talk page were too buried, so I will list the exact changes here, along with their rationale:
|"Gigolo Missions"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytjq2AE6U6A |title=Jessica Nigri en Killer is Dead Trailer "Misiones Gigolo" |publisher=YouTube |date=2013-04-26 |accessdate=2013-11-28}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Sanchez, David|url=http://www.exophase.com/59539/grasshopper-and-jessica-nigri-reunite-to-promote-killer-is-dead/ |title=Grasshopper and Jessica Nigri Reunite to Promote Killer Is Dead |publisher=eXophase.com |date=2013-04-28}}</ref>
* As I mentioned above, the entire article dwells quite heavily on reliability and citation of sources without adequately relating those to verifiability. In particular, the 'policy in a nutshell' fails to mention verifiability at all. I came here to refresh my memory on what the verifiability policy was because I was about to beat someone over the head with it, and was surprised to find no clear reason given why the article seems to be rehashing [[WP:RS]]. I consulted this talk page and found some explanations buried in the discussions along with the ludicrous sentiment that "we should just carry on as if it's worded (the way we mean)" (see comments by Block, Gimmetrow). I'm satisfied with the explanations, but not with the fact that they're buried on the soon-to-be-archived talk page rather than reflected in the article. The reason reliability is the focus of the article should be made clear by ''explicitly'' relating reliability of sources to verifiability. Also, something I didn't mention is that it also implies that citing sources is sufficient to ward off challenges. To address both issues, I changed ''Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed'' to ''Any material that is unsourced or obtained from unreliable sources is not considered verifiable, and may be challenged and removed.'' Is this really that contentious?
|Vivienne Squall (''[[Killer Is Dead]]'')
** Just want to clarify that I didn't say the "carry on" phrase quoted above, and don't necessarily agree with it. [[User:Gimmetrow|Gimmetrow]] 03:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
|Trailer
* As I mentioned above, the "Sources" and "Burden of evidence" sections seemed to be sloppily arranged. "Sources" began with a summary of a few of the major guidelines from WP:RS, and a reference to WP:RS for details. This was followed with "Burden of evidence" as a subsection, referring to WP:CITE for details. After that came "Sources of dubious reliability" and then "Self-published sources" and then the very awkwardly worded "Self-published sources in articles about themselves" subsections, all of which further expound upon the topic of the intro paragraph, leading one to wonder why this continuation of thought had been interrupted by the "Burden of evidence" section, and also in parts seeming to exceed the realm of summarizing, instead getting into material that should be (but isn't, really) covered in WP:RS (such as the blanket characterization of all blogs as inherently unreliable). However, I knew better than to make any substantive changes to address the latter two issues without prior discussion, so I raised the topic above, under the "Is the RS content…" heading. I do, however, feel confident that the strange arrangement of topics could be addressed with a bold edit, which I undertook:
|-
** I made a formatting change to the intro paragraph/summary of WP:RS to make the items drawn from WP:RS be a bulleted list rather than prose. This helps better offset it from the material that follows, and makes it easier to keep it in sync with WP:RS.
|2013
** I added an introductory sentence to lead into the list. It explicitly relates 'verifiability' to 'reliability'. It reads as follows: ''An essential component of the verifiability policy is the reliability of sources; information from an unreliable source is unreliable, itself, and is thus unverifiable. Whether a source is or is not reliable is determined by consensus as reflected in the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] guideline, which is partially summarized by the following''. '''The latter sentence is almost verbatim from the Block/Gimmetrow consensus above.'''
|''[[RWBY]]''{{fact|date=December 2013}}
** I moved the "Burden of evidence" section, which is about ''citing'' reliable sources, out to its own section, thereby allowing the rest of the "Sources" section, which is about ''reliability'' of cited sources, to flow nicely and be consistent in topic.
|Cinder Fall
** I retitled "Sources" to "Reliability of sources"
|Voice acting role
** I added ''"for example, a Wikipedia article about a notable person may reference that person's self-published material"'' to the "Self-published sources in articles about themselves", which I otherwise am hesitant to touch. The fact that this section is confusing is mentioned in discussions above.
|}
As I said, I left the more severe issue — the fact that WP:V contains material that should be hammered out in WP:RS — as a topic for future debate; my edits only dealt with making it clear to the reader that WP verifiability is defined in terms of reliability, and cleaning up the organization (but not the content) of the "Sources" section.—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 02:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My major problem with the series of updates is that it promotes the idea of reliable sources to a point it gives the impression that [[wikipedia:reliable sources]] would (already) be a policy. Well, it isn't, and there are several reasons for that. Of course [[WP:V]] is very related to [[WP:RS]]. But the qualification of that relation was OK the way it was. So I revert to that version. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 08:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:What qualification of that relation? The relation was not explicitly stated anywhere at all. I made no attempt to change the degree to which the idea of reliable sources was promoted, and I didn't change the relationship, I merely stated what it already was (but which took digging through the Talk page to figure out). You're shooting the messenger.
:The policy was titled "verifiability" yet there was no mention of the term "verifiability" in the 'nutshell', where it belongs more than anywhere. Instead, the policy avoids stating what it means and just launches straight into a discussion of reliability, and seems to rehash/overlap WP:RS. You should be asking yourself "how could he come away with the impression that it's rehashing WP:RS" or "how could he read this policy and think RS is policy, not guideline" — gahh, how could one ''not''?
:Similarly, when you say "''and there are several reasons for that''", you seem to imply that I should be aware of what those are. Are you not listening? '''They're not mentioned'''.
:The reader should be told outright, not left to infer, what the connection is, and how RS is still just guidelines, not policy. Being explicit is especially important since WP's definition of verifiability is not typical. We must make it clear to them why the "verifiability policy" appears to have nothing to do with verifying the truthfulness of anything and everything to do with adhering to WP:RS and WP:CITE. Yet when I did this, based on info taken from what appeared to be consensus here, it was information that you did not want to hear, and you blindly reverted it twice.
:(''venting'') The pride, heavy-handedness, and deafness with which this policy's cabal of core editors dismisses debate is disturbing. Trolls, people who don't want to cite sources, and perpetual motion machine enthusiasts aside, the volume of people coming here to discuss unclear concepts and suggest changes to the way the policy is expressed in order to make its intent more clear, let alone make changes to the policy itself (which I was not attempting to do), should be sending you all a message that the policy is ''not'' that well written. There are articles I thought I crafted very well, but when someone comes along and adds or rewrites something that strikes me as perhaps substantive but unnecessary or reflecting a failure to understand something that I thought was obvious, I usually don't just revert the edit and move on; rather I try to figure out how they could've read the article and come away with the impression that they needed to make that edit. Then I make changes to the article, accordingly. If they happen argue with me on the talk page, I'll state my case and let the discussion go on as long as it has to. I'm getting the distinct impression that around here, such patience is a rarity, and every newcomer who doesn't think every nuance of the policy is clear is considered an ignorant fool by default. (''done venting'')—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 10:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to mjb's comment on my talk page:
* This page ([[wikipedia talk:verifiability]]) is better suited for discussing this than user talk pages I suppose;
* This page ([[wikipedia talk:verifiability]]) is also the page that is probably best used to see whether there's [[wikipedia:consensus|consensus]] regarding proposed changes to the [[WP:V]] policy page, and/or to try to find such consensus. Currently there's no consensus that warrants a change in that sense to the WP:V policy page;
* WP:V currently has<blockquote>''For more details on this topic, see [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]''</blockquote>under the [[WP:V#Sources]] header. So the link to [[WP:RS]] is clearly there (and is mentioned also in some other places of the WP:V policy page). Also such link "qualifies" the relation: the other page gives more detail, without asserting that that "detail" qualifies "reliable" in absolute terms. In my opinion such links of WP:V to WP:RS should neither be ''more'' stressed, nor ''less'' stressed, nor otherwise reformulated than it is done currently. None of the above appeared convincing enough to me to start supporting the proposed changes.
In other words, your reading of the present content of WP:V seems missing some of the content of that page. Not the right foot to get started on if wanting to ''modify'' that content, I suppose.

Note that the modification procedure for policies (and guidelines for that matter) is somewhat different than for articles in main namespace. The basics regarding the ''modification/updating of policy'' are included in [[wikipedia:how to create policy]]. So, for instance, if you think the "policy-in-a-nutshell" formulation unclear or otherwise inappropriate, simplest is to propose a new formulation on this talk page and see whether it meets community consensus. If you think the change was self-evident, and implemented it, then it stops being self-evident if someone disagrees and reverts (like, for instance, I did). Then discuss on talk. Just a tip: if discussing on talk, try to "convince" other wikipedians. Loose accusations about cabals and the like are usually not the most "convincing" arguments.

On the other hand, the fact that the "policy-in-a-nutshell" formula doesn't use the word "verifiability" or "verify" once, is a convincing argument (to me at least). Only, I'd draw another conclusion than you do. Instead of going still more heavy-handed on the "reliable (sources)" in that template, I'd for instance propose something in the vein of replacing the template's first sentence ("Information on Wikipedia must be reliable") by something that better reflects the first paragraph of the policy text, for instance: "Wikipedia should only include information that is ''verifiable'' with reference to reliable external sources." --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 11:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:(Just addressing one of your points here; no time for the rest till later) - ''For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources'' is essentially [[Template:Main]], and indicates to any semiregular user of Wikipedia that the section is an overview/summary of a topic that is more comprehensively and (given that it's a guideline) more ''authoritatively'' defined elsewhere. Yet the section does not stop at summarizing WP:RS and referring the reader elsewhere, it actually gets into quite a bit of detail (a mistake often made in regular articles) and I believe accidentally sets forth ''as policy'' certain RS criteria -- this accidental elevation in status arising due to their presence on the policy page without explicit clarification, and due to the absence of certain ones from the RS page (which says "see WP:V for details" basically). It seems nonsensical that you and others would assert here that that's not the intended interpretation, yet simultaneously shun my stating the intended interpretation (that they're not policy but are guidelines defined in WP:RS) on the policy page itself. I also actually see no reason to mention details of WP:RS whatsoever: If the nuances of RS, such as the relative reliability of different types of self-published sources, are truly guidelines in the WP sense of the word, then they should be relegated entirely to WP:RS, and not be restated and risk being accidentally elevated in status on WP:V.
:Also, on your talk page, I was not asking to move the discussion there; I was just supplementing my public response with a semi-private one. After I wrote it, I ended up coming back here and making similar updates to my public response, so they ended up looking very similar. Sorry for the confusion.—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 12:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to TheronJ's comments on my talk page, regarding the self-published sources: sorry, I reverted something as part of the whole. Anyway, my basic assumption is that the details about self-published (and on-line) sources should be in the [[WP:RS]] guideline, while it's practically impossible to sort that out in detail on "policy" level. So I've been bold (let's see how long this stands...) and:
*Moved the "Self-published sources in articles about themselves" to the WP:RS guideline *including* the additional clarification by you which I removed together with my reverts regarding the statute of WP:RS. Note that I *kept* the other paragraph about self-published sources on the WP:V policy page;
*I extended the title of that section (self-published and on-line are not synonyms in all cases, the section is on both)
*I included a deep link to the (also renamed) section of WP:RS that treats online/self-published sources.
Hope this helps. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

: * I have reinserted the large part you excised. There is a place in WP:RS which seems to quote WP:V ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Personal_websites_as_primary_sources here]). This exact quoted text no longer exists, however it was the text that developed into the list that was removed (back [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVerifiability&diff=54696820&oldid=54659087 here]). WP:RS needs some editing accordingly. [[User:Gimmetrow|Gimmetrow]] 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== Discussion about NPOV, NOR, Verifiability etc. on [[Talk:Fedora Core]] ==

I have been asked to mention [[Talk:Fedora_Core#POV_no_matter_what_you_write.3F|this discussion]] here. - [[User:Samsara|{{{2|Samsara}}}]] ([[User talk:Samsara|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samsara|contribs]]) 18:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:By your own admission, you made the statement ''Many of the administration tools in Fedora Core are written in [[Python programming language|Python]] - an object oriented language that makes programs easy to maintain, but like most "scripting" languages is slow to execute.'' in order "to hint at the fact that [Python-based rpm update tool] [http://linux.duke.edu/projects/yum/ Yum] simply crawls compared to other update tools".
:The swipe at all of Python was of course too broad (although as a huge fan of Python, maybe I'm not the best person to comment), and the only way to get away with saying it's "slow" is to make an actual comparison, as fully qualified as it needs to be (slow compared to what, under what conditions), which you almost ''have'' to draw from and credit to some external source in order to comply with [[WP:NOR]]. Even if you use the "some say…" weasel-wording, it can't be ''you'' who's saying it.
:I'm not the keeper of the verifiability policy (a point which is obvious from my diatribes above) but in this case I think you first need to better ascertain what it is exactly that you want to assert (e.g., that certain versions of yum under certain conditions are slower than some other tools and/or user expectations), and why it's important to include this claim in the Fedora Core article (which also affects how you phrase the claim), perhaps making your case on Talk:Fedora Core since your motivation is already suspect. Assuming it's ''really'' important to include, it shouldn't be too hard to find sources. :Look: http://www.google.com/search?q=python+yum+slow — lots of FC users and even developers are self-publishing claims about yum and FC's update system being slow. Weigh the reliability of these: there are lots of complaints about symptoms (slow updates when using yum) and there is speculation as to the cause (yum's fault, FC's fault, Python's fault), some perhaps misinformed, but some coming from positions of relative authority. If these are the best sources you can come up with, ''and if'' there is consensus, which you might test by just posting them, that these sources are reliable enough to support ''that particular claim'' in the context of the FC article, then adjust the claim's phrasing to qualify it appropriately; don't just say "yum is slow" and attribute it to random idiots on the Internet. It should be more along the lines of "One of the update management tools bundled with Fedora Core, yum, drew criticism among FC users in 2005-2006. Relative slowness compared to other update management systems and Linux distributions was reported, and users speculated that the problems were attributable to issues with either yum, Fedora Core, Python, or some combination thereof. As of June 2006, it was not clear whether yum or FC developers were investigating the issue, or whether the symptoms were even affecting all yum users, just those on FC, or some subset thereof."
:The fact that the sources are self-published does diminish their reliability for any claim, given that edited and peer-reviewed sources may be available, but I personally am against the blanket characterization of such sources as being universally disqualified for all claims. For the claim "yum is slow" those sources are arguably not reliable enough. But for the more heavily qualified claim, they're ''more'' reliable, and your concern is more just "how important is it to put it into the article?". When considering importance and how to phrase the claim, try to anticipate the slowness being fixed tomorrow or being found to not be yum's fault or Python's fault but rather perhaps caused by misconfigured systems and user error. The claim you make should be just as verifiable ''then'' as it is ''now''. Does this help?—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


== Terms ==
I think the term 'verifiability' (which means the property of being able to confirm the truth) should be replaced by the word 'referability' which means you can find a published source (reference). Comments?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 20:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:I understand "verifiability" as a reference to the possibility of the material in question being verfied by other editors by checking the source. It is the property being able to confirm the accuracy of an edit compared with the source; I don't think the word has anything to do with truth. [[User:Pecher|Pecher]] <sup>[[User talk:Pecher|Talk]]</sup> 20:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it does have to do with truth!
===Dictionary definitions ===

Verifiable:
*able to be verified.''

Verify:
*to confirm, or test, the '''truth''' or accuracy of
*to cause the '''truth''' (of something) to be percieved
*(law) to affirm at the end of a pleading , the '''truth''' of (matters alleged in the pleading
*(law) to substantiate by proofs
REF: Longman Modern English Dictionary, Longman 1976
my bolding.
--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:I interpret "verifiability" in light of the first bullet point: to confirm, or test, the truth or '''accuracy'''. Verifiability should be about the ability of other editors to confirm the accuracy of an edit, i.e. whether the edit matches the source cited. [[User:Pecher|Pecher]] <sup>[[User talk:Pecher|Talk]]</sup> 21:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the way the policy is written implies that finding a reference is what is meant by the word 'verifying'. THe word doesnt mean that as I have demonstrated above. Therfore the word in the policy should be changed. 8-|
--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 21:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::What is the "truth" being confirmed? In NPOV style, many statements look like "A says B happened" (reference C). The truth that A says that is verified by checking source C. If there is no debate about B, then the article will likely say "B happened" because any reliable source should confirm that. [[User:Gimmetrow|Gimmetrow]] 21:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What Im saying is that in the WP:V policy, the term 'verifiable' is not the right word to use when we mean being able to find any old reference. 'Verifying' actually means 'establishing the actual truth of a statement or assertion' as in my above dic defs.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:Would you quit trying to create controversy where there isn't one. The policy exactly fits the definition "able to be verified". That's what references are for, both that other editors can verify the material if desired and the reader can too. That's what references are for. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 02:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Im afraid your just not getting my drift! The fact that you can find a reference to something doesnt mean that you have ascertained its truth. THe reference could have been written by any idiot! 'Verifying' means ascertaining of confirming the truth of a statement. I would have thought that that was self evident.8-(--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 02:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

:: There are two elements contained in any information. One element is the information itself. A second element which is idependent of the actual information is the source of the information. "Verifiability" is constraining itself to the source of the information. That is, the element which you say should be called "referability" or perhaps it should be called "referencability?" Whatever word is used, it is the ability to hold the referred book (or other publication) in hand, compare it to the article, and observe that both are identical. No matter what the information itself is, the idea which "verifiability" is attempting to communicate, is the exact duplication which a reader of an article can observe. The reader can then study further if they wish to. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 05:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

*And I'm afraid that you're missing the point. The only test of truth available to Wikipedia is that there is a consensus (or near-consensus) among those who possess access to the evidence, the training to evaluate it, and have spend the necessary time to do so. That's it. A few special (and relatively unimportant) cases aside, that is the best tool we have. And, assuming the Republic of Letters is doing its job, it is the most powerful tool that has ever existed. It will err, but it will err less often than the biasses and largely amateur analyses of random Wikipedians. We are here to report on what the experts believe: in most cases, that will be Truth, or at least the best approximation of it available. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 03:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments actually! All Im saying is that the slogan '''Verifiablility not Truth''' is gibberish. Because verifiability means ascertaining the truth!. Look at the dic defs i put up! To make proper sense in English, the slogan should read: '''Referencability not truth''' 8-|--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 03:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
:That's because the dictionary definition plays loose with the word truth like most people do. Still nothing to see here and you've demonstrated no problem and nothing valuable about making a change. Please stop. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 03:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK thats what you think. I was replying to [[User:Robert A West]] actually. I wonder what others may say. BTW do you always butt in and try to silence people with whom you disagree? 8-((--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 03:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

:The way the policy is written is the way everybody understands verifiability, and as you can see from the above discussion, your idea finds little support. [[User:Pecher|Pecher]] <sup>[[User talk:Pecher|Talk]]</sup> 08:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with Taxman and Pecher. I think that your efforts are misguided.
::*You state that you approve of the policy, just not the wording, so you are making a semantic point.
::*To justify a change in wording, you must first show that the current phrasing causes harm: that it is widely misunderstood or fuels many flame wars or something of the sort. I see no evidence of this.
::*Your proposed alternative is semantically horrible. The transitive verb "reference" means "Make a reference to," hence the coined word "referencability" would have to mean, "Able to be referenced in other works."
::You have failed to convince -- you ought to consider that your opinion may not be the truth on this point and move on to something more useful, like championing the policy as intended. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 13:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I ''dont'' agree with the policy statement but your derived definition of 'referencability' is exactly what I had in mind! However, 'able to be referenced in other works' does not necessarily guarantee the truth of a statement - does it?

Anyway, I was just pointing out that the policy statement is not self consistent. If you, and other admins, cant see that, I cant help you any more! 8-(
Theres no need to get worked up and hyper defensive about this - anyone else would think you were [[paranoid]]. Im sure you, like all other admins, are not 8-|--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

*I am not an admin. (Should there be an abbreviation for that? IANAA?) I just care about the project. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 01:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say you were! (paranoia?) i care about the project too to the extent of putting a hell of a lot of time into it! [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Light_current&dbname=enwiki]--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

*Not paranoia, the ability to read English. "You, and other admins ..." "You, like all other admins ..." [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 02:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats your intrepretation only! The phrasing is deliberatly ambiguous--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:If you think that phrasing even slightly ambiguous, then your knowledge of English is defective, and you should not be raising semantic issues or trying to rephrase policy until you have learned better. Consider the phrase, "John Doe, like other child molesters..." No one would think that ambiguous for a second. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 02:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

== Alice in Wonderland ==

There is nothing wrong with my knowledge of English. Its your lack of view! I didnt know whether you were an admin or not, so the phrasing was appropriate. Anyway who are you to tell me about my use of English when you dont even know what 'verifiable' means? Humpty Dumpty?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 02:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:Please don't take offense. Given your points as raised and defended, I have two choices. The [[WP:AGF]] option is that you are well-meaning, but have several wrong ideas about Standard English. I regret having to be blunt, but I saw no reasonable choice. Your semantic games are neither well-done nor constructive. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 03:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No offence taken! Actually its neither of your assumptions! But perhaps my use of the English language is more developed than yours! Since we are in [[Humpty Dumpty]] land, I consider what I wrote to be fair!
<blockquote>
''"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."''
</blockquote>
ie I define my own language!
BTW I '''am''' well meaning: its just that people dont appreciate my subtleties. Pls see my user page to find out more about me 8-)--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 00:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

== Policy wording ==
I would like to propose that we replace the word 'verifiable' by 'referencable' and the word 'verifiability' by 'referencability'. I would be pleased to hear peoples comments on this proposal.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:This seems to me to restrict the meaning of ''verifiable'' to a form of positivism. Also, I think the word would be ''referenceable'', but I can't verify it. :) [[User:Gimmetrow|Gimmetrow]] 02:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes 'verification' means establishing the truth of something 8-)--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 02:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::Verifiability is the right word. Strictly speaking, what is being verified is that the article faithfully reports what its sources say and that the sources are considered reliable. If one insists on mathematical terminology where it does not belong, a Wikipedia article is a meta-claim: a claim about claims, not a claim about the truth. We leave those to professional scholars. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 03:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but there are two stages involved here! We ought to split up the 2 stages into 'referencability' and 'probable truth'--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

:::This type of repetitive unhelpful argumentation is exactly the type of thing that brought about [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière]]. Light current has a remarkably similar pattern of argumentation. Light current appears to enjoy painting that as silencing, but it's more about stopping behavior that grinds useful discussion to a halt. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 13:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So that makes ''at least'' two of us doesnt it [[User:Taxman]]? It is repression of [[free speech]] and opinion that you are attempting! Do I detect a [[threat]] here? '''You''' must be [[paranoia|PARANOID]] as well!
All readers should refer to my user page (--[[User:Light current|Light current]] ) for the likely outcome of this [[skirmish]]!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 00:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

:::You're way off on all of that. And oh, you mean the taking out of context and misrepresentation on your user page? Yes I saw that. There aren't many people that can't see through that, but I suppose you could find some. With that I'm done here, there's an encyclopedia to write. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good(bye?)!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

== Self-published sources ==

A sentence in the section "Self-published sources in articles about themselves" says: "''Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic.''" Looks like this sentence contradicts the section above, which says that self-published material by experts in the relevant field are sometimes acceptable. Due to this contradiction, I'd propose to remove the sentence that self-published sources are ''never'' acceptable; "sometimes" is just fine. [[User:Pecher|Pecher]] <sup>[[User talk:Pecher|Talk]]</sup>

: You're right, this was pointed out [[Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Conflict_on_use_of_self-published_sources.3F | above]] My apologies if the deletion I reverted was supposed to fix that issue. [[User:Gimmetrow|Gimmetrow]] 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

::OK, I'm removing this sentence. [[User:Pecher|Pecher]] <sup>[[User talk:Pecher|Talk]]</sup> 21:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

: I've been looking through the history pages. This point was addressed and fixed on May 30, but the fix was lost on May 31 when the page was reverted to an earlier version. I intend to reinsert the corrected sentence, which said "Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information about another person or topic, subject to the limited exceptions discussed above." [[User:Gimmetrow|Gimmetrow]] 21:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

== Suggested Policy ==

WIkipedia needs a better way to stop page vandalism. Why not restrict changes so that changes to pages must be suggested and then approved by at least two other members? This might make it slightly harder to change pages, but it would cut down on incidences of somebody editing a page just for the sake of putting up something stupid that they think is funny. Yes, a dedicated vandalist could get around it with sockpuppet accounts, but just by making it harder we will stop most casual vandalism.
[[User:24.91.251.108|24.91.251.108]] 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

:This idea might have merit for vandalism-prone articles, but would be a major burden for new pages, which tend to have many improvements made early in the life of the article. Also, in the case of arcane artices, it might be difficult to recruit a second editor to endorse a change. [[User:Gerry Ashton|Gerry Ashton]] 02:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

== A Useful (I hope) Question ==

I have run into a situation on [[Army of the United States]] where the citations provided are to publications of the United States that are for internal use only and hence not available to the general public without justification. (Apparently the documents are perfectly huge.) This IMO makes the whole article unverifiable, but the editor in question keeps insisting that I can just call a certain phone number ask to speak with Customer Service. AGF that this is a valid number, I imagine that I would be told where to go very quickly.

While it is obvious to me that these types of sources violate policy, finding a clear citation to that point eludes me. The other editor keeps pointing out that the sources *are* published, while I keep pointing out that they are not generally available, which is what I take publication to mean.

Is this made clear somewhere? Does it need to be? Or is this a special case that is unlikely to be repeated? [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

:: ''Published'' means ''Published to the public''. There would be some military documents which would not be published to the public. For example, war orders or secret documents. There would be others which have been published to the public. A published information usually has a author, a publisher, a publication date, and often an ISBN. If a piece of information is "for internal use only" then it probably isn't "published to to the public". Without doubt every large company creates "for internal use only" information which it distributes to employees. A document which is "for internal use only" does not meet Wikipedia's threshold of having been "published to the public". [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 05:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

:BTW, the specific situation seems to have finally resolved itself amicably, with additional sources being provided. Nevertheless, I find the case interesting. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 15:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::Unless an editor can in principle get a hold of the source, the fact is not verifiable. Can I go somewhere, a reading room etc and get access to it to read it? If the answer is no because I'm not an Army employee of the right class etc, then it doesn't sound like a valid source to me. The example we usually use to show that it doesn't have to be easy to get a source to be verifiable is a limited edition book where the only public access is at a library reading room in Ireland for ex and you have to look at it only there only for certain limited hours. That is considered a valid source, because anyone (key difference) could in principle go there and see it. But that example is about at the limits of what does count as a valid source. If only a few people can get access to the source it's not verifiable. Seems like a good question to me. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 21:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
::Ok, now you have me thinking, so here's some more, yet again. Re-reading your post, it seems to be that anyone could get it if they provided justification (or were willing to pay the printing costs which is standard for govt sources). If that's the case then that would tend towards being a verifiable source. But if there is a significant reason that it is not designed for public consumption (such as they're not willing to stand by it) ''other than size'', then that would mean it passes the able to get a hold of requirement, but not the reliability part. So more detail would be needed. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 22:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::If, in principle, most of our editors could get ahold of the source if they were determined, it's acceptable but not ideal from an accessibility standpoint. (This is no different from citing, say, an out-of-print book, which may be difficult to obtain, or something written in an obscure language.) If a member of the general public (not, e.g., only members of the military, although only Americans would probably be large enough to be okay) could view the documents by going to their nearest military base, or could obtain copies by paying a small sum (say under $50), then it's good enough for a source. If they'd have to pay a large sum of money (say over $1000), file a FOIA suit, or the like, it's probably not accessible enough. This is something of a fuzzy case, I'm afraid. More accessible sources should always be obtained if possible.<p>Since this seems to involve a US government work that is presumably non-classified, by the way, it might have been a good idea to ask the user to scan the relevant pages and put them up on [[wikisource:|Wikisource]]. That would have solved things. —[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 02:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Definitely agree more accessible sources that are still reliable should be preferred. But I wouldn't necessarily agree scanning it would be good enough. That's easy to forge. It would work initially under assume good faith, but not if contradicted by other sources, bad editing track record, etc. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Taxman|Talk]]</small></sup> 17:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Per the other editor's description, the documents originally cited are a couple of thousand pages long, and are distributed at discretion of a bureaucrat, I don't know the details, but he said that no request had been approved in a long time. He recommended calling up the agency and asking Customer Service to verify the information in the article. My response is that makes Customer Service, not the document, the actual source.
::::Moreover, the information seems not to be localized within the documents -- he spoke of reviewing hundreds of personnel records to get the information in the article. While meritorious, I felt that this sounded a lot like OR, but that is a different policy. I am thankful that he came up with a couple of books that can be ordered from the GPO. It avoided a potentially nasty argument. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 04:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
::::: It doesn't sound like the document in question has ever been published to the public. It sounds like it has been distributed to individuals at the discresion of an office. Therefore it has not been "published" and doesn't meet Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 05:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::So, to return to the question, rather than the example, how public, how accessible, does a source need to be? Where is this discussed? [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 22:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

== Archiving ==
I dont really understand why a page of 89 k in length should not be partly archived. I thought the WP policy was not to have pages greater than 32k in length. Is this still the policy? Could someone explain the policy to me?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 00:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

:The page is currently 42k, which is fine. The recommendation of 32k is for articles, and was based on old versions of web browsers, I think mainly IE, that used to have difficulty with anything over that. It's now used just as a suggestion. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 00:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Last time I looked at this page, it was 89k. So it seems you have not reversed all my archinving. THanks! But I really think that the size limitation warning should be reviewed --- some poeple take it literally-- some ignore it. It would be good to have maybe even a guideline about page length (if one does not already exist) that we could refer users to.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

== How to solve the verification.... ==

State in circular "(" brackets or curly "{" brackets () {} verification pending, then do fact
checking if you are able; one can not just asume on a wim, that something is wrong, innaccurate
or a lie; oddly enough I have even seen faults in news about me, misquotes and so on, misquotes
that weren't even corrected in future issues after mentioned.
However, fact checkers exist, but even the correction or deletion needs a source.


--[[User:Gzlfb|G-Spot]] 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

== proposed re-statement ==

*''Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.''
:Could be changed to:
*''Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. '''Previously published to the public''' statements, facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may be included in articles if they have been published to the public by reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.''
:Does this make the meaning a little more clear? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 05:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
::No, not really. It needlessly repeats the word "published". "Published" implies something is made available to the "public" already, and is therefore, redundant. The original wording uses the word "only" which is critical. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] 06:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
::: Okay. My suggestion does repeat the word quite a bit. If "only" remains, don't you think it would be better to move it so it reads, ''..and arguments may be included in articles only if ...'' because as "only" is placed now it could be understood to mean, "only facts, viewpoints, theories and arguments may be included in articles". I am submitting that "Previously published to the public" is a smoother way to say that than ". . have already been published . ." [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 06:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


== Definition of terms ==
Could someone please define the term 'verifiable' as it applies to WP. I am a little confused!

Does it mean just 'checking that the fact/statement has been ''published in a reputable journal'''. THis is the sense I get from the page as it stands. Am I right to assume this?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 02:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, it means published by a reliable source. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 18:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

::Just taking the word, "verifiable" by itself, it means that others can, without undue effort, '''verify''' that the article faithfully reproduces material from reliable sources. The second sentence of the policy defines it clearly. "We only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 19:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

::I would also add that sources need not be journals. Books published by reputable presses certainly qualify. Books published by advocacy groups are less so, and self-published books less still. Ultimately, there is no substitute for good judgment.

::Thinking back to Light Current's previous comments, if the policies had been written by a logician, perhaps there would be an overarching content-policy page, something like this.

::*Content policy: Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Articles must accurately describe the consensus of scholars, where one exists, and fairly represent any points of controversy, both as to the claims of the each side and the scholarly support for each. To this end, there are three requirements:
::*#An article must not be original research, which includes novel interpretations of existing research. See [[WP:NOR]].
::*#An article must not advocate any position, but must accurately describe whether a position is held by a majority or minority of scholars, and should avoid giving undue weight to fringe positions. When an article does this, we say that it is written from a Neutral Point of View. See [[WP:NPOV]].
::*#Wikipedians must be able to verify that these requirements have been met, both now and in the future. To this end, articles must cite reliable sources that have been published and remain available with reasonable, but not extreme, effort. When an article does this, we say it is Verifiable. See [[WP:V]].
::Thus, in a strict sense, most of this policy is not a definition of Verifiability, but a discussion of what must and must not be done to achieve it. That is how real-world rules tend to be written. It's kind of like the laws against murder -- they never say murder is bad, they just prescribe penalties for doing it. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 19:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:That's because IRL we have other things to tell us that murder is bad and why (e.g. Bible). Here on Wikipedia, we only have our policies, so we have to make do. :-) [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 19:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

:I like your summary of the policies, by the way, Robert. Very clear, and succinct yet comprehensive. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
::Thank you. As for moral authority about what is Wiki-good or Wiki-bad, we have Jimbo. :-) [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 20:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
:::I appreciate that there is a willingness to clarify things in discussions here, but the status quo seems to be leave such cosmetic reformulations of the policy confined to this talk page, regardless of how "clear, succinct, yet comprehensive" (and arguably superior to what's on the policy page) they are. If we can agree that an explanation given here makes people better connect with the policy, then why is there so little apparent momentum or willingness to push the refined explanations back out to into the policy article itself? Or to even further refine them to a point where making such an change to the policy article wouldn't be quickly reverted. The fact that someone can read the policy and not understand it, then come here and get an explanation that people agree is helpful, should really be sending the message to you that the policy article needs work. Do you feel Robert's explanation could go into the article right now?—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 12:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking Slim's answer initially:
Well OK, now we know that 'verifiability' just means 'referencability' (to a respected publication or other respected sources). But it does not mean ''necessarily'' that we believe the published info to be true! Am I right on this?

On a cursory reading I think I like Robert's 'overarching policy statement' but I just want to confirm that when Robert says:

<blockquote>
''Wikipedians must be able to verify that these requirements have been met''
</blockquote>
he is referring to his first two statements. If this is the case, I agree and here the term 'verifiability' is being used in its proper sense of 'establishing the truth of something'.

The overarching statement that Robert has written conveniently falls into 3 bits describing
*WP:POV
*WP:NOR
and
*WP:V.
and is therefore not really necessary as a separate policy document. (although it might have been a starting point if we were starting again!)
Also, to be very honest about this, until very recently, I understood the word 'verifiable' to maen the same as the policy implies. But then I looked it up in a paper dictionary and found that it didnt. Hence my questions/comments
--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:I'm just responding to this part: ''Well OK, now we know that 'verifiability' just means 'referencability' (to a respected publication or other respected sources). But it does not mean ''necessarily'' that we believe the published info to be true! Am I right on this?''
:On the one hand, the guiding principle of avoiding making any potentially libelous statements—libelous being, by definition, untrue and reputation-damaging—and the criteria for weighing the reliability of source both ''imply'' that there is indeed some consideration being given, albeit indirectly, to the 'truthiness' of claims (I mean, it's no coincidence that types of sources that tend to be accepted as purveyors of 'truth' are favored over others). But on the other, Wikipedia need not and does not take a stand on the 'truth' of its claims, whatsoever, largely because (at least in theory) it doesn't make claims, itself, it merely refers to the (important, notable) claims of others. So yes, you're right, sort of.
:You may be assuming too much about what truth is. As you continue seeking better ways to understand and explain the policy, consider toying with the phrases 'acceptable' / 'acceptability' / 'acceptable as…' / 'acceptable for…' in place of words like 'know', 'respected', 'believe', 'true', 'factual', etc. Also, the articles on [[truth]], [[fact]], [[belief]], [[science]], [[research]], and the [[epistemology|philosophy of knowledge]] may be of some interest, and may convince you that the WP:V policy is wise to steer clear of implying anything about the 'truth' of its claims.—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 12:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

''On the one hand, the guiding principle of avoiding making any potentially libelous statements—libelous being, by definition, untrue and reputation-damaging—and the criteria....
Ascetaining the probable truth of any reference we quote is a separate (and much more difficult) process to undertake. But as I have said before, there should be TWO horns to this policy:

#Can you find a [[published]] reference? (I define this as 'referencability' for want of a better term)
#Is that reference likely to be correct in what it says? (This could be called verifiability I suppose, but a better term might be 'probable truth' based on common sense and backup from other primary sources.

There is no more to this argument other than the above tow questions.

--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 20:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:As I pointed out to Light Current some time ago, the word "referencability" would mean, "The state or quality of being able to be cited as a reference." I am reasonably certain that is not the concept he really wants. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 07:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No it is exactly the concept that I was searching for. This fulfils part one of the requirement (ie can you find a published ref) 8-)--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 08:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:It's the wrong word. Something is referencable if it has a sufficiently fixed text so that others can use it as a reference. Strictly, no Wikipedia article can ever be referencable (absent a version number) since the text changes without notice, but most works of fiction are referencable. It is the wrong word. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 10:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Im not talking about using WP as a reference. You seem to have misread my intentions 8-|--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 14:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:I have not misread your intentions, your chosen word doesn't fit your intentions. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 08:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

== This policy is non-negotiable ==
For those who have missed this: The [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:V]] policies are now officially non-negotiable. This took effect on 7 February 2006 when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=38528394&oldid=38423362 this edit] to [[WP:NPOV]] went through without significant discussion or opposition. According to [[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]], "a basic problem is that too many people tried to *negotiate* the content of the policy page. Better keep it clear: there's no such procedure as changing wikipedia's NPOV policy by negotiation. As said, there's no separation between the NPOV policy and the way it is formulated on the NPOV policy page, or, if there would be, that separation would be different per person, so that's not a workable distinction."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=57849162&oldid=57842984]

It is probably too early to tell whether or not the change is an improvement and will stand the test of time (assuming it can be reverted subject to consensus which seems self-contradictory). However, it does not seem too far-fetched to suppose it can (and should) be used as implied by Francis: to cut off attempts to negotiate the content of policy pages as redundant and, indeed, disruptive. [[User:Avb|AvB]]&nbsp;&divide;&nbsp;[[User_talk:AvB|<small>talk</small>]] 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:I interpreted that passage, in combination with the fact that the policy pages are editable by all users, to mean that the policy could be changed, but the policy applies to all articles, and it is not negotiable whether the policy should apply to a particular article.[[User:Gerry Ashton|Gerry Ashton]] 17:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:''there's no separation between the NPOV policy and the way it is formulated on the NPOV policy page, or, if there would be, that separation would be different per person.'' Wow, I have to use this excuse next time someone disagrees with the way I've phrased something. It amounts to "there's no separation between what I meant and what I wrote, and whoever thinks I meant something different may not change how it is written, even if I'm the one who came up with the clearer explanation while trying to explain it to them, because any discussion or rephrasing is redundant." We'll see how well that flies. If that is an incorrect interpretation by me, then I guess it's too bad.—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 17:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

::Once any policy is [[stable]], then like the [[American Constitution]], it could be frozen. However, there is no chance of freezing a bubbling cauldron - nor should we try until it has cooled all the way down!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 20:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:::If you think that the American Constitution is frozen, then you really need to study the subject more. That document is replete with undefined terms, and operative definitions of things like "due process" are being worked out all the time. In the meantime, there are always a few who attempt to play semantic games intended to warp interpretation or to [[Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Controversy|question the validity]] of various amendments. A few have an idiosyncratic view of natural right. Some of these people are theoreticians with an agenda, but little practical experience in writing laws. Others just want to evade inconvenient laws (like taxes). Still others have less pleasant objectives in mind.
:::I think the situations are not disssimilar. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 10:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

::Once any policy is [[stable]], then it could be frozen. The definition of stability is, of course, arbitrary--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 22:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

==Excuse me, but this article does not cite verifiable sources itself==
All I can find is a reference to Jimbo Wales and what he supposedly said on some mailing list somewhere (which itself is a bad source, and uncheckable besides). Thus, since WP itself has been admitted to be a non-RS (see the WP:RS article) and since this also is a WP article, and since it contains no references which even meet its own standards, I propose it be deleted until it is cleaned up.
Many of us here are continually frustrated by WP standards which are set out as in stone on WP ITSELF, when in fact the whole point of ALL of these standards (WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS) is that WP itself is not a good enough place to put primary information (such as what Jimbo does or doesn't want). That's a glaring paradox. I've done what I can to gently nudge it out into the open, including tagging this article in the standard way (of course, it was promptly reverted). It's time WP rose to its own rules. Anything less is hypocrisy. I don't want to read what somebody else ''thinks'' Jimbo Whales said, somewhere. I want a ''reliable, verifiable'' SOURCE for what his policies are. And I want that by HIS OWN standards. That's not too much to ask. In fact, it's the very core of what we're all here for.[[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
:Sbharris writes, in reference to [[WP:V} "since this is a WP article". However, the policy itself contains the statement
:<blockquote>Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable '''in the main namespace'''. <nowiki>[Emphasis added]</nowiki></blockquote>
:Thus the verifiability policy does not apply to itself, at least not technically.
Ahem, both the articles WP:V and WP:RS are Wikis in the main namespace.[[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 20:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
:I checked in [[Help:Namespace]] and discovered that while WP:V and WP:RS are technically in the main namespace, they are redirects to [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] which are in the Wikipedia: namespace, not the main namespace. [[User:Gerry Ashton|Gerry Ashton]]
Thank you; it appears you are correct. I was fooled by the redirects. So three points: first, because they redirect they walk and quack like ducks. Second, I have no idea who wrote that the policies should apply to articles in the main namespace n-0, but I suspect that the purpose was to loosen RS and V requirements for Talk: and User: pages and such. I doubt it was intended to apply to formal articles with clearly public informational content, as these are (which is why they redirect as main Wikis). Lastly, the problem that I don't know who wrote this part of the policy is the very problem we're talking about. There is no citation. It is not a verifiable WP policy. I have no way to check it. It just sits there.
Now if you look at these policy and guideline page histories, you don't exactly find that they were writen by Wales and the WP board of directors, then set in stone. Instead, they've grown organically, by little bits here and there. Somebody has said that WP policies are non-negociable, but that is wrong. If I reverted to last year's version of any of them, people would throw a fit. But the differences weren't written by anybody in authority. They've been negociated between editors over time.[[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 00:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
:I happen to feel the spirit of the policy should apply, but of course information contained in some places in the Wikipedia web site may potentially be more reliable than external sources, since Wikipedia serves as a primary source about itself.[[User:Gerry Ashton|Gerry Ashton]] 20:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
What makes you think Wikipedia serves as a primary source about itself? If there was some policity article by Jimbo Wales which was locked and signed, that would be true. Otherwise, it simply isn't. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
:Not all primary sources are reliable. A policy statement on WP is a primary source; it just isn't a terribly reliable source.[[User:Gerry Ashton|Gerry Ashton]] 20:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong, again by the standards of the article you defend: ''Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability''
Wikipedia is a teriatry source, and one that does not meet the criterial of being a reliable source (as it admits itself in WP:RS-- read it). That goes for WP articles on WP policy also. Exactly because WP has failed to PUBLISH its own policies in venues other than Wikis, the supposed V and RS "policies" which we argue over here are themselves neither realiable or verifiable. Somebody thinks I'm practising sophistry to point this out (they confused solipsism with sophistry, but nevermind), but actually I'm not. This is root of the problem of a lot of argumentation on these RS and V pages. Nobody can show, in a verifiable way, or can know, in a reliable way, what the real and authoritative policies of WP are. If you doubt, just try to change something on the WP:V or WP:RS pages. You'll find yourself being reverted by somebody who's been editing WP for 6 months and ever even MET Jimbo Wales. But who think's he's somehow keeper of the True Word.[[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 20:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
::Regarding the Jimbo reference, Jimbo is notable, the things he says about Wikipedia are important, and the quote that was cited is found in what appears to be an official archive of a mailing list to which someone purporting to be "Jimmy Wales" frequently posts. The context provided by the archive as a whole may not be as reliable as the ''Washington Post'' getting 3 independent sources to confirm that the post isn't a forgery, but come on, common sense must prevail. What is interesting though is that Wales titled the thread so as to condemn the publication of '''false''' information about people, and he reiterates the point in identical terms [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046725.html later in the thread]. So, apparently Wales does not share the WP:V view that Wikipedia has no responsibility to truth.—[[User:Mjb|mjb]] 22:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. And the reference, slim as it was, only covers a very little bit of what Wiki [[WP:V]] policy article does. Wales has said a lot more in print about NPOV than about V.[[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 00:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:Where does anyone get the idea that [[WP:V]] says that Wikipedia has no responsibility to truth? It is defining a practical method -- really the only practical method if we are to remain an open project -- for determining what the truth is. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 08:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

== WP not into truth (yet) ==

Where do we get the idea from?? Well, how about the bit that says:
<blockquote>
'''As counterintuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability''' (meaning referenceability), '''not truth.'''
</blockquote>
Bracketed words are mine. In other words, as long as you can find a ref, that'll do!- It doesnt matter who wrote the article/book/paper/blog referred to and it doesnt matter if what (s)he wrote is sheer poppycock! As long as you have that ref you can put it in WP!.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 10:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:You are trying to make referencability mean something that it does not mean by the ordinary rules of English construction. It makes most sense meaning, "The state or quality that allows it to be cited as a reference." It conceivably could be made to mean, "The state or quality that allows (presumably absent) references to be added." It cannot mean, "Containing references that can be checked," because that ignores the suffix. It certainly would be an ambiguous and confusing word to replace "verifiability" with. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 12:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:You are quoting out of context -- not a good practice if you are concerned with the truth. Let's look at the whole paragraph:
<blockquote>
:The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to '''reliable''', published sources.
</blockquote>
:[emphasis mine, but the emphasized text ''is'' a link]
:The key is that sources must be reliable for the sort of information being cited. This pretty much eliminates the sort of nonsense that you are discussing. We must also never forget WP:NPOV, which requires that all sides of a controversy be presented in proportion to their support among serious, qualified people. The policies do not exist in isolation from one another, as stated in each policy.[[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 12:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

== Policy pages are not articles ==

Obviously a policy document is not an article. A policy document only needs to refer to other policy documents.
Does SBH think that Jimbo should have written the policy documents himself at the start of the project? No one can foresee the problems that may occur at the start and therfore any policy Jimbo might have written would be well out of date by now.
Policies will continually evolve as they are doing here. One of the problems on WP:V is that incorrect terminology has been used from the start and rather than the poliy converging to something stable, it is going round in (ever increasing?) circles. Lack of precise terminology I feel has caused a great deal of confusion and unneccessary waste of time. Until we have the foundations of the policy properly worded, we will not make progress.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 15:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:Who says so? That's the crux of this discussion. WHO SAYS SO? A Wiki article? But I can go through the history of the article and find out where the statement was added, and I can look at the user page of that person. Will they be Wales or a director? Wanna bet? No doubt, but then Jimbo and whoever he has in authority should have re-written, then, shouldn't they? Rather than leave it to a bunch of private editors. Now, I actually have no problem with the idea of policy by concensus (which is what the latter idea implies). However, I really don't like to see policy by concensus proceed, and THEN be used as a bludgeon: "Oh, this is POLICY. And it's NON-NEGOCIABLE." Well, either Jimbo and the board wrote it, or else it has been the product of long negociation among lay editors. Can't have it both ways.
:If they're going to "evolve," let us not call them "policies". That's my first suggestion. And let's not refer to them as "non-negotiable." Rather, all of them should be termed guidelines, evolving over time under approximate current editorial consensus (absent Word from On High, which in most cases we have not got). The language we use should reflext reality. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You may well have valid points to raise, but, to avoid upsetting other editors (especially admins) I would just ask you politely to phrase your suggestions in a slightly less conforntational tone in your posts. Thanks!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 22:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It is rather obvious to everyone (except you it seems) that the policy pages are not articles. If you wish to set yor mind at rest over this, why not email Jimbo and politely ask him whether he thinks they are or not? You could also ask at the same time why he did not set out the policies in detail before embarking on this insane project! 8-)--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 23:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)----

:I'm always amused to have somebody explain to me on behalf of EVERYBODY else what is obvious to them all. Please let others speak for themselves in this matter. To me, it appears that these are Wiki articles about Wiki policy, and thus they are both Wikis, and Wiki policy. Their placement is different (although they also redirect to the mainspace) but otherwise they are treated more or less like all other Wiki articles, open to changes by anybody. They are a collective product of many users, who collectively set policy and guidelines for WP. The confusion comes in the fact that "policy" and "guidelines" are somewhat more relaxed here on WP than in other places in the world, so the whole question doesn't matter as much as I thought it did after doing some more research. Perhaps a word other than "policy" is needed. In [[WP:RULES]] we are told that a policy is merely a guideline which people pay more attention to. There is also [[WP:IAR]] which is helpful for people who get too uptight about these matters.

:As to your suggestion, I've done the next best thing and made these suggestions on Jimbo's talk page. If he thinks it's worth his time, he'll say something there.[[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 01:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

::This is indeed obvious to everyone but you. Articles are articles. The policy pages in question apply to articles. Policy pages are not articles. This is like someone being baffled at the idea that the "about the author" and other stuff in the back of a book is not a part of the book's literary narrative... but they're all just pages in the book! Sheesh. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 01:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote from RULES page:

''How are policies started? Much of Wikipedia policy dates from before 2002. Policy change now comes from three sources:

* A proposed policy being adopted by consensus. (See Wikipedia:How to create policy)
* A slow evolution of convention and common practice eventually codified as a policy.
* Jimbo Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load.
''

Maybe this answers SBHs questions? 8-|--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:I previously recommended the above section to people who insisted that all of WP's policy is "internally" generated (whatever that means). Fact is, some of it comes from outside editor concensus, some of it is by fiat from Wales and the Board. It would nice to have verifiable sources and references for which is which, since opperationally, they are different. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 01:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well to be honest, I think we can tell what comes from where, cant we?
*Jimbo's (and the Board's) edicts via his emails,
*consensus changes via the edit histories.
Do you need any more 'verifiablity' than that? If so, what else would you suggest? I dont understand your term 'outside editor'. Any user is an editor: they are all the same! --[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:Great. Where are Jimbo's emails archived, please? Would it be too much to ask the policy articles reference them?
:Ah, concensus changes via the edit histories! Do tell me where the Talk: archives for policy pages, are, please.
:Anymore than WHAT? If you go looking for the stuff you mention, you'll find you can't find it anymore than I can. So yes, I need more verifiability than nothing. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 21:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk archives for this page are at top of page on RHS (picture of filing cabinet drawer). Click on the word 'archives' (surprisingly!). I dont know wher Jimbos emails are kept. They will be here somewher tho'. I think where appropriate, the policy articles should reference them! I think its all here - you just have to know where to look!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 22:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:::And the mailing lists '''are''' archived: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo - click on the name of the list you want, then click on the link to the archives. The archives can be searched using gmane, with a URL like: http://search.gmane.org/?query=npov&group=gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english (where query=''what you want to search for'' and group=''the gmane name of the group'' (which can be found with a URL of the form http://gmane.org/find.php?list=wikien-l (where list=''the list name''))) Lots of policy discussion goes on on wikien-l, and wikipedia-l and foundation-l also contain good bits. If you would like to go through the mailing lists and pull out various posts related to the formation of various policy, I don't think anyone would object - I certainly wouldn't. [[User:JesseW/sig|JesseW, the juggling janitor]] 22:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Furthermore - (nearly) '''every''' edit made to the policy talk pages is still sitting there, in the page history (click on the "history" tab). I '''have''' gone looking for the "stuff you mention" and I've found it. Only yesterday I researched a minor editing dispute from back in 2003, and successfully identifed the specific revisions involved. The data is there.
:::One thing we ''are'' missing, is archives of discussions on IRC. While we try to avoid discussing policy on IRC, it sometimes happens, which is why I think it would be great to have a #wikipedia-logged channel where discussions we ''do'' want to save for posterity can be had. [[User:JesseW/sig|JesseW, the juggling janitor]] 22:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

== WP:IAR ==
If anyone is going to follow this 'advice' please note the following:

''Invoking the principle of "Ignore all rules" on its own will not convince anyone that you were right, so you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia. A skilled application of this policy should ideally fly under the radar, and '''not be noticed at all'''.''
My bolding --[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:And how do YOU know how many of my activities here have flown under the radar? It's just that I seem to have trodden on the toes of a sacred cow here, just as if I'd suddenly decided to take up the cause of (say) fetal rights or the medical dangers of circumcision (to pick two topics which twist the knobs of different groups). I can write about the Old West and the properties of gallium all I like, and nobody really cares. Pick a topic that some group cares about however, and suddenly WP gets very legalistic.[[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 01:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont. But if they have, they're probably OK. You are correct that policy is a very hot topic and one has to tread carefully to avoid getting ones fingers (or should that be toes) burned. Softly, softly, catchee monkee!--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 01:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

== Heading to properly set off the luster of the comments of the previous commentator, from the more plebian offerings which follow ==

Hey, who are you calling plebian!!!! ;-P [[User:TheronJ|TheronJ]] 04:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the [[WP:RS]] talk page, [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] are self-published materials in articles about themselves. I wouldn't think twice about citing to AOL's online pages to establish AOL's privacy policy, or to Disney.com to establish Disney's line-jumping policy, so why shouldn't I do the same with the Wiki policy pages?[[User:TheronJ|TheronJ]] 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

:The documents you are discussing are primary sources. They require no references because they are the fundamental documents comprising the policy itself. [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] is also a primary document and needs no references. If one wanted to write a secondary source (say, for [[Wired magazine]]) about the policy, one would use various primary sources: the policy document, the email archives of discussions that brought about the policy in the first place, archives of past discussions, interviews with Wikipedians about the polices, and a survey of how they work in practice, among others. Once that secondary source has been published, a verifiable, tertiary article could be written about the policy. This policy is not that article, it is the policy. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 17:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

::You need to take a good look at the history pages of [[WP:V]]. It's the product of many hundreds of changes by dozens of ordinary mortals, none of them (so far as I can tell) with more authority than you or me. But the current product of this is taken in Talmudic fashion to be some kind of venerated text. I suggest you get over your reactionary worship of whatever you happen to read under a particular header, and take a closer look at how this policy page got to the way it is. Wikipedia:Verifiability wasn't written by Jimbo Wales. It was just written by a bunch of guys, and it has a fancy header. A year from now, it will be a different article, and still have the fancy header. And the differences will still be the product of a bunch of guys, none of whom is on the board of directors of WP, thinking up new stuff. Sorry if that shocks you. If would be so much more fun to bedevil others with POLICY if you didn't know where it came from. My purpose here is to make its origina a little more transparent. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 18:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

::Policy is policy as stated in its current form and represents current understanding and community consensus. Your use of a "bunch of guys" is innacurate because there are gals as well :) . Policy does not change easily as you imply and is not enforced or defined by Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia fundation. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|t]] &bull; [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]]</small> 18:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

::No offence to gals, but these days you're considered one of the guys. And you are included in Dear Sirs, too, don't you know. As to your other comment I don't know too many people who give Jimbo NO credit in making policy. As you see above, he and the board do make SOME. We'd like to have verifiable references for WHICH. Too much to ask? Why? [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 01:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:You seem rather breathless, and your response above seems to attribute attitudes to me (''inter alia'') that I do not share and have not expressed. And, I am not sure what it is that you really want. What has you so irritated?

:That you write something then say you didn't. You say "Policy does not change easily as you imply and is not enforced or defined by Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia fundation." That is just plain wrong. It is unfactual. Not ALL policy does, but SOME policy does. Some very important policy originates from Jimbo and the foundation and is enforced by them. Not all of it is in [[WP:OFFICE]]. There's a lot of enforcement muscle and reasoning behind [[WP:OFFICE]] that you quite obviously don't see (unless you'd like to claim this article is comprehensive, self explanitory, and historical?).
:From my POV, the three content policies are part of what '''defines''' Wikipedia. To the extent that they were changed in substance, Wikipedia would cease to be a worthwhile and/or workable project.
:Indeed charter [[WP:5P]] mentions NPOV as one foundation, backed up by V and RS where possible (nowhere is mentioned, BTW-- sometimes common sense or a simple logical inference isn't possible to support with V and RS, as WP defines them). It may be that much of Wiki policy itself isn't possible to subject to V and RS either, since it certainly can't be subjected to NOR. Indeed it IS all OR. And POV also. However, some of it could be subjected to V and RS standards, and I'd like to see it done.
:If anyone wants to advocate a position that they believe to be true, but that differs from the scholarly consensus, there is [[Wikinfo]], not to mention [[The Fray (Internet forum)|The Fray]] or [[MySpace]]. If someone wants to dispassionately relate the truth as defined by scholarly consensus, the existing policy structure supports that.
:"Scholarly concensus" is of course a myth, but I do agree that Wikis policies actually handle scholarly conflicts quite well. I have no beef there.
:As for which policies emanate from the foundation level, read the header of [[WP:OFFICE]]. That policy is immutable, fixed, explicitly done at the foundation level and SFAIK unique among content-related policies. This policy is not immutable in that sense, but it is part of what defines Wikipedia. It forms the basis for over a million articles: substantive changes have to be viewed as potentially affecting all of them. Even refactoring would be tricky, because thousands of editors would have to be re-educated. Why? What change do you have in mind that is so vital? [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 08:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

::First, [[WP:OFFICE]] is not a policy-- it's just a brief description of the final results of a bunch of temporary frantic ad-hoc administrative actions taken by Jimbo or his designated fire-putter-outer. What do you want me to read [[WP:OFFICE]] for?? It's a small example of foundation-related policies. "SFAIK," you say? Wales changed policy in Dec 2005 so that creaters of articles must register first-- that wasn't a requirement before then [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5041077]. Another example: appeals of permablocks can be made to Jimbo, much like Ceasar. If I was willing to do more research I could go on giving examples, but the point is that this research is hard to do, because there's no RS and V of it in WP policy Wikis. Which is exactly my beef. That allows you to come here and say "SFAIK", because you did a cursory search and didn't find anything. Well, say I, so what?[[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:<puzzled look> What have I written that I have denied? The one quotation you attribute to me was written by [[User:jossi]]. My reason for mentioning WP:OFFICE is that it is the only '''content-related''' policy that I have seen in my two years here that says, explicitly, that it was promulgated by the Foundation and cannot be changed by consensus. It says it is a policy, and it looks like one to me: don't fiddle with OFFICE edits. The requirement of registration to create articles, or having Jimbo as the final court of appeals, is not a content-related policy, and is not really relevant to this page, which is about content.

:I am not a member of the Wikimedia board, nor am I a dues-paying member of the Foundation. While I do not share your concerns (who other than the President should handle intractable disputes among admins?), I suggest that your concerns are really for the Board (i.e. Meta), not this page. It's their bat, ball and backyard. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 18:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

::Apologies for the quote attribution mixup. If you are right that these concerns are for the board, is that a suggestion that this ''is'' a content-related matter which the board should fix? Not good for your argument, but it's possible. (And I have a note Jimbo's talk page, to see if that does any good). Some content policies (NPOV) originated with Jimbo and are not subject to concensus change, but derivatives of it can be changed by concensus. So far as I know, the idea that V and RS don't apply to themselves, is not written in stone, and is subject to concensus change. If not in the talk pages of the policies themselves, where would that be? Here is the only place the policy is written down on the first place! And with considerably research (though I'm not sure of this, not having done it) I think perhaps you could even figure out which editor promulgated it first, and committed it to the [[WP:V]] Wiki. But it sure would be a lot easier if there was just a little reference tag so we know where the dang thing CAME from. In so many respects, WP policies and guidelines operate like a bunch of changable mythology (information creep), and the lack of ANY V and RS standards in policy articles are a major reason for this.[[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 19:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

::I hope you won't mind if I re-indent. I disagree that V and RS ''can'' (let alone should) apply to project/policy pages. There isn't really anything to cite, any more than there is in the Bylaws of the Foundation, or a Bill passed by Congress. WP:V is not an explanation of a policy that exists in another document, it is the authoritative statement of the policy. (OK, vandalism and clueless edits excepted.) The Jimbo quote looks to me like an explanation of the policy -- deploring a particular species of shortcut -- not a change from what the policy was previously.

:If [[Wikipedia:Don't be a dick|people weren't dicks]], we could make do with the '''policy in a nutshell''' and close this talk page.

:'''<blockquote>
:Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
</blockquote>'''

:Is there really anything to disagree with there? As I understand the history, WP:NOR started out to fight crank theories, WP:NPOV to handle contentious issues and WP:V to fight urban legends and editors who think they know more than they do. However they started, I think that the three together define a good approach, and one of which I approve. Of course, it would be better if people tried to implement them in both spirit and letter. Sometimes they are used as hammers. Sometimes they have to be. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 20:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: Often they are not needed. But when there is a content dispute, they are usually very effective at determining what should go and what should stay. Usually a lot of facts get to stay and a lot of opinions get to go. [[User:Stephen B Streater|Stephen B Streater]] 20:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

'''Below comments originally split my post -- moved here to enable others to follow the discussion.''' [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 22:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:::There is a lot of potentially citable stuff. For one thing, if the Talk pages and concensus discussions which led to any given policy were saved (which it appears they are not) and referenced, it would be far easier for people who want to make additions or changes or whatever, to any specific policy. They could save a lot of time and just start where the discussion left off (and by the way, you're wrong about bills passed by congress-- debate records ARE preserved, and used by courts later to try to discover intent). See my discussion below in the Protection from Evil section for a specific example.

:::Second, insofar as edicts from the WP board, there's nothing to prevent Jimbo and the board from publishing their edicts in some verifiable place other than Wiki, which can then be cited by others. As it is, your saying that "there really isn't anything to cite," is perfectly true, but somewhat damning. It's not because it's intrinsically impossible. Creating a minimal record will do the board good. Nothing points up the intrinsic bundensomeness of a rule to a rulemaker, so much as having to follow it themselves. The Laziness trap is a bad one for Owners [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 21:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

::::Policy discussions are on the archives, where they belong, just as the debates are in the Congressional Record, where they belong. The bills don't cite the debates, and the policies should not cite the archives. And, when judges feel obliged to refer to the debates to interpret a law, they can be quite acerbic that Congress did not do a better job. A policy is not a history of the policy.

::::No portion of WP:V claims to have been imposed by the board. I have yet to see a consensus reached on a change to WP:V and that change be rejected. Can you show me such a case? If not, this whole discussion is irrelevant to this page. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 22:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

== Protection from evil ==

Yeah!. Do you think editing of policy pages should be restricted to those who have been here a year or more with at least 10k edits?--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 21:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:Is that a rhetorical question? WP policy is that editors should be on equal footing from the get-go, and everything should be done to promote that, and discourage breakdown in the "oldhand" and "newbie" groups.[[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 22:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No I was asking your view because of your comment about editors with 6 m experience can revert anyone else on the policy pages as on any other pages. On the question of policies that are all-important, care must be taken to include only the more experienced views in their formulation and amendment. THe reasons for this are rather obvious. The policy pages must be regarded as different from other pages and be afforded some sort of protection against [[insurgent]]s. Newbies can still comment on the talk page (as we are doing). Anyway I believe some sort of vote has already happened on this subject. I dont know the outcome. --[[User:Light current|Light current]] 23:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

::Light current: 50 edits to this talk page in three days... maybe time to do some editing rather than discuss policy? [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|t]] &bull; [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]]</small> 23:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

== Tone of argument ==


==References==
Sbharris, I do not understand your arguments and the reason for your "tone of voice". I don;t know if you are aware of it, but you sound upset about something and it is not easy understanding you. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|t]] &bull; [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]]</small> 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
{{reflist|30em}}


==External links==
:Hypocrisy tends to upset me. The reasons given for the verifiability policy and reliable sources policy of WP, apply equally well to explaining in the Wikis which policies emanate from Jimbo and the Board, and which don't. Otherwise, nobody knows. I hope I've expressed myself clearly. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 01:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
{{commons category}}
::Are you saying that policy pages need to follow WP:RS and WP:V? Really? [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|t]] &bull; [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]]</small> 05:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
* {{facebook|OfficialJessicaNigri}}
* {{instagram|jessicanigri}}
* {{twitter|OJessicaNigri}}
* {{youtube|channel=jessicanigri|title=Jessica Nigri}}
* {{IMDb name|4995796}}


{{Persondata
:I'm saying it would nice if they did, for the reasons they themselves give that the policies exist in the first place. I gave an example which is in V almost verbatim from the one in RS, which has to to do with self-published sources. It states that these may be okay from a expert in a field writing about his own field of expertise, OR from a professional journalist. Say what? Professional journalists are experts in journalism-- that's it. In an occasional case they may be an expert on a topic they personally unearthed (Woodward and Bernstein on Watergate), rather than merely summarized (which is most of what they do). So this is inappropriate. Where did this policy COME from? Was it discussed in TALK? When? How was concensus reached? I can't find the archives. So far as I'm concerned, the whole matter is unsourced, and now unverifiable. See the problem? And it's bad policy.
| NAME = Nigri, Jessica
:So you say, why don't you change it? Because I got reverted. So you say, why not open up a new Talk section for debate and concensus? I can, but because the records are gone, it's going to waste time by going over something somebody probably already did. And you know what? The result won't be saved or referenced either, so when somebody in the future wants to know the provenance of this policy, THEY won't be able to find out EITHER. I say that's inefficient and silly. It could in theory be fixed up. [[User:Sbharris|Sbharris]] 21:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES =
| SHORT DESCRIPTION = Cosplayer
| DATE OF BIRTH = 1989-08-05
| PLACE OF BIRTH = [[Reno, Nevada]]
| DATE OF DEATH =
| PLACE OF DEATH =
}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Nigri, Jessica}}
[[Category:1989 births]]
[[Category:American female models]]
[[Category:Cosplayers]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:People from Reno, Nevada]]


{{PDNM}}
:::What edit, when? The only edit I found from you in the past three months is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=58079083], which is your tagging of the article. The history doesn't get purged. When was this? Also, if RS is truly inconsistent with V, then my presumption would be that RS should be changed. [[User:Robert A West|Robert A.West]] ([[User talk:Robert A West|Talk]]) 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
::::I should imagine we allow self published sources when written by a professional journalist not because they are an expert in a field but because they are an expert on writing about things, therefore it could be expected that they have followed their journalistic training. Your other point seems to reduce to the fact that the policy of Wikipedia has been written by wikipedians and you somehow think that's unfair. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]]</small> 22:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:25, 6 December 2013

Jessica Nigri
Jessica Nigri in 2012
BornAugust 5, 1989
Reno, Nevada, United States[1]

Jessica Nigri (born August 5, 1989) is an American cosplay celebrity, promotional model and fan convention interview correspondent. She has served as an official spokesmodel for several video games and comic book series, including Lollipop Chainsaw and Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag.

Early life

Jessica Nigri was born in the United States, but grew up in New Zealand, from which her mother hailed.[citation needed]

Career

Nigri has been cosplaying since 2009,[citation needed] when her cosplay of "Sexy Pikachu" she wore to San Diego Comic-Con International went viral on the Internet.[2][3] In 2011, she promoted Gears of War 3 for Microsoft and GameStop, dressed up as the game's character Anya Stroud for the game's release.[citation needed]

Nigri dressed as a female version of Captain Edward Kenway (Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag) at Gamescom 2013

In 2012, in a breakthrough event, Nigri won IGN's contest for a model to portray Juliet Starling, protagonist of Suda51's video game Lollipop Chainsaw, and was hired as a spokesmodel by Warner Bros. Games.[4][5][6][7][8] When she appeared as Juliet at the 2012 Penny Arcade Expo East, convention officials, having received complaints that the pink outfit she was wearing was too revealing, asked her to either change or step off the floor and restrict her presence to a demonstration area inside a bus at the booth for that game; Nigri changed into a Juliet Starling costume, but that costume was deemed too revealing as well, and she was asked to leave.[7][9][10][11] As part of the deal, Kadokawa Games brought her on Lollipop Chainsaw tour to several Japanese magazines and blogging websites, including Famitsu and Dengeki.[12] Nigri also signed up to promote Kill3rCombo's video game Elsword,[11][13][14] as well as comic book series Grimm Fairy Tales (for Zenescope Entertainment)[15] and Knightingail (by Crucidel Productions).[16] In 2013, she was again approached by Suda51 to portray the character Vivienne Squall from Grasshopper Manufacture's new video game KILLER IS DEAD, which she did.[17][18] That same year, after cosplaying Connor Kenway from Assassin's Creed III,[19][20] she was also hired by Ubisoft to portray a female version of Captain Edward Kenway, protagonist of the video game Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag; at E3 2013, she portrayed both Vivienne Squall and Edward Kenway.[2]

Nigri was spokesmodel for Amazing Arizona Comic Con 2011,[citation needed] was invited to multiple conventions including Anime Expo 2012,[21][22] Anime Revolution 2012[23] and 2013,[24][25] AVCon 2013,[26] Montreal Comiccon 2013,[27] and Ottawa Pop Expo,[28] as a guest of honor, and hosted the cosplay contest at Rhode Island Comic Con.[29] She has been featured in YouTube shows such as KassemG[30] and The Philip DeFranco Show,[31][32][33][34] and in a unique card in the downloadable trading card game Z.[35] Aside from appearing on the PDS in the past, Nigri is a friend of DeFranco's, including having her merchandise hosted in his store ForHumanPeoples.[36] She has been active as a member of the cosplay group XX Girls[11] and the Mad Catz professional gaming team LT3 (cosplay division),[37] and has worked with theCHIVE.[38][39] After Nigri reportedly declined to appear on the 2013 controversial reality show Heroes of Cosplay,[40] the Syfy network's producers manufactured what appeared to be a fierce rivalry and dislike between her and the show's star Yaya Han in order to make the series look more dramatic;[41][42][43][44][45] the two later appeared together to explain they are actually friends in real life and the show is not necessarily an accurate representation of cosplay subculture.[46]

Nigri has worked as an interviewer for media outlets such as GameZone,[47] RUGGED TV,[48] and Comic Book Therapy.[citation needed] She also starred in several commercial video advertisements and music videos, and did charity work.[24][28] According to PlayStation Official Magazine, Nigri is "not just a cosplayer but also a massive gamer;"[6] she has played video games since her early childhood, starting at an age of seven,[2] having been first exposed to them by her father.[citation needed] She plans to eventually retire from modeling and to study and pursue a career in the "behind the scene" aspects of marketing and advertising.[citation needed]

Public cosplay and modeling

Nigri as Yoko Littner (Gurren Lagann) at Saboten Con 2009
Event Character
San Diego Comic-Con 2009 Human-female Pikachu (Pokemon)[49]
Rikku (Final Fantasy X-2)[50]
Saboten Con 2009 Yoko S.T.A.R.S. (Gurren Lagann)[citation needed]
Phoenix Comicon 2010 Human-female Jolteon (Pokemon)[citation needed]
San Diego Comic-Con 2010 White Morrigan Aensland (Darkstalkers)[51]
Fiesta Bowl Parade 2010 Black Cat (Marvel Universe)[citation needed]
Saboten Con 2010 Zero Suit Bunny Samus Aran (Metroid)[citation needed]
Tucson Comic-con 2010 Ms. Marvel (Marvel Universe)[citation needed]
Amazing Arizona Comic Con 2011 Black Cat (Marvel Universe)[citation needed]
Human-female Pikachu (Pokemon)[citation needed]
OrcCon 2011 Succubus (The Laughing Moon Chronicles)[citation needed]
Arizona Renaissance Festival 2011 Onion the Faun (original character)[citation needed]
Con-Nichiwa 2011 Panty (Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt)[citation needed]
Phoenix Comicon 2011 Human-female Pikachu (Pokemon)
Knightingail (Knightingail)[citation needed]
Anime Expo 2011 Anya Stroud (Gears of War)[citation needed]
Saboten Con 2011 Classic Morrigan Aensland (Darkstalkers)[citation needed]
Female Finn the Human (Adventure Time)[citation needed]
San Diego Comic-Con 2011 Anya Stroud (Gears of War)[52]
Eloa (Knightingail)[citation needed]
Human-female Pikachu (Pokemon)[citation needed]
Comikaze Expo 2011 Anya Stroud (Gears of War)[53]
Human Fluttershy (My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic)[54]
DEVASTATION 2011 Gaming Convention & Tournament[citation needed] Anya Stroud (Gears of War)[citation needed]
Pop Culture Paradise 2011 Poison (Final Fight/Street Fighter)[citation needed]
Amazing Arizona Comic Con 2012 Kaeli (Knightingail)[citation needed]
Juliet Starling (Lollipop Chainsaw)[citation needed]
Katsucon 2012 Dragonborne (The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim)[citation needed]
Sonya Blade (Mortal Kombat)[citation needed]
Supergirl (DC Universe)[citation needed]
SXSW Gaming Expo 2012 Juliet Starling (Lollipop Chainsaw)[citation needed]
Penny Arcade Expo East (PAX East) 2012 Juliet Starling (Lollipop Chainsaw)[citation needed]
WonderCon 2012 Eloa (Knightingail)[16]
Juliet Starling (Lollipop Chainsaw)[citation needed]
Knightingail (Knightingail)[citation needed]
Texas Frightmare Weekend 2012 Juliet Starling (Lollipop Chainsaw)[citation needed]
Phoenix Comicon 2012 Babydoll (Sucker Punch)
Black Queen Emma Frost (Marvel Universe)[citation needed]
Red Riding Hood (Grimm Fairy Tales)
Squirrel Girl (Mike DeBalfo)[citation needed]
Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) 2012 Juliet Starling (Lollipop Chainsaw)[55][56]
San Diego Comic-Con 2012 Babydoll (Sucker Punch)
Grand Archer Rena (Elsword)[57]
NetherRealm Harley Quinn (Injustice: Gods Among Us)[58]
Valentine (Skullgirls)[citation needed]
Anime Revolution 2012 Black Goat Daughter (Keumaya)[citation needed]
Human Rainbow Dash (My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic)[citation needed]
Comikaze Expo 2012 Female Joker (DC Universe)[citation needed]
Edmonton Expo 2012 Human Rainbow Dash (My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic)[citation needed]
New York Comic Con 2012 Human-female Fox McCloud (StarFox)[59]
Mad Moxxi (Borderlands 2)[citation needed]
Robyn Hood (Grimm Fairy Tales)[60]
Amazing Arizona Comic Con 2013 Black Cat (Marvel Universe)[61]
Classic Morrigan Aensland (Darkstalkers)
Female Connor (Assassin's Creed III)
Robyn Hood (Grimm Fairy Tales)
Steampunk Harley Quinn (DC Universe)[citation needed]
Arizona Renaissance Festival 2013[citation needed] Demon Hunter (Diablo 3)[citation needed]
WonderCon 2013 Kotobukiya Lili (Tekken)[62]
Mad Moxxi (Borderlands 2)[62]
Port City Pop Con Female Deadpool (Marvel Universe)[citation needed]
Phoenix Comicon 2013 Female Nathan Drake (Uncharted)[citation needed]
NetherRealm Harley Quinn (Injustice: Gods Among Us)[citation needed]
Ramona Flowers (Scott Pilgrim)[citation needed]
E3 2013 Female Edward Kenway (Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag)[2][47][63]
Vivienne Squall (Killer Is Dead)[49]
Emerald City Comicon 2013 Original character (breast cancer awareness)[citation needed]
Anime and Video Games Convention (AVCon) 2013 Female Edward Kenway (Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag)[citation needed]
Anime Expo 2013 Female Goku (DragonBall)[64]
Human-female Teemo (League of Legends)[65]
Rikku (Final Fantasy X-2)[66]
Gamescom 2013 Female Edward Kenway (Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag)[67][68]
PAX East 2013 Female Deadpool (Marvel Universe)[citation needed]
Miss Monday (Yaiba: Ninja Gaiden Z)[citation needed]
Anime Revolution 2013 Female Portgas D. Ace (One Piece)
Senkaku Mei (Anime Revolution mascot)[69]
Montreal Comiccon 2013 Mad Moxxi (Borderlands 2)[70]
Not-so Tiny Tina (Borderlands 2)[citation needed]
Edmonton Expo 2013 San (Princess Mononoke)[citation needed]
Rhode Island Comic Con 2013 Female Tenth Doctor (Doctor Who)
Human Wampa / "Sexy Yeti" (Star Wars)[citation needed]
New York Comic Con 2013 Dragonborne (The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim)[71]
Steampunk Harley Quinn (DC Universe)[72]
BlizzCon 2013 Blood Elf sorceress (World of Warcraft)[73]
Ottawa Pop Expo Human-female Teemo (League of Legends)
Nausicaä (Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind)[citation needed]

Filmography

Year Title Role Notes
2011 "Chalkskin: T 'n A"[citation needed] Cos-Play Girl Music video
2012 "NIGRI PLEASE!!"[34] Sonya Blade (Mortal Kombat) Music video
2012 "Lollipop Chainsaw: Zom-Be-Gone"[74] Juliet Starling (Lollipop Chainsaw) Commercial
2012 "Buzzzzzz Kill"[citation needed] Juliet Starling (Lollipop Chainsaw) Commercial
2013 "Gigolo Missions"[75][76] Vivienne Squall (Killer Is Dead) Trailer
2013 RWBY[citation needed] Cinder Fall Voice acting role

References

  1. ^ Johnston, Rich (June 1, 2012). "Talking To Jessica Nigri About Cosplay". Bleeding Cool. Retrieved March 3, 2013.
  2. ^ a b c d "Jessica Nigri E3 2013 Interview". GameZone/Yahoo Screen. Retrieved 2013-12-5. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ "the AU interview at AVCon 2013: Jessica Nigri (Nevada)". the AU review. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  4. ^ "Lollipop Chainsaw 'Search for Juliet' contest winner is ..." CraveOnline. March 12, 2012. Retrieved November 1, 2012.
  5. ^ "Interview: Jessica Nigri Talks Life As "Juliet Starling"". Complex. June 7, 2012. Retrieved November 1, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  6. ^ a b "Jessica Nigri cosplay gallery: 'Juliet is the best heroine' | Features". Official PlayStation Magazine. June 11, 2012. Retrieved August 4, 2013.
  7. ^ a b "Skimpy Outfit Gets Lollipop Chainsaw Cosplayer Asked to Change Or Leave PAX Show Floor". Kotaku. April 8, 2012. Retrieved November 1, 2012.
  8. ^ Machinima (2012-04-14). "IG Extended - PAX East 2012 - Lollipop Chainsaw Interview - Suda51/Jessica Nigri". YouTube. Retrieved 2013-11-28.
  9. ^ "Two fun people were asked to leave PAX East". Destructoid. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  10. ^ Kain, Erik (April 12, 2012). "Scantily-Clad Cosplayer Asked To Change Clothes Or Leave Family-Friendly PAX East". Forbes.
  11. ^ a b c "The Pro Cosplayer Who Was Too Sexy for PAX East Signs on for "Elsword" Gig at Anime Expo". Complex. 2012-05-23. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  12. ^ "Lollipop Chainsaw Tour; Interviews, pom-poms, tiny skirts and MORE!". Web.archive.org. 2012-06-22. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  13. ^ "Kill3rCombo Signs Jessica Nigri for Official Elsword Cosplay at Anime Expo 2012". Canadian Online Gamers. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  14. ^ Carmichael, Stephanie (May 24, 2012). "Jessica Nigri to represent Elsword at Anime Exp..." GameZone.
  15. ^ "Phoenix Comic Con Line UP!". Web.archive.org. 2012-06-22. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  16. ^ a b Agent Burgos (2012-07-16). "Get Ready For WonderCon!". Web.archive.org. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  17. ^ "Jessica Nigri is back to promote Suda51's Killer is Dead". GameZone. April 26, 2013. Retrieved May 5, 2013.
  18. ^ Liebl, Matt. "Talking Killer is Dead with Jessica Nigri.. err..." GameZone. Retrieved 2013-11-28.
  19. ^ "Jessica Nigri becomes an Assassin with her latest cosplay". Destructoid. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
  20. ^ "ASSASSINS CREED 3: Jessica Nigri Comes Out of Hiding for this Stunning Cosplay Shoot — GeekTyrant". Geektyrant.com. 2013-01-17. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
  21. ^ Moore, Marlon (June 8, 2012). "Know Your GoH! – Jessica Nigri". Anime-Expo.
  22. ^ "Anime Expo announces Jessica Nigri, Nobuhiko Okamoto, Ryo Horikawa and Rikiya Koyama as 2012 Guest of Honors". Nerd Reactor. June 1, 2012. Retrieved November 1, 2012.
  23. ^ "Guests". Anime Revolution. Retrieved October 2, 2012.
  24. ^ a b "Anime Revolution Welcomes Jessica Nigri Back to Canada". Anime News Network. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  25. ^ "Jessica Nigri Returns to AR2013! - AniRevo 2014". Animerevolution.ca. 2013-03-06. Retrieved 2013-11-28.
  26. ^ "First Guest Announcement - JESSICA NIGRI". AVCon. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  27. ^ "Jessica Nigri - Our Guests - Comiccon". Montrealcomiccon.com. 2013-09-04. Retrieved 2013-11-28.
  28. ^ a b "Jessica Nigri - Our Guests - Pop Expo". Ottawapopexpo.ca. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  29. ^ "Rhode Island Comic Con: Cosplay". ricomiccon.com. Retrieved December 5, 2013.
  30. ^ KassemG (February 23, 2011). "My Birth Certificate Is An Apology From The Condom Factory". YouTube.
  31. ^ Philip DeFranco (July 16, 2012). "Jessica Nigri Wins, YouTube Sues and Sarah Silverman Scissors". Revision3. Retrieved November 1, 2012.
  32. ^ Philip DeFranco (September 18, 2012). "A Jessica Nigri Tease, $50,000 Ideas & the iPhone 5 Is Selling Like Crazy!". Revision3. Retrieved November 1, 2012.
  33. ^ Philip DeFranco (2013-07-24). "Jessica Nigri & Carlos Danger Save The Day". YouTube. Retrieved 2013-11-28.
  34. ^ a b DeFranco, Philip (September 28, 2012). "NIGRI PLEASE!! DeFranco Inc. Security At Work". YouTube. Retrieved November 1, 2012.
  35. ^ Best Inventions of 2010. "Z. by Downward Viral » A wild Jessica Nigri appears! — Kickstarter". Kickstarter.com. Retrieved August 4, 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  36. ^ "Nigri Please! Poster feat. Jessica Nigri". ForHumanPeoples. Retrieved November 17, 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  37. ^ "Jessica Nigri". Mad Catz. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
  38. ^ "The reigning queen of the 'Con, Jessica Nigri (36 Photos)". theCHIVE. 2012-07-12. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
  39. ^ "Jessica Nigri is the Chivette of the Week (27 Photos)". theCHIVE. 2013-05-08. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
  40. ^ "5 Things I Learned From SyFy's "Heroes of Cosplay"". Anime News Network. 2013-09-10. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
  41. ^ "Comics Alliance Reviews SyFy's 'Heroes of Cosplay' [Video]". Comicsalliance.com. 2013-08-30. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
  42. ^ Gallagher, Luke (2013-08-21). "Sexuality vs Talent – Why Manufactured Drama on Syfy's 'Heroes of Cosplay' is Ruining Cosplay". nerdbastards.com. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
  43. ^ "Seven Reasons Why Heroes of Cosplay Is Terrible - Topless Robot - Nerd news, humor and self-loathing". Topless Robot. 2013-09-03. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
  44. ^ "Yaya Han vs Jessica Nigri - Battle of the Cosplay titans in Heroes of Cosplay | The RPF Pulse". Pulse.therpf.com. 2013-08-20. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
  45. ^ Stuart (2013-09-19). "MCM BUZZ – Movies, TV, Comics, Gaming, Anime, Cosplay News & Reviews » YaYa Han vs Jessica Nigri: What a difference an edit makes!". Mcmbuzz.com. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
  46. ^ Han, Yaya (2013-09-05). "Jessica Nigri and Yaya Han - real friends or reality TV characters?". YouTube. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
  47. ^ a b GameZoneOnline (2013-06-17). "Jessica Nigri E3 Trivia Answers". YouTube. Retrieved 2013-11-28.
  48. ^ August 9, 2011 (2011-08-09). "I.V. Weekly-Chronicle | Costumes Still A Major Part Of Comic-Con Experience". Tribwekchron.com. Retrieved 2013-11-29.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  49. ^ a b "E3 VIP: IGN Meets Jessica Nigri - E3 2013". IGN/YouTube. 2013-06-13. Retrieved 2013-11-28.
  50. ^ Kassem G (2009-07-27). "California On Comic-Con 1". YouTube. Retrieved 2013-11-28.
  51. ^ Kassem G (2010-07-26). "JESSICA NIGRI at COMIC-CON (Full Version)". YouTube. Retrieved 2013-11-28.
  52. ^ Kassem G (2011-07-25). "Jessica Nigri (Unedited Version)". YouTube. Retrieved 2013-11-28.
  53. ^ Weiland, Jonah (2011-11-12). "2011 Comikaze Expo Photo Parade". Comic Book Resources. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  54. ^ "Comikaze Expo 2011 Hottest Tech Girls". PCMESH. Retrieved 2013-12-04.
  55. ^ MACHINIMA II (2012-06-12). "E3 2012 Jessica Nigri Lollipop Chainsaw Cheerleader Interview". YouTube. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  56. ^ ZoominGames (June 6, 2012). "Nancy Roxx Meets Jessica Nigri". Youtube.com. Retrieved August 4, 2013.
  57. ^ Lee, Leonard. "Sexy Cosplay Girls: San Diego Comic-Con 2012". MTV. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  58. ^ Kassem G (2012-07-16). "Jessica Nigri 4 (Unedited Version)". YouTube. Retrieved 2013-11-28.
  59. ^ Lee, Leonard (2012). "Cosplayers: New York Comic Con 2012". MTV. Retrieved 2013-12-5. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  60. ^ Pierce, Josh (2013-02-27). "Zenescope Entertainment Give Fans What They WANTED". Geekality. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  61. ^ Dimalanta, Zedric (2013-01-25). "NEWS Round-up: Week of January 25, 2013". The Comixverse.
  62. ^ a b Kassem G (2013-04-02). "Jessica Nigri (Unedited)". YouTube. Retrieved 2013-11-28.
  63. ^ Mannion, Gavin (September 4, 2013). "We interview Jessica Nigri at Gamescom 2013". Lazygamer.
  64. ^ "A Goku le sale competencia: Jessica Nigri – Alfa Beta Juega". Alfabetajuega.com. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  65. ^ 7/08/13 9:30pm 7/08/13 9:30pm. "Awesome League of Legends Cosplay From This Year's Anime Expo". Kotaku.com. Retrieved 2013-11-29.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  66. ^ Schadenfreude Industries (2013-07-16). "Jessica Nigri (Rikku) Interview: Anime Expo 2013". YouTube. Retrieved 2013-11-28.
  67. ^ IGNDEUTSCHLAND (2013-09-03). "gamescom 2013: Jessica Nigri im Interview über Cosplay und Gears of War". YouTube. Retrieved 2013-11-28.
  68. ^ "gamescom 2013 – Cosplay-Star Jessica Nigri im Interview – RTL II Spiele – Video – RTL2 Mediathek". Rtl2.de. 2013-08-27. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
  69. ^ "Anime Revolution 2013: Jessica Nigri Photos | Vancity Buzz | Vancouver Events, News, Food, Lifestyle and More". Vancity Buzz. Retrieved 2013-11-28.
  70. ^ Momesso, Danilo (2013-09-15). "Montreal Comiccon 2013 Where We Met Jessica Nigri Along With 7 Boba Fetts Part 2". MTL Blog. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  71. ^ vamp. "NYCC 2013 Pt. 2 - LeeAnna Vamp - I Love Nerd Girls - New York Comic Con". YouTube. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  72. ^ "New York Comic Con 2013 Hulacam Video Nerd Reactor". Nerdreactor.com. 2013-10-21. Retrieved 2013-11-29.
  73. ^ Hernandez, Patricia (13 November 2013). "Some Of The Best Cosplay From BlizzCon 2013 | Kotaku Australia". Kotaku. Retrieved 2013-12-02.
  74. ^ GameSpot (2012-04-05). "ZOM-BE-GONE - Lollipop Chainsaw Live Action Trailer". YouTube.
  75. ^ "Jessica Nigri en Killer is Dead Trailer "Misiones Gigolo"". YouTube. 2013-04-26. Retrieved 2013-11-28.
  76. ^ Sanchez, David (2013-04-28). "Grasshopper and Jessica Nigri Reunite to Promote Killer Is Dead". eXophase.com.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Jessica Nigri.

Template:Persondata

Template:PDNM

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&oldid=584870832"