→Maya: Is this a reliable source and reply to Only in death |
→Maya: r |
||
Line 324: | Line 324: | ||
::A couple of things - yes, generally you do need more than one source to establish a 'mainstream' view, otherwise it is just one (reliable or not no comment) person's opinion. If there are dissenting/different views, then again more sources are required to establish what the mainstream is. If there are no dissenting or no other sources, then it should be presented as the opinion of the expert rather than 'this is the definitive answer'. Secondly - I would not use a non-linguistics expert as a source to verify a words etymology - where other sources are available from linguistic experts. If there are no dissenting or better sources available, then you work with what you have. I would say from looking at the diffs back and forth, this does seem to be an area where there is disagreement. It is not great to have in an encyclopedia article 'Maya is probably...' when there are multiple theories RE the origin. (Saying the above, from looking at Jan Gonda's article, I cannot see why they would not be considered qualified enough to have an opinion and be referenced on the subject, but I can see the argument behind Pintchman) [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 11:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC) |
::A couple of things - yes, generally you do need more than one source to establish a 'mainstream' view, otherwise it is just one (reliable or not no comment) person's opinion. If there are dissenting/different views, then again more sources are required to establish what the mainstream is. If there are no dissenting or no other sources, then it should be presented as the opinion of the expert rather than 'this is the definitive answer'. Secondly - I would not use a non-linguistics expert as a source to verify a words etymology - where other sources are available from linguistic experts. If there are no dissenting or better sources available, then you work with what you have. I would say from looking at the diffs back and forth, this does seem to be an area where there is disagreement. It is not great to have in an encyclopedia article 'Maya is probably...' when there are multiple theories RE the origin. (Saying the above, from looking at Jan Gonda's article, I cannot see why they would not be considered qualified enough to have an opinion and be referenced on the subject, but I can see the argument behind Pintchman) [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 11:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::@Only in death does duty end: Jan Gonda is known for his [http://www.brill.com/selected-studies-jan-gonda-volume-1-indo-european-linguistics linguistics work]. Tracy Pintchman reviews and states the past scholarship on '''Maya'''-related etymology-terminology among other things, on pages 3-4 (her publication is an example that Gonda's study is accepted by other scholars). That section of the article has multiple sources. I agree, we should retain the multiple sources, not delete them. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 11:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC) |
:::@Only in death does duty end: Jan Gonda is known for his [http://www.brill.com/selected-studies-jan-gonda-volume-1-indo-european-linguistics linguistics work]. Tracy Pintchman reviews and states the past scholarship on '''Maya'''-related etymology-terminology among other things, on pages 3-4 (her publication is an example that Gonda's study is accepted by other scholars). That section of the article has multiple sources. I agree, we should retain the multiple sources, not delete them. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 11:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
::: {{reply to |Only in death}} Thanks for your balanced view. Let me point out that Ms Sarah Welch has shamelessly manipulated my words - where I asserted that "I can't even believe a scholar of Sanskrit would have published such a thing", I was absolutely correct - this was about a (linguistically absurd) idea that ''maya'' is a combination of two verbal roots ''ma'' + ''ya'', which Ms Welch attributed to Gonda and defended fiercely but which, as it turned out, wasn't actually even mentioned in Gonda's book. Reluctantly and after lots of fighting, Ms Welch allowed the statement to be removed from the article, as you can see now. To be fair to her, as a former Sanskrit scholar, I am more than familiar with a belief among many newbies to ancient Indian literature that whatever is printed is holy, is sacred and should be revered much like the Vedas. |
|||
::: For a similar reason, I removed Zimmer's primary study that Ms Welch tried to add as a source to whatever, seemingly forgetting about [[WP:BRD]] that she earlier kept repeating ad nauseam. I do not see any value that this work from the [[philosophy of language]] could add to the Etymology section (which should, or must, adopt linguistical approach and not a philosophical one); while of course it may be cited in other parts of the article. Hope this clarifies, although I admit I grew tired of Ms Welch's attacks. — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30C;font:italic bold 1em Candara;text-shadow:#AAF 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmiri</span>]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK</sup>]] 20:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
The article [[Maya]] currently has a section ''Etymology and terminology''. The present article contains references to half-a-dozen different opinions on the etymology of the word. The sources include two books published by [[State University of New York Press]] and two published by [[Motilal Banarsidass]], all of which Kashmiri is trying to remove from the article. The purpose of this notice board is to garner other opinions on whether a particular source is a reliable source in a given context. The source in question that opinions are sought on is: |
The article [[Maya]] currently has a section ''Etymology and terminology''. The present article contains references to half-a-dozen different opinions on the etymology of the word. The sources include two books published by [[State University of New York Press]] and two published by [[Motilal Banarsidass]], all of which Kashmiri is trying to remove from the article. The purpose of this notice board is to garner other opinions on whether a particular source is a reliable source in a given context. The source in question that opinions are sought on is: |
||
* Tracy Pintchman (1994), The Rise of the Goddess in the Hindu Tradition, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791421123, pages 3-4; |
* Tracy Pintchman (1994), The Rise of the Goddess in the Hindu Tradition, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791421123, pages 3-4; |
Revision as of 20:55, 8 August 2016
Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context! | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What sources are needed to say "Hillary Clinton has never been charged with a crime"?
We have a lengthy discussion underway at Talk:Hillary Clinton#Unsupported claim about subject never being charged with any crime. The central dispute is over the level of sourcing needed to support the claim in the article that the subject has, in fact, never been charged with a crime. There is, of course, no reliable source claiming that Clinton ever has been charged with a crime, but there are internet rumors floating around to this effect, and general statements of confusion on the subject. Some editors propose that Clinton may have, at some point, been charged with a crime in a state that doesn't divulge criminal charges to the media, and that such a hypothetical criminal charge has therefore remained secret.
In the discussion, I have provided three instances of published references stating this as a fact:
- "The examples that SourceFed chose are factually incorrect. Hillary Clinton has not been charged with a crime. She has not been indicted". The context is an article debunking conspiracy theories about why Google doesn't autofill for "crimes" by Hillary Clinton. David Goldman, "The truth about the Hillary Clinton Google conspiracy theory", CNNMoney (June 15, 2016).
- "[P]resenting himself as a lawyer to a mob calling for the imprisonment of Hillary Clinton — who hasn't been charged with any crime, after multiple politically motivated investigations — is an ethical problem nonetheless". Bridgette Dunlap, "Chris Christie Has Disqualified Himself From Being Trump's Attorney General", Rolling Stone (July 20, 2016).
- "Say what you want about Hillary Clinton. She has problems and baggage galore. But she has never been charged with any crimes, let alone been convicted". Gary Stein, "Pam Bondi's hypocrisy is showing", Sun-Sentinel (July 21, 2016).
I grant that the latter two are opinion pieces; the first, I contend is a news article, although other editors dispute this because the author's job title is "editor" and the piece is written in a somewhat editorial tone. The question is, what level of sourcing/verification is needed to support the proposition that a person has not been charged with a crime, in the absence of any evidence of that person having ever been charged with a crime? bd2412 T 20:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- My main arguments, which I have elaborated in the other discussion, are: 1. After three days of active discussion, the above is the best sourcing anyone has come up with. It's somewhat reasonable to assume it's the best available. I don't think it's enough for such a weighty statement. 2. Wikipedia is not a rumor clearing house. 3. WP:V does not say we can include a statement that "everybody" knows is true because there are no sources to disprove it. This is not a "sky is blue" case, despite exactly that being vigorously asserted in the other discussion (not necessarily by the OP here). 4. WP:NOTTRUTH. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Is it a "weighty statement" to note that a highly public figure has, like most people, never been charged with a crime? bd2412 T 21:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I note that a similar statement is not included in Abraham Lincoln, Jennifer Lopez, or Mother Teresa (all highly public figures), so you must be asserting that Wikipedia is a rumor clearing house. You're simply wrong on that, full stop. Readers must assume that any charges would be in the article, and we must assume that they will. To do otherwise is to encourage readers to expect rumor-clearing-house content at Wikipedia, which would be a serious mistake. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- The statement wraps up an existing sentence stating that "she faced a federal grand jury in 1996 regarding the Whitewater controversy", also not something found with Abraham Lincoln, Jennifer Lopez, or Mother Teresa. By comparison, Bush was investigated over the Valerie Plame matter, but neither the investigation nor the resolution are even in the lede of that article. bd2412 T 22:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- How soon they forget:
- "No special treatment: Hillary Clinton gets ticket". USA Today. Associated Press. October 16, 2013.
- Duell, Mark (17 October 2013). "Hillary pays up! Clinton puts £40 parking fine on credit card after London traffic warden defied five secret service agents to give her a ticket". Daliy Mail.
- So Clinton has been charged with a (rather minor) crime and choose to pay the fine instead of fighting it in court. --Allen3 talk 22:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Can you provide a source saying that this parking fine constituted a crime? A parking fine is a civil matter, not a "crime" within the usual definition of the word. bd2412 T 22:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- (ec)A parking violation is only a crime under a most laughable definition that would make approximately 100% of all drivers criminals (and me a repeat offender - at two strikes). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- "'Didn't pay that parking ticket? Here's your arrest warrant'... The city court issued more than 9,000 arrest warrants stemming from minor violations like parking and traffic tickets." Ferguson Police Report: Most Shocking Parts, CNNPolitics.com
- In the N.Y. state penal code, overparking is called a crime. Black's Law Dictionary.
- Obama Parking Controversy, Google Search
- As noted by Allen3, we've now found two reliable sources (USA Today and Daily Mail) claiming that Clinton has been charged with a crime. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Neither source actually says that Clinton has been "charged with a crime". Can you find one that does? By the way, the Ferguson article does not say that parking and traffic tickets are a "crime" either; it is the failure to pay the fine that can eventually become a crime. bd2412 T 23:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- The second source (Black's) does say they're a crime, bd2412.
- Can't pay the fine, don't do the crime! ;) --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Are you seriously proposing that Black's Law Dictionary specifically says that Hillary Clinton has been charged with a crime? I'd like to know what edition you're referring to, since I'm not finding that in any of mine. At best it sounds like you've got a bad case of WP:SYNTH going on here. bd2412 T 11:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Neither source actually says that Clinton has been "charged with a crime". Can you find one that does? By the way, the Ferguson article does not say that parking and traffic tickets are a "crime" either; it is the failure to pay the fine that can eventually become a crime. bd2412 T 23:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's coverage of other political figures and famous people is not relevant here. What's relevant is the coverage of Clinton in secondary sources. See WP:OSE for some thinking about related matters. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I note that a similar statement is not included in Abraham Lincoln, Jennifer Lopez, or Mother Teresa (all highly public figures), so you must be asserting that Wikipedia is a rumor clearing house. You're simply wrong on that, full stop. Readers must assume that any charges would be in the article, and we must assume that they will. To do otherwise is to encourage readers to expect rumor-clearing-house content at Wikipedia, which would be a serious mistake. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Is it a "weighty statement" to note that a highly public figure has, like most people, never been charged with a crime? bd2412 T 21:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- We're effectively being ask to prove a negative here which is impossible, though there's also the fact that somebody at the right level (read: federal gov't official) has enough access to all US records that they could confirm this; whether this person(s) would likely do so, we can't expect that. That said, if it is necessary to make the assertion that someone has not been charged with a crime, take your best possible sources that makes that claim (eg like CNN) and make sure to write it as a claim stated by that source (so that we aren't making the claim of the impossible in WP's voice). I would note that this likely means the only time that this fact can be included is whether someone's past criminal issue (if there is one) is the subject of BLP-meeting reliable sources, and means we should only be including this when its well beyond rumor mongering. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would not oppose (on principle) something like: David Goldman, a senior editor at CNN, said, "Hillary Clinton has not been charged with a crime." But I honestly doubt the includers are going to be satisfied with that, as it fails to clear the rumors they aim to clear. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- We should not bring David Goldman into it unless David Goldman is known to have some special salience regarding Hilary Clinton. The fact that "X said Y about Z in a published source" is not, by itself, strong enough to include "X said Y about Z" in an article about Z. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I would not oppose (on principle) something like: David Goldman, a senior editor at CNN, said, "Hillary Clinton has not been charged with a crime." But I honestly doubt the includers are going to be satisfied with that, as it fails to clear the rumors they aim to clear. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, you should start with the sources and summarize what they actually say, giving information prominence in an article in rough proportion to its coverage in the sources. See WP:STICKTOSOURCES. Of course an awful lot of Wikipedia editing in practice goes the other way, starting with a claim, looking for sources to support it, and then, when challenged, arguing to lower the bar to allow a poor source because you think that claim ought to be in the article. We can't prevent that practice, and it's probably fine as long as other editors balance out the coverage. But given the vast amount of biographical material available on Hillary Clinton, if you have to reach for a passing comment in a financial article about whether Google's autocomplete algorithm is favoring Clinton, this suggests that the authors of secondary sources don't think this particular claim is worthy of coverage. If that's correct, then neither should we. That said, I'm rather surprised that you haven't found coverage of this topic in reputable secondary sources. A better place to find it would be in a book chapter or article on the history of public accusations of Clinton or on media coverage of Clinton "scandals". If you check a source about that and summarize all of its main facts, you'll be neutrally covering a source about the topic, not cherry-picking to support a claim, and the article will be better for it. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are approaching this the wrong way around. Rather than decide what you want the article to say and look for sources, you should determine what the sources say and make sure the article reflects them. The relevant policy is "Balancing aspects": "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." A competent editor writing this article from scratch would not be looking at articles or editorials by a technology editor writing about how the Google search engine works.
- For all we know some Jim Garrison prosecutor is holding a sealed indictment against her. We need an article by a lawyer who could tell us whether that is likely or possible.
- TFD (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- This may sound stupid, we are we trying to say she hasnt been charged with a crime? What next, we need a source to explicitly say she hasnt had a mental illness? Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- The Goldman article referenced as a source above is itself a response to a conspiracy theory proposing that Hillary Clinton does have a criminal record that is somehow being kept secret with the complicity of Google and others. The point is merely to note the fact that there is an absence of any such record. bd2412 T 23:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- No. It rebuts the alleged conspiracy theory that Google is suppressing negative search results, and there is no suggestion the theory includes Clinton having actually been charged with a crime. Hence "Hillary Clinton cri" does not auto-suggest "Hillary Clinton criminal charges" or similar results. TFD (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- The Goldman article referenced as a source above is itself a response to a conspiracy theory proposing that Hillary Clinton does have a criminal record that is somehow being kept secret with the complicity of Google and others. The point is merely to note the fact that there is an absence of any such record. bd2412 T 23:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I am surprised that this preposterous thread could go on for so long. Since when do encyclopedias list all the statements that are not facts. Do we say Abe Lincoln never won a figure skating championship? It doesn't matter whether you can scratch out some source that makes the statement. It is not encyclopedic. It's undue and in the absence of any statement to the contrary it is the general supposition about all people that they've not been charged with a crime. The mention if it is at best SYNTHy and at worst a BLP smear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 23:19, July 31, 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to political silly season. This round should calm down around the middle of November. --Allen3 talk 23:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- That presumes quite cynically that this is all about politics. Couldn't have anything to do with Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- In my experience, articles on controversial topics tend to draw three types of editors: supporters, detractors, and individuals interested in what is best for the encyclopedia. My cynicism, if any, is based on the observation that members of the first two groups rarely acknowledge the existence of the third group. --Allen3 talk 00:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've had this to say (somewhat) about that. In my opinion, every editor in this thread, if not necessarily its predecessor, is in that third group, so your initial comment doesn't apply here. BTW, those first two groups are also interested in what is best for the encyclopedia, but they're just misguided about what that is. They don't know how to check their bias at the door, and they make no distinction between their beliefs and "truth". Or, if you prefer, you could expand it to five groups. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- In my experience, articles on controversial topics tend to draw three types of editors: supporters, detractors, and individuals interested in what is best for the encyclopedia. My cynicism, if any, is based on the observation that members of the first two groups rarely acknowledge the existence of the third group. --Allen3 talk 00:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- That presumes quite cynically that this is all about politics. Couldn't have anything to do with Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- How is it "a BLP smear" to point out that someone has not been charged with any crime (contrary to conspiracy theory proponents who believe that a secret crime exists in their record)? bd2412 T 23:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- I am reminded of the alleged Lyndon B Johnson quote about accusing an opponent of fucking a pig: "Of course it ain't true, but I want to make the son-of-a-bitch deny it." Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- bd2412, I think you are right that mentioning never having been charged with a crime is not a smear, and might well be salient. Making false accusations of a political opponent is a common dirty political tactic, as the above LBJ quote illustrates. People come to Wikipedia for neutral reporting of facts, especially facts in dispute, so it's reasonable for us to cover this, but only if secondary sources have already addressed it in context. And that provides the clue about how to research this topic. Have you looked for sources specifically about political tactics deployed against Clinton? Such sources will give you relevant positive facts, which are much easier to verify than negative claims; they might even have the negative claim you're looking for (or the exact truth of the matter, whatever it is). (Kudos to TKD for finding the most relevant policy: WP:BALASPS.) —Ben Kovitz (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- It depends a lot on context, but I think it is critical here in the political context that trying to point this out, while not a BLP vio on the person here of interest, it affects the BLP-nature of anyone running against them. (Here, it implicitly implies that Trump might not have the same clean record that Clinton appears to have).) That's why the statement should be avoided unless it is within context. For example, if one running candidate says the other has a criminal record a mile long, having the sourced statement from someone like CNN to note that the accussed candidate lacks any type of criminal record and refuting the candidate's claim is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Welcome to political silly season. This round should calm down around the middle of November. --Allen3 talk 23:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
bd2412 says that there is a conspiracy theory that Clinton has been charged with a crime and the article should refute it. But unless the conspiracy theory has received coverage in the news, it should not be put into the article. And if it does attract significant attention, then we can add it to the article, along with the statement that it is false. Because an article about the conspiracy theory would say it is false. TFD (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- The conspiracy theory has received coverage in the news. It is the theory being refuted in the above-mentioned Goldman CNNMoney article. bd2412 T 00:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- None, in theory per WP:LEDECITE, as this is a statement in the lede and ledes may summarize the text of the article. However, it is not entirely clear that this is a correct, and certainly not a relevant, statement. Surely, Clinton is not known to have been charged with any of the major controversies that surfaced in her public life. Whether or not she might have been charged with some other crime that was sealed, expunged, not known, etc., at some other point in her life out of the public eye, may be sourceable, and that would require a source like any other statement. However, the relative lack of significant sourcing on this suggests that it is not a statement that sources consider significant. Sometimes lack of sourcing is because a statement is of little weight, not that it is hard to verify. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I hadn't realized that this is a dispute about whether to put the "never been charged" claim in the lead. Certainly this does not belong in the lead, even if there is an acceptable source for it. bd2412, please see WP:INTRO and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. What do you think? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't the editor who added it to the lede in the first place. However, the grand jury investigation is mentioned in the lede (whether it is undue to have it there or not is another discussion), and it seems like presenting a pitched half of the facts to say that the subject has been investigated without saying how the investigation turned out. bd2412 T 01:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed mentioning the grand-jury investigation without mentioning the result is one-sided and distorts the real situation. The current wording, that she was not charged in any of the controversies, seems to me to fairly summarize the body of the article and therefore does not need a source. "Never charged with a crime" is stronger claim, neither summarizing the body nor found in (good, known) sources, which is why you got so much resistance about that. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @BenKovitz:
which is why you got so much resistance about that.
- Not really. That's been a relatively small part of the resistance, mostly from Dervorguilla if I'm not mistaken.
I don't know why we're spending time, space, and brain calories on the GJ investigation -without saying how the investigation turned out
. That part of the sentence has not been challenged to my knowledge, as least not in this particular debate. We are discussing "or any other controversy". (BTW, LEDECITE has no bearing on this question. It is about citing, not sourcing.) ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @BenKovitz:
- Indeed mentioning the grand-jury investigation without mentioning the result is one-sided and distorts the real situation. The current wording, that she was not charged in any of the controversies, seems to me to fairly summarize the body of the article and therefore does not need a source. "Never charged with a crime" is stronger claim, neither summarizing the body nor found in (good, known) sources, which is why you got so much resistance about that. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I hadn't realized that this is a dispute about whether to put the "never been charged" claim in the lead. Certainly this does not belong in the lead, even if there is an acceptable source for it. bd2412, please see WP:INTRO and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. What do you think? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Tagged for citation needed per WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION and Template:Citation needed. AP story says she was charged with a minor offense (overparking) in 2013. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yet, was that "minor offense (carparking)" a "controversy" as the sentence stipulates...? —MelbourneStar☆talk 05:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've left a talk page warning on Dervorguilla's page for edit warring[1] a BLPVIO (2RR and counting so far) into an article subject to discretionary sanctions. Could somebody revert this nonsense and caution the editor to take a step back from the article? It's an outrageous BLPVIO to falsely claim that a presidential candidate was charged with a crime. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not going to let myself get dragged into this, but I will say my piece and move on.
- Wikipedia is not supposed to debunk false claims, only to document verifiable information. So the article does not need to state she has not been charged with any crimes. Even if there were RSs stating "Hillary Clinton has never once been charged with any crime anywhere in the world under any circumstances, ever!" we don't need to include that here.
- The notion that a parking ticket justifies the claim that she has been charged with a crime (in the context of an ongoing election in which a major issue is whether she should be charged with crimes against the state) is about as libelous as libel can get. This is 100% BLPVIO in my opinion, and should not be tolerated. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Here's what WP:BLPVIO has to say, MjolnirPants:
- "For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material ... suggesting that the person ... is accused of committing a crime..."
- Clinton's a public figure. Ask SCOTUS. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you insist upon arguing, argue with someone willing to engage your bombast. I already said I wouldn't be dragged into this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- "I'm not going to let myself get dragged into this, but I will say my piece and move on... The notion ... is about as libelous as libel can get. This is 100% BLPVIO in my opinion, and should not be tolerated... Argue with someone willing to engage your bombast. I already said I wouldn't be dragged into this." (MjolnirPants.)
- bom·bast : a pretentious inflated style of speech or writing. Synonym: rant. bombast indicates a verbose grandiosity or pretentious inflation of language and style disproportionate to thought. (W3.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I do not believe that BLP excuses the inclusion of false or misleading information, so long as that information is about "a public figure". We should be striving to get it right, not to insinuate as much as we can legally get away with. This is an encyclopedia, not a campaign website. bd2412 T 13:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- If you insist upon arguing, argue with someone willing to engage your bombast. I already said I wouldn't be dragged into this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Here's what WP:BLPVIO has to say, MjolnirPants:
The disputed phrase does not say Clinton has never been charged with a crime, so that part of this discussion is a counterproductive distraction. It says she has never been charged with a crime in "any other controversy" (besides Whitewater). If someone here has documented the Hillary Clinton Parking Fine Controversy, I've missed that. A few news items do not constitute a controversy in my book. None of the words "parking", "ticket", or "fine" occur anywhere in Hillary Clinton. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining your legitimate concerns, Mandruss. Here's what the sources say about the Clinton parking-fine controversy.
- Headline: " ... London traffic warden defied five secret service agents to give her a ticket".
- Subheads: ⋆ "Councillor: ‘We have to be fair to everyone, regardless of their status’ ⋆ US diplomats in London get £7.5m congestion charge fines in ten years"
- Source: Daily Mail. "The paper has ... the fourth-largest circulation of any English language daily newspaper in the world."
- Points: The U.K. traffic warden and the U.S. agents disputed whether Clinton should be given a ticket. And the U.K. and U.S. governments seem to have expressed opposing views on whether high-status U.S. diplomats should get fines for traffic offenses in London.
- controversy a : the act of disputing or contending. b : a difference marked especially by the expression of opposing views. (W3.)
- Headline: "No special treatment: Hillary Clinton gets ticket"
- Lead: "Everyone’s equal under the law — at least when it comes to London’s vigilant parking enforcers, who ticketed ... Clinton’s car for parking illegally."
- Source: AP, "the United States' primary news service".
- Points: Is Clinton equal under U.K. law? Under U.S. law? Or should she get special treatment? --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- This is another example of rather brazen WP:SYNTH on your part. Google says: No results found for "Clinton parking-fine controversy". If you can't find a source to support your claim that a "Clinton parking-fine controversy" exists, I'll have to start questioning whether you're here to build an encyclopedia at all. bd2412 T 02:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- See WP:SYNTH policy, bd2412: 'If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them ... therefore "C" cannot be used in any article.' The source uses them in the same context, it does connect them, and I'm using them in a Talk page, not an article.
- More important: I'm saying that "or in any other controversy" cannot be used in a BLP, not that "C" can be used.
- Also, EvergreenFir's argument below is on point. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC) 23:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- This is another example of rather brazen WP:SYNTH on your part. Google says: No results found for "Clinton parking-fine controversy". If you can't find a source to support your claim that a "Clinton parking-fine controversy" exists, I'll have to start questioning whether you're here to build an encyclopedia at all. bd2412 T 02:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- This seems quite ridiculous and seems like a fertile ground for POV pushing based on opinions on Clinton to paint her positively or negatively. If you can't find substantial mainstream sources for either statement on such a hugely high-profile person, then any statement about that would be undue. If the literally thousands of sources on Clinton don't pay much attention to her criminal history or lack thereof, neither should the article on her. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Here's what our 'comparison' encyclopedia has to say about Clinton
- "Some of Hillary’s financial dealings ... led to major investigations after she became first lady. Her investment in Whitewater ... and her commodities trading in 1978–79 — through which she reportedly turned a $1,000 investment into $100,000 in a few months — came under close scrutiny."
- Hillary Clinton: United States senator, first lady, and secretary of state, Britannica.com
- Two controversies mentioned, not one. Nothing about whether any charges were ever brought. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Here's what our 'comparison' encyclopedia has to say about Clinton
About "targetstudy.com"
Hi all,
This is about https://targetstudy.com/
This website is linked in a number of articles.
I question whether this is a reliable source for information about educational institutions in India.
It would appear to me that the assertion that the website is "a sincere attempt to provide its prospective users the most accurate and updated information about the course of study they are seeking" - is quite without any other verification.
What do you think about this?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- A lot of promotional "we are a dedicated team" fluff on their about page, but no specific information about 1) their team and its expertise 2) their methods of data collection and the exact sources 3) any evidence for fact-checking of the presented data. Its disclaimer page [2] notes, that all content "... has been compiled from the respective websites [university and school homepages], newspapers and other reliable sources ...". In short, the site is a data-aggregrator. It should not be used, existing links should be removed. GermanJoe (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi again all,
- I agree with GermanJoe's analysis.
- Along with GJ I would argue
- that this website must not be considered a reliable source
- that all links to that website must be deleted
- This is two editors' opinions. Still needs a WP:CONSENSUS
- What do you think about this?
- Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Age of Consent template: primary vs. secondary sources
The Template:Age of consent pages discussion header states (after clicking on "show"):
- In the interest of accuracy and quality it was decided by consensus to hold these pages to a high standard of verification and to avoid ambiguity through the use of prose (not dot points) discussing the relevant statutes, case law or other authorities.
My concern is specifically with case law, which is in the form of the actual judicial opinions (ordinarily rendered by an appellate court), serving to clarify how specific statutes are to be interpreted.
My question is whether the judicial opinion may be cited in preference to an article in a mass media publication, presuming that the judicial opinion (at least if read carefully) can be interpreted without any specialized training? Or is the judicial opinion itself to be avoided because it's a primary source? Fabrickator (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- In my experience, judgments require a degree of expertise to read, and we should instead use secondary sources, which explain what the judgments meant. In particular, readers need to distinguish between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. In a case of breach of contract for example, a judge could say that a minor could not be sued because the age of consent was 18 and then say that applies to any form of consent. But the case would only be a precedent for contract law. Also, a court could decide that there was more than one decisive issue. A minor could for example plead that a oontract was void because it was not properly witnessed and he was too young to enter into a contract. If the court believed both, it would not set a precedent because if it had not been properly witnessed, the plaintiff could not win on appeal, regardless of whether the court was right on the age of majority. TFD (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Make sure also to distinguish between age of majority and age of consent as they generally are not the same thing or number.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like Template:Age of consent pages discussion header only applies to articles about the Age of consent for sexual activity, so I'm not sure these responses are getting at OP's question. The purpose of the template is to remind editors to only use the highest quality sources since these articles involve laws related to child sexual abuse and this is how it defines high quality sources:
"Where writing about legislation or other law, the appropriate statutes and similar must be cited."
(my emphasis). But as Fabrickator said, citing the actual legal code can be misleading, either because the wording might be ambiguous or because it differs in important ways from the case law, the actual authority for how the law is interpreted in the US (and plenty of other places, but I can't speak to them). I can think of a lot of potential issues with regularly citing the judicial opinion too though, like it might be hard for editors to determine the most recent, relevant case, especially when there's been more than one ruling about different aspects of the same legislation. Also, some precedents are still on the books that were set in the 1800s, which comes with its own host of problems. - Are there usually academic sources covering the judicial opinion in precedential cases? Because if it's reasonable to expect the majority of these laws will have been covered by academic sources, IMO, those would be the highest quality sources, not the actual statutes or court records. —PermStrump(talk) 21:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like Template:Age of consent pages discussion header only applies to articles about the Age of consent for sexual activity, so I'm not sure these responses are getting at OP's question. The purpose of the template is to remind editors to only use the highest quality sources since these articles involve laws related to child sexual abuse and this is how it defines high quality sources:
- TFD ... you say that secondary sources should be used because reading judicial opinions may require expertise, though the same may be said about the statutes themselves, yet the "age of consent" pages (e.g. for United States) liberally cite and quote from statutes. The difficulty of interpreting statutes is at least one reason that appellate courts wind up overturning decisions of lower courts. Requiring secondary sources instead of the statutes themselves is seemingly problematic ... because even if one finds a "reliable" mass media publication that covers this (and attempting to use sources other than mass media has its own problems), the articles in mass media publications simply are unlikely to meet the necessary quality requirements. Now the advantage of judicial opinions (at least in some cases) is that the judge has the opportunity to elaborate, and elaborate they do, because they are not limited to a certain number of column-inches. Fabrickator (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Make sure also to distinguish between age of majority and age of consent as they generally are not the same thing or number.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- The best sources are legal text books, which meet the test of reliable secondary sources. While it may seem paradoxical, generally statutes do not need expertise, or very much expertise, to be read, since legislators generally do not deliberately write ambiguity into them. But legal precedents become necessary when there is ambiguity in statutes or conflicts between them. If for example the age of consent is one age for males and another for females but it conflicts with a sex equality law, and there is a precedent, then we would want to consult a legal textbook to explain the degree to which the precedent effects interpretationn of the law. Sometimes a series of precedents are required before full clarity is obtained. In a similar situation, the case of D.C. v Heller invalidated a D.C. law on gun ownership. But the degree to which it restricts gun control laws is unknown. On the other hand, we would be fairly safe in most cases in using D.C. statutes as a source for the laws of D.C. If legislation says for example that people cannot keep pet lions without a permit, we can assume that is the law. TFD (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I wonder if the template (specifically the age of consent template, not all legal templates) should be reworded then to say that academic sources should be sought for interpretation of legislation in addition to citing the actual legal code? —PermStrump(talk) 19:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- While citing the statutes may work fine for the easy cases, these tend not to be subject to interesting legal appeals. Proposing the use of legal textbooks or academic journals is problematic, IMO, because of the limited access to such sources, assuming that such sources may be presumed to comprehensively cover such things (not having such access, I can't really say whether this is the case). OTOH, states frequently have multiple statutes (or at least multiple sections of the same statute) which interact in ways that may not be apparent to a casual reader. I suppose that what I'm really saying is that quoting statutes within the body of the article is actually counter-productive, because someone attempting to educate themselves on how the law applies is essentially left to use their own wits to figure it out. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, which implies the use of sources to provide usable articles, but it by no means implies that the "ideal" article would be comprised largely of a bunch of quotes from cited sources. Fabrickator (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- I wonder if the template (specifically the age of consent template, not all legal templates) should be reworded then to say that academic sources should be sought for interpretation of legislation in addition to citing the actual legal code? —PermStrump(talk) 19:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- The best sources are legal text books, which meet the test of reliable secondary sources. While it may seem paradoxical, generally statutes do not need expertise, or very much expertise, to be read, since legislators generally do not deliberately write ambiguity into them. But legal precedents become necessary when there is ambiguity in statutes or conflicts between them. If for example the age of consent is one age for males and another for females but it conflicts with a sex equality law, and there is a precedent, then we would want to consult a legal textbook to explain the degree to which the precedent effects interpretationn of the law. Sometimes a series of precedents are required before full clarity is obtained. In a similar situation, the case of D.C. v Heller invalidated a D.C. law on gun ownership. But the degree to which it restricts gun control laws is unknown. On the other hand, we would be fairly safe in most cases in using D.C. statutes as a source for the laws of D.C. If legislation says for example that people cannot keep pet lions without a permit, we can assume that is the law. TFD (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- To raise a different question, at least one editor has made statements to the effect that any verifiable source must actually refer to any age-based restrictions on sexual activity using the phrase "age of consent", in order for that to be a suitable source for this page. So a source describing the circumstances under which one may be subject to prosecution for consensual sex under the laws of a state may not be cited in the absence of the phrase "age of consent". I find this to be beyond the pale, that for the purpose of the "age of consent" pages, this phrase has a specialized meaning, and that is the meaning we are seeking on this page, regardless of the precise words used in statutes or other sources. So I'd appreciate any comments that may lead to a consensus on this point. Fabrickator (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The editor Calcoform added material to Harry's Place, a blog on a controversial subject (Middle East politics). He sourced these from two other minor blogs from the other side of the debate, Socialist Unity and Islamophobia Watch, to, in his own words, "correctly describe a much-criticised hate blog that is regularly used by anonymous contributors to defame named individuals". The material he added included that this blog "spread this virulent racism and Islamophobia" and "It is often used by anonymous contributors to circulate personal smears, defamatory attacks and Islamophobia". However good or bad this Harry's Place is, it does not strike me that the user is honestly attempting to be neutral on this subject. His comment on the talk page does not fill me with confidence either. These sources are only blogs, and blogs battle each other all the time. I want admins or reliable users to watch over this page and make sure that the sources are better. Calcoform's talk page shows that he has been spoken to and warned about his editing earlier this year and his contributions seem less than neutral and rather bellicose.
- No, blogs are not reliable even when they are commenting on blog sites. If a blog post is written by a reputable scholar, I would use it the same way as op-eds (WP:NEWSORG). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Lifesitenews
Currently an article from Lifesitenews.com is being used as a source in the article Homosexuality and psychology (as source 4). I suspect this is not a reliable source but I wanted to seek the opinion of others on whether it is reliable or not before removing it. Everymorning (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely unreliable for any factual information; possibly reliable for attributed opinions. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not a reliable source, especially on a page like Homosexuality and psychology. Meatsgains (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not reliable for anything to do with social issues that have religious components. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Is Breitbart.com reliable?
Nergaal (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Reliable only for opinions of notable persons cited as opinion. Collect (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say it could be used for basic, uncontroversial statements of facts. For instance, this article starts by quoting the Wall Street Journal, then says;
- "Cotton and other lawmakers, including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, have long accused the administration of paying a “ransom” to the regime, contravening long-standing U.S. practice since the days of Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Wars."
- I wouldn't be opposed to using it to support the text "Paul Ryan has been critical of the White House's dealings with Iran." That being said, there are undoubtedly better sources for that claim, so unless you're specifically trying to trim excess references, I'd still avoid using it.
- Also remember that Wikipedians have political views: while it may be okay to cite Breitbart for claim X, if that's going to cause a shitstorm of editors complaining about how unreliable Breitbart is it'd be better to cite a less controversial source. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's unreliable and, in general, not even notable. It's very loud in a very small echo chamber, but not widely known nor noticed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say it could be used for basic, uncontroversial statements of facts. For instance, this article starts by quoting the Wall Street Journal, then says;
- It's worth a look through the archives of this noticeboard. There've been a lot of discussions on Breitbart. clpo13(talk) 16:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've personally seen it pop up at least a half dozen times. In my experience, there's never been a group of editors who came to the consensus that it was a good source for anything but the opinions of those few notable figures who've written for it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Collect. No evidence or notice of editorial processes or fact-checking. A cursory library search produces no sources citing them as authoritative (or at all, really). --Laser brain (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Breitbart is probably best known for defaming and essentially ruining the life of a private citizen by posting politically motivated falsehoods about her. So I would suggest that this site should not be used for anything remotely contentious, or touching on living people. If something is notable, it should be covered by better sources and we should cite those. If something is covered only by Breitbart, then we should seriously question whether it's notable (or, for that matter, true, based on the website's track record). MastCell Talk 17:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's not at all reliable and should not be cited. It's known for publishing fringe or conspiracy theories (see here, here). It lacks all the hallmarks of reliability, i.e., strong editorial control, separation between news and opinion, a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and a willingness to issue retractions. MastCell is correct: "if something is notable, it should be covered by better sources and we should cite those. If something is covered only by Breitbart, then we should seriously question whether it's notable (or, for that matter, true)..." Neutralitytalk 19:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- It can be cited in support of attributed statements of opinion... But not for unattributed facts.
- Whether the opinion merits inclusion or not a factor of Due/Undue weight, not a matter of reliability or Verifiability. Blueboar (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- True, but given the fact that the source is widely noted for publishing scandalous falsehoods, extremist viewpoints and sensationalistic, unsupportable attacks on those it politically opposes, the opinions of its writers about living people are not likely to pass WP:FRINGE or WP:DUE. For example, I'm sure a Breitbart writer has published the "opinion" that they think Barack Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim ISIS agent in league with Iran and Venezuela, but that opinion has absolutely no place in any article about Barack Obama other than those specifically about conspiracy theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- For potentially controversial matters (especially in a BLP), absolutely not. It isn't reliably known for fact checking, reasonable editorial control, separation of fact and opinion, etc. It might in some instances be attributable when the Breitbart coverage in and of itself has come to be at issue, but if it's the only source saying something, that's really not good enough. And if there's a better source, why not use that one instead? Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Defunct website RainbowNetwork.com
I want to use this defunct website for the article James Dreyfus to verify the disputed content, now discussed at WP:BLPN. Is the website reliable? --George Ho (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- I commented at at WP:BLPN#James Dreyfus to keep the conversation in one place. —PermStrump(talk) 00:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Those celebrity worth sites
Examples:
- http://net-worths.org/al-pacino-net-worth/
- http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/actors/al-pacino-net-worth/
- http://richestnetworth.org/al-pacino-net-worth/
They all say the same thing, always. I think they are all the same owner. They are clearly lousy sources and used all over the place at Wikipedia. Isn't this a BLP vio issue? Can we find out who owns these and if there are more? Should we remove them from this project?
See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 210#therichest.com
Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- They're all registered in WHOIS to big domain registrar companies, so that's no help. I'm not sure how else to tell if they're run by the same owner. They sound sketchy even if they have different owners. Is that part important to figure out? —PermStrump(talk) 01:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi PermStrump. Thanks for checking. Well, maybe it isn't important to figure out. It is pretty obvious that, as sources, they are not reliable. I guess knowing they are all the same owner would just reinforce that.
- So, what do you think about the BLP vio issue and some sort of effort to get them out of Wikipedia?
- Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- It might be that they all draw information from one another. The dodgier sites do it all the time and there was mention in this thread about that. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that they're all owned by the same person, though. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Each and every one of them is, IMO, wertlos as a source. It is "Wikischaden" that they are used in any articles whatsoever. Collect (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- On a positive note, the etymology section of our article on Schadenfreude helped me figure out what you were saying. :) —PermStrump(talk) 20:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Britannica articles
Some of the articles in Encyclopedia Britannica do not have specific authors (such as this one) and instead we see "Written by: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica" under the title. Are those articles reliable? --Mhhossein (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- In general, yes. See here. That does not mean they are perfect, and Britannica is a tertiary source, but they should be better than most contemporary popular books. If there is more modern scholarship, I'd go with that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- With exceptions. Note the EB online edition includes edits suggested by readers, and does not use the same standards for verifiability that Wikipedia uses, and that they have accepted Wikipedia as a source for some of the suggestions (personal experience). If there is any doubt at all, find a better/stronger source. That said, a lot of "popular books" now get produced with no vetting of comments about deceased persons as the dead can not be libeled (legal status). IMO, the standards of WP:RS have fallen short of their clear intent. Collect (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, I would use Britannica only as a source of last resort. On the other hand, it is quite valuable to determine where NPOV lies in contentious areas. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Frankly, I'd avoid using the EB except for signed articles. Signed articles are the work of acknowledged experts in their fields, & can be safely assumed to be a reliable (although often out-of-date) source. Unsigned articles are created by freelancers who may have no expertise in the subject they are writing, & which after a first editorial review are routinely republished without regard for developments in the relevant field of research. (The EB makes money based on the amount of text it does not revise, so there is an incentive not to revise articles.) Before the 15th edition, many articles were reprinted with few revisions (except to abridge the article in order to make room for new articles on more popular subjects) from either the 11th edition -- or in some cases the 9th, which isn't a problem if you don't mind relying on state-of-the-art research from the 19th century. The overhaul the new format of the 15th edition required a lot of articles to be updated, which did help some, but to say the current version of any unsigned article in the EB reflects the contemporary consensus on its subject cannot withstand serious scrutiny. And sheesh, in this day & age it's not that hard to find a better source than EB on any topic, as long as one has access to a decent library & the Internet. Wikipedia would help itself a lot by systematically replacing every cite to EB with one to other reliable sources. -- llywrch (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Tertiary sources are best avoided except for the most basic information. They do not provide sources and sometimes oversimplify subjects. If there are content disputes where secondary sources provide different accounts, we can resolve them by looking a at the sources they used, determining whether they were correctly cited and seeing whether subsequent scholarship has revised accounts. But we cannot do that with tertiary sources, and could avoid a lot of edit disputes by not using them. TFD (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm with llywrch. Avoid wherever possible. Likely to be out-of-date and to present only one pov, almost always easy to find a better source. Doug Weller talk 11:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Jalopnik
I know Jalopnik is owned by Gawker Media. Gawker is not generally considered a reliable source, but may be used for opinions at times.
That said, I came across this article today: Orlove, Raphael (4 August 2016). "The Living Apostle Who Sold The Media On The Myth Of 'Ghana's First Car'". Jalopnik. Retrieved 4 August 2016.. It's written by Raphael Orlove, who is described as "staff editor for Jalopnik."
This article appears to be a work of investigative journalism the likes of which CNN and Al Jazera are unwilling to do. In it Kantanka cars are revealed to be not, as alleged elsewhere, "made in Ghana", but rather knock down kits from China. The author of the Jalopnik piece supports his assertions by citing photographic evidence of workers in Kantanka's plants who do not appear to know what they are doing, photographic evidence of the similarities of Kantanka's cars and the cars from the Chinese manufacturer, and a statement on the Chinese manufacturer's webpage that they provided the parts and factory and training to Kantanka; which is to say evidence that, were I to use it in Wikipedia, would be OR.
The article on Kantanka cars is currently quite short, and although not overtly promotional, it lacks balance.
Would other people consider this Jalopnik piece to be a reliable source for claiming that "doubt has been cast on the assertion that these cars are Ghana made, with evidence indicating that the cars may be knock down kits purchased from China?" ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- As soon as you come up with a standard legal definition for 'made'. In most countries putting together a product from component parts created elsewhere would still qualify as 'made'. But to answer your question, has any reliable source commented on this at all? Otherwise this would likely be an undue matter. We wouldnt say 'doubt has been cast' reference it to one opinion piece from a company who specialise in gossip, clickbait and controversy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm having some ongoing problems at both Kabali (film) and List of highest-grossing Indian films. Breifly, Indian films are very popular in India, but they're also very prone to promoters bloating box office financials, and Wikipedia often gets caught in the middle of these promotional campaigns. List of highest-grossing Indian films was fully protected because a bunch of editors, including auto-confirmed ones who had suddenly come out of retirement, kept changing the box office values to reflect the box office figures a producer, (a primary source) was reporting a few days after the Tamil-language film Kabali was released. The producer claimed the film had grossed 3.2 billion (320 "crore") rupees. No amount of discussion on the talk page was making a difference. Same at Kabali (film), although to a lesser degree.
With that wave of disruption mostly over, a new disruption arose after Financial Express, which is generally considered a reliable source, made claims that the film has grossed 650 crore and higher. However International Business Times, which is also generally considered reliable, has outright called these high estimates "fake", noting that they include income unrelated to the film's box office take. IBT places the more reasonable estimates at 309-350 crore (3.09-3.5 billion rupees) as has First Post, which has said, "More conservative estimates put Kabali’s collections at around Rs 300 crores from worldwide ticket sales." This is obviously less than the 320 crore that the producer was reporting a few days into the film's run.
This talk page comment of mine is a bit of an obnoxious read in response to an IP user's demand for a detailed explanation, but I think it clearly explains the various issues. If anyone is willing to comment at either that discussion, or at Talk:Kabali (film), or at both, that would be appreciated. Or just to add these pages to their watchlists to help address some of the questions would be helpful too. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, the 309-350 crore figure is currently outdated and we now have multiple sources pointing the Domestic collection as "Rs 211 Crore" and International Collection at "Rs 259 Crore", which brings the world wide theater collections at atleast 470 Crores. . Yes, Tamil Nadu government has a cap on ticket sales at Rs 120 per ticket hence the domestic is lesser than the international. Indiatimes, The Financial Express, BoxOfficeCollection-India, Galaxy Reporter and Bollywood Box Office Collection. So i think we can move on from Rs 350 Crore to Rs 470 Crore until a more updated figure is available. Thanks. --Pearll's SunTALK 03:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- pearll's sun - And I don't think we can, since the values that were put out by Financial Express drew skepticism by Firstpost and IBT. They didn't just question the values, they criticized the lack of research behind the values. If other members of the media are criticizing a publication for not doing research, why would you assume that the rest of their report would be factual? When you can find values from established reliable sources that do not originate from Financial Express, then perhaps we can move ahead. But for days now you've been citing the same problematic references, or (as above) citing publications that are referring to these problematic references. As for your inclusion of galaxyreporter and boxofficecollection.in, no dice on those as far as sourcing goes. I'm not even going to look at them. I know from past experiences that these are faceless blogs, which fails WP:UGC. You seem to be a real hurry to update the box office data using the most questionable sources out there, and that is problematic. I've explained several times at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films that we have no deadline, but you seem to keep conveniently ignoring it. You also seem to have ignored my points that Indian cinema articles are prone to corrupt inflations. If you were interested in academic integrity, now would be the time to demonstrate that, rather than deciding of your own accord that now's the time to fluff up the disputed box office values. I'm perfectly fine with the compromise of removing the box office data for Kabali entirely from that article and from Kabali (film) until multiple sources report independently of Financial Express what the gross values are, but somehow I strongly doubt you're interested in a compromise. As noted, the only thing we know for sure is that the film has crossed 350 crore. We do not know for sure if the 470 crore estimates are close to what the rest of the film analysts think. I'm proposing caution and circumspection with time determining what value should be used, you're proposing we rush to publish what one periodical thinks, apparently with no regard for whether or not we'd be republishing bullshit marketing hype. Yours is not the sound position. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Cyphoidbomb. Perfect, Why publish a wrong figure or publish a disputed/inflated one? Removing the box office data entirely from the article claiming it to be "disputed" sounds like the best way to keep off false figures from the article. Also when we check google, it seems to reflect wiki and shows a wrong value. But on the "Highest Grossing Indian Films", can we say its around 350 - 470 Crore or 350 - 650 Crore and call it disputed?. Let's not fix a value by ourselves. Thanks. --Pearll's SunTALK 04:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I would remove the gross from List of Highest-grossing Indian films and from the Infobox at Kabali, with the latter maybe pointing to a relevant section in the article that discusses the disparity, maybe with "Disputed, see Box office". An option for the former article might be to present the gross in the form of a range as I previously did, and as you suggested above, but to flag it as disputed with {{disputed inline}}, linking to a relevant discussion on the talk page (see template instructions). I don't have time to do this now, so if you want to handle both, I'll trust your judgement. Whatever you do, you might want to link to this discussion in your edit summary. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a bit biased but when real reliable sources say that the 600 and above range is complete rubbish and anonymous blogs are cited as the exact kind of thing that the reliable sources consider quoting the rubbish, using the anonymous blogs as evidence for a mid-level claim. I'd rather keep a week-old citation and then we can figure out whether or not than a poorly sourced recent one. As noted, our policy is that badly sourced information is worse than no information at all and being conservative is better than claiming things like "this moves from the 14th highest Indian film gross of all time to 6th" and possibly retracting that entire claim. This is no small claim. Just to make sure it's clear, a number that is literally tens of millions of dollars more as we are moving from 350 crore (about $52.6 million) to 470 crore ($70.6 million). A difference of 120 crore which is equivalent to $18 million or basically what the third US box office results were in their entirety this weekend. I know one huge problem is that the Indian film task force has not really analyzed these websites (in part because a new one seems to pop up every few months) and we tend to take the "accept it unless evidence is to the contrary" approach instead of WP:BURDEN the reverse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The Daily Dot
There's a debate over whether The Daily Dot is a reliable source in this DRV of MonteCristo. Any outside opinions on the matter would be welcome.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- It depends on what you're using it to support. I would consider it fine for internet culture and associated topics. I've cited it a few times in articles about YouTube celebrities. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Do you think their coverage on eSports [3] is reliable judged on the content and staff [4]?--Prisencolin (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Again, it depends on the specific statement and source. This article says the following at the bottom:
This article is sponsored by Ethos. Want to get involved and help shape the future of Ethos? Head to www.ethos.gg and join the discussion, and back the Ethos Indiegogo campaign.
I would be highly skeptical of sponsored articles like that. But this article would probably help to establish notability for the player. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Again, it depends on the specific statement and source. This article says the following at the bottom:
- Do you think their coverage on eSports [3] is reliable judged on the content and staff [4]?--Prisencolin (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
24 heures and 20 minutes
Dear editors: I am working on a draft, Draft:Balelec Festival. A lot of the references that I am finding are from 24 heures and 20 minutes. Are these reliable independent sources? My French is not very good. I asked at Wikiproject Festivals, but received no reply.—Anne Delong (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- At first glance, 24hueres seems reliable but 20mn does not however, I don't speak French so additional feedback is needed. Meatsgains (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- I would agree with your assessment of 24 heures. It is an established newspaper with a long history and the highest (paid) circulation in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. See 24 heures (Switzerland). 20 minutes is a free newspaper 20 minutes (Switzerland) that is owned by the same company, Tamedia. Per the German wikipedia, 20 minutes publishes "sponsored content", but identifies it as such. For the article on the Balelec festival, both sources can be considered reliable IMO. Mduvekot (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Meatsgains and Mduvekot. Assured that the draft has some reliable sources, I've moved it to mainspace.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- I would agree with your assessment of 24 heures. It is an established newspaper with a long history and the highest (paid) circulation in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. See 24 heures (Switzerland). 20 minutes is a free newspaper 20 minutes (Switzerland) that is owned by the same company, Tamedia. Per the German wikipedia, 20 minutes publishes "sponsored content", but identifies it as such. For the article on the Balelec festival, both sources can be considered reliable IMO. Mduvekot (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Vision Forum is a religious organization that closed after its leader resigned in a scandal. The Vision Forum website used to host a lot of information, but it's now just a single web page with a few posts about the resignation. When it was up and functioning, one page on the site explained the basic tenets of something called Biblical patriarchy. That info is no longer on the page. But a Christian blog has posted a .pdf of the page, obtained through the Internet Archive's Way Back Machine. One editor replaced the no-longer-useful link with a link to the .pdf. Another deleted it, saying "blog sourced is the same as unsourced". So now we're back to using the old link, tagged as unverified. Here's the diff.
In my view, the .pdf source, as an archive of the original page, is reliable source for the tenets of Vision Forum. But I'm not sure enough of the matter to revert. Other opinions would be welcome. There's a thread on the Vision Forum talk page. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- If it was indexed by archive.org, why don't we use that? Am I missing something here? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm embarrassed to say that I do not know how to link directly to archive.org. I was pretty impressed that my colleague found the .pdf on the 3rd party site. If you know how to link directly to the archive.org page that backs this up, I'd be much obliged if you'd insert it. I promise to review it and, the next time I go this route, I'll follow your model. David in DC (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- I tried it, and I ran into ye old robots.txt problem (apparently, if a sites robots.txt says that the information is not to be duplicated, archive.org will assume that archiving it is illegal, and retroactively apply that to older versions of the page, as well). Sorry. I tried google's cache, too, but all I could get was a cached version of that same blog-post pdf. Honestly, if you can convince the other editors to permit it, then it would be fine (WP is ruled by consensus), because there's no real reason to believe the blog would have altered the original before making the pdf. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's always a drag when you get that. Well, I did a search on Google Books, and there was a surprising amount of coverage. I couldn't find one that explicitly listed all the principles, but there were a few that briefly summarized them. If the consensus is to reject the blog source, maybe one of those books could be used. The search string I used was "The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- I tried it, and I ran into ye old robots.txt problem (apparently, if a sites robots.txt says that the information is not to be duplicated, archive.org will assume that archiving it is illegal, and retroactively apply that to older versions of the page, as well). Sorry. I tried google's cache, too, but all I could get was a cached version of that same blog-post pdf. Honestly, if you can convince the other editors to permit it, then it would be fine (WP is ruled by consensus), because there's no real reason to believe the blog would have altered the original before making the pdf. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm embarrassed to say that I do not know how to link directly to archive.org. I was pretty impressed that my colleague found the .pdf on the 3rd party site. If you know how to link directly to the archive.org page that backs this up, I'd be much obliged if you'd insert it. I promise to review it and, the next time I go this route, I'll follow your model. David in DC (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Oscholars.com
Count de Mauny uses this site [5] as a source for a number of claims. The actual source, however, appears to be "Count De Mauny: Friend of Royalty by Seweryn Chomet . Published by "Newman-Hemisphere".
That publisher appears to have published a total of two books [6] both by the same author. Is such a book (which I rather think is self-published, as most actual publishers do not issue a total of two books, each of them by the same author), a "reliable source" for the biography where it is used?
The prose in that biography appears a tad florid, but use of an SPS seems, to me, to be a problem here. Collect (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- There's almost nothing on Worldcat.org for Newman-Hemisphere, but Google Books has some hits. Seweryn Chomet has a Wikipedia article, but it's mostly unsourced. According to our biography, Chomet mostly translated Russian scientific journals to English, which might explain why it's difficult to dig up information on the publisher. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
ESPN article
Is this article from ESPN considered a reliable source or an op-ed?--Prisencolin (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Sports columns" are an area where fact and opinion meld, and have been so since before Bat Masterson was a sportswriter. As far as I know, no one has ever been able to divorce the two pieces. Best to take anything which remotely looks like opinion and to treat it as such even in an ostensible "news" article. Collect (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
citizenwells.net
In Suicide of Vince Foster#Allegations_of_cover-up_by_lead_investigator there are two sources to support a claim that concern me:
- wnd.com - known not to be a WP:RS
- citizenwells.net - first time I recall this site being used as a source. Looking at the article used as a source, it quotes wnd.com, which makes me doubt its' reliability and a few clicks led to this piece questioning President Obamas' birth cert.
There appear to be no discussions of citizenwells.net in the noticeboard yet, but I presume I'm OK to assume it's not a reliable source? Autarch (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- They are both terrible, plainly unreliable sources that should be removed on sight. Neutralitytalk 01:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Maya
There is a discussion, or rather close to an edit war, on Talk:Maya_(illusion) whether etymology of the Sanskrit word maya can be sourced to a sociology/philosophy book by some Pintchman. One editor, Ms Sarah Welch, keeps inserting the reference, arguing that since Pintchman is currently a professor and the book is published, it can be used on Wikipedia, and by removing the reference I "attack professors".[7] While I argue that Pintchman's book is on sociology - precisely, on certain religious concepts in Hinduism - and not on linguistics; Pintchman is a professor of religious studies who in her own admission[8] learned the Sanskrit language barely for 2.5 years; she only mentions the etymology en passant, when proposing a theory of a Hindu Goddess, in this WP:PRIMARY publication; and a reference to another book proposing this etymology (by Jan Gonda) is sufficient on Wikipedia. However, my argument seems to fall on deaf ears.
The discussion also takes place in a wider context, perhaps less relevant to this noticeboard, of existing teories on the etymology of the word maya (well, that's not a terribly wide context). Ms Sarah Welch keeps highlighting (not to say, promoting) original theories of religion by Jan Gonda (not a linguist, either - but in Hindu traditions, language and religion are strongly interconnected); whilst I try to present existing theories equally and list them in chronological order in the article.[9] Unfortunately, because anonther editor apparently totally unfanmiliar with the subject of Indian studies (RexxS) has joined in doing reverts and attacking me, I decided to ask for a third opinion on sourcing. Thanks for any remarks you may have. — kashmiri TALK 06:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- In the above submission on RSN, @Kashmiri has questioned the competence/behavior of @RexxS and me, but not provided the link to the source whose reliability apparently in question. Here it is: Pintchman's book (pages 3-4). It was published by State University of New York Press. This specific book has been reviewed by scholars in peer reviewed journals, such as:
- [1] David Gordon White (1996), The Journal of the American Oriental Society, 116(2), pp. 356-358;
- [2] Lou Ratté (1997), International Journal of Hindu Studies, 1(1), pp. 211-213.
- David Gordon White in his review writes, "Tracy Pintchman (...) fills a long-standing gap in Western writing and research on the Goddess, (...) in special relation to the three cosmic principles of prakrti, maya, and sakti. This work will no doubt become the reference work on the subject, as well as a useful tool for teaching on undergraduate and graduate levels." Lou Ratté review is similarly positive, and mentions Pintchman's discussion of "prakrti, maya, and sakti". Pintchman is a professor in the subject, and she is respected in the field of Hinduism/Indian religions as these reviews suggest. Based on a combination of all this, I respectfully submit that the source is reliable, a secondary source on maya-related etymology/terminology context, as it is being used in the article (Maya (illusion)). I further submit that a read of the book amply show that @Kashmiri is falsely alleging the nature of the book, like much else.
- This is not a new issue. In January 2016, @Kashmiri questioned, then attacked the "competence and speculations" of Jan Gonda with "can't even believe a scholar of Sanskrit would have published such a thing". @Kashmiri then argued Gonda is a sole/primary source, and we need more sources to establish this is mainstream view, is now flipflop lecturing above that "another book proposing this etymology (by Jan Gonda) is sufficient on Wikipedia". As in months gone by, now @Kashmiri is lecturing @RexxS about WP:Primary again. This is not a reliable sources issue, it feels more like a behavioral issue on @Kashmiri's part, persistent disruption through deletion of content and scholarly sources, and WP:TE since January 2016 despite comments and cautions by editors and an admin, other than @RexxS and me on this (see edit history here and here). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- A couple of things - yes, generally you do need more than one source to establish a 'mainstream' view, otherwise it is just one (reliable or not no comment) person's opinion. If there are dissenting/different views, then again more sources are required to establish what the mainstream is. If there are no dissenting or no other sources, then it should be presented as the opinion of the expert rather than 'this is the definitive answer'. Secondly - I would not use a non-linguistics expert as a source to verify a words etymology - where other sources are available from linguistic experts. If there are no dissenting or better sources available, then you work with what you have. I would say from looking at the diffs back and forth, this does seem to be an area where there is disagreement. It is not great to have in an encyclopedia article 'Maya is probably...' when there are multiple theories RE the origin. (Saying the above, from looking at Jan Gonda's article, I cannot see why they would not be considered qualified enough to have an opinion and be referenced on the subject, but I can see the argument behind Pintchman) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Only in death does duty end: Jan Gonda is known for his linguistics work. Tracy Pintchman reviews and states the past scholarship on Maya-related etymology-terminology among other things, on pages 3-4 (her publication is an example that Gonda's study is accepted by other scholars). That section of the article has multiple sources. I agree, we should retain the multiple sources, not delete them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Only in death: Thanks for your balanced view. Let me point out that Ms Sarah Welch has shamelessly manipulated my words - where I asserted that "I can't even believe a scholar of Sanskrit would have published such a thing", I was absolutely correct - this was about a (linguistically absurd) idea that maya is a combination of two verbal roots ma + ya, which Ms Welch attributed to Gonda and defended fiercely but which, as it turned out, wasn't actually even mentioned in Gonda's book. Reluctantly and after lots of fighting, Ms Welch allowed the statement to be removed from the article, as you can see now. To be fair to her, as a former Sanskrit scholar, I am more than familiar with a belief among many newbies to ancient Indian literature that whatever is printed is holy, is sacred and should be revered much like the Vedas.
- For a similar reason, I removed Zimmer's primary study that Ms Welch tried to add as a source to whatever, seemingly forgetting about WP:BRD that she earlier kept repeating ad nauseam. I do not see any value that this work from the philosophy of language could add to the Etymology section (which should, or must, adopt linguistical approach and not a philosophical one); while of course it may be cited in other parts of the article. Hope this clarifies, although I admit I grew tired of Ms Welch's attacks. — kashmiri TALK 20:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- A couple of things - yes, generally you do need more than one source to establish a 'mainstream' view, otherwise it is just one (reliable or not no comment) person's opinion. If there are dissenting/different views, then again more sources are required to establish what the mainstream is. If there are no dissenting or no other sources, then it should be presented as the opinion of the expert rather than 'this is the definitive answer'. Secondly - I would not use a non-linguistics expert as a source to verify a words etymology - where other sources are available from linguistic experts. If there are no dissenting or better sources available, then you work with what you have. I would say from looking at the diffs back and forth, this does seem to be an area where there is disagreement. It is not great to have in an encyclopedia article 'Maya is probably...' when there are multiple theories RE the origin. (Saying the above, from looking at Jan Gonda's article, I cannot see why they would not be considered qualified enough to have an opinion and be referenced on the subject, but I can see the argument behind Pintchman) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Maya currently has a section Etymology and terminology. The present article contains references to half-a-dozen different opinions on the etymology of the word. The sources include two books published by State University of New York Press and two published by Motilal Banarsidass, all of which Kashmiri is trying to remove from the article. The purpose of this notice board is to garner other opinions on whether a particular source is a reliable source in a given context. The source in question that opinions are sought on is:
- Tracy Pintchman (1994), The Rise of the Goddess in the Hindu Tradition, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791421123, pages 3-4;
for the statement "Māyā (Sanskrit: माया) is a word with unclear etymology, probably comes from the root mā"
. So is it a WP:Reliable source? according to WP:NOR ("In general, the most reliable sources are: Peer-reviewed journals; Books published by university presses; University-level textbooks; Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and Mainstream newspapers."), it is.
@Only in death: If others also wish to offer their opinions of whether the source should be included or not, per WP:DUE, then please consider WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." There are another three sources that also support Pintchman's view:
- Jan Gonda, Four studies in the language of the Veda, Disputationes Rheno-Traiectinae (1959), pages 119-188
- Donald Braue (2006), Maya in Radhakrishnan's Thought: Six Meanings other than Illusion, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120822979, page 101, Quote: "Etymologically, the term māyā is derived from the Sanskrit verbal root mā (...) Whitney says the primary meaning of √mā is 'to measure'. L Thomas O'Neil agrees in his helpful exposition of the ways and contexts in which māyā is used in the Rigvedic tradition."
- Adrian Snodgrass (1992). The Symbolism of the Stupa. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 29. ISBN 978-81-208-0781-5.
Quote: The word māyā comes from the same root mā, "to measure", as does mātra, "measure", which in turn is etymologically linked to the Latin materia, from which our word "matter" derives. Materia not only relates to mater, "mother" and to matrix, but also to metiri, "to measure, to lay out (a place)", (...)
I believe that anyone reading the current section Maya #Etymology and terminology is "representing fairly, proportionately, and ... without editorial bias ... the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" as required by our policy. --RexxS (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)