Talk:List of Brazilian Jews

message: Oscar Niemeyer: I have noted that there seem to be conflicting sources.  It is of course quite possible that he is of mixed ancestry, or Jewish ancestry but converted.  As always, WP:V requires us to cite what the sources say and not indulge in original research.--Brownlee 13:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the source that says he's Catholic is from his own interview, and the source that says hes Jewish looks less than reliable. Why not contact the people who made that page and ask if its possible they are wrong? Or ask where they get their information? 72.153.53.100 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not censored; I am merely reporting what a source says. The original research is to say that because he was Catholic, he could not have been Jewish; plenty of people are Jewish by descent and Catholic by religion. I am not weighing one source more than another, but reporting both. If you feel that there is a need for a List of Brazilian Catholics, please start one.--Brownlee 22:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I e-mailed them but they have not replied. I am advised that where there are conflicting sources, the correct procedure is to cite both. Any attempt to reconcile these sources is original reaearch.--Brownlee 10:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is a simple way to prove that this page qualifies as an "unreliable source" and thus should not be given dominance to any other sources enough so to keep Niemeyer listed.
The following is all from WP:RS used in evaluating .
*Reliable sources tend to state explicitly who their sources are. Thus quotes with attribution are more reliable than "anonymous sources," particularly when anonymous sources are speaking towards their own interests.
*In general it is preferable to cite the original source for an assertion, as well as important confirming sources. It is generally preferable to cite reliable sources over less reliable sources when given a choice.
*A source is more reliable within its area of expertise than out of its area of expertise.
:NOTE: The Jewishness of anyone including Oscar Niemeyer is not the speciality of Jewish Brazil - rather the Jewish culture and travel is, as can be explicitly seen on the sites main page. 72.144.172.206 03:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting we need to find a source that calls 'Jewish Brazil' an unreliable source? ;) You know I have a link to a forum that calls Oscar Niemeyer "gay." Despite WP:RS saying forums are not reliable source, since I cant find a source online that calls that forum an "unreliable soure," I better promptly add him to :Category:LGBT people from Brazil, because otherwise we're censoring wikipedia! 72.144.183.128 04:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am saying that you call the source unreliable because of your subjective interpretation of the criteria, which is not the same as having evidence that it is unreliable; my interpretation, surely no less valid than yours, is that it is reliable.--Brownlee 12:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nobody is giving dominance to one source over another. The evidence is quoted, and readers are free to make up their own minds. It would be wrong to censor Wikipedia by excluding evidence every time there is a doubt. As to the reliability of the site, it begs the question to assert that those behind it (who may well be Brazilian Jews) lack expertise in knowing which other Brazilians are Jewish.--20.138.246.89 14:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying the average Irish citizen knows as much about Oscar Wilde as an Oscar Wilde biographer? No. Jewish Brazil is not an expert on Oscar Niemeyer or any other Brazilian. 72.144.183.128 04:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can have personal expertise regarding Jewish Brazilians, including you or me, doesn't matter. Its still a fact that the website Jewish Brazil is not a site devoted to Oscar Niemeyer or even telling us trivia on who or whos not Jewish. But why dwell on that point anyway? It's one point amongst many. From WP:RS "Editors have to evaluate sources and decide which are the most reliable and authoritative." We are allowed to and should evaluate source. From WP:RS A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Meaning, websites like Jinfo, unless they make citations, are not acceptable as sources. Most importantly, Reports by anonymous individuals, or those without a track record of publication to judge their reliability, do not warrant citation at all, until such time as it is clear that the report has gained cachet, in which case it can be noted as a POV. Jewish Brazil. Point is, anybody can get a domain name online and write anything they want (or are uninformed about) and then sign their name without making citations for their claims. Anyway, I would never trust a page where "connection" and "planned" are not spelled correctly as it shows nobody double checks it, but my opinion doesn't matter. I wouldn't use his interview as a source to add :Category:Roman Catholics to his article because he doesn't explicitly state he is Catholic. He could be an atheist, Mormon whatever...we don't know. Furthermore there is no reason to add to his article that he is from a Catholic family, though this would be acceptable because he said it himself. 72.144.60.159 11:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no objective evidence that this source fails WP:RS, only the subjective belief of one editor. By his arguments, most official British Government web sites would also fail WP:RS. Anon fails to explain why his beliefs are more valid than the opinions of other editors. However, I have added a second source.--Brownlee 12:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable Source?

message: Honestly, some of the "citation needed" tags on in this article are a joke. Who in Brazil doesn't know that Daniel Azulay is Jewish? Are people going to ask for citation for the claims that Albert Einstein was Jewish as well? Or perhaps do people need citations for the claims that Winston Churchill was Brittish? --Pinnecco (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "citation needed"? 

message: Anyone who opposes this. Speak here and explain why. Bulldog123 19:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus for such a merge; the many similar merges engaged in today without any prior discussion have been disruptive, as there was no rationale provided nor consensus generated for such. Badagnani (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

text: There is no consensus for such a merge. Badagnani (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No rationale has been given for a merge so it is entirely moot. Occuli (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Upmerging to [[List of Latin American Jews]]