Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. See the dashboard for an expanded listing.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
Shortcuts:
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Click here to start a new discussion
Search this noticeboard & archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201

Discogs[edit]

Can Discogs be used for album credits, track length ect on an albums page as a RS?Teddy2Gloves(talk)(contribs) 22:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Officially no, I think, as no "editorial oversight". But you could also try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. Or search the archives here for previous discussions. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@Teddy2Gloves: Discogs is covered by WP:UGC (user-generated content). Thus it's not a reliable source, but I think there's a sense that it can be used for a limited amount of non-controversial details (e.g. basic album metadata). However, it should never be used to add contentious sources and can always be trumped by other, better sources where conflicts occur. If the material it is used to add is challenged in good faith, it should likewise typically be removed if another source cannot be found. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

GSL lead section[edit]

  • Original Source; [1]
  • Source in question; [2]
  • Content;...

Original Diff/Edit [3] "The term refers to the fact that, 'Any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.'"

Most recent Diff/Edit [4] "The term refers to the viewpoint that there is an inadequacy in federal law, under which '[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms'."

My concern is that the ATF source [5] isn't specifically referencing, nor does it mention, GSL, and the "ATF top ten FAQ" feels a bit inappropriate in it's capacity as an RS in this context for the lead in this article. Darknipples (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

In addition, the original source (which was removed/excluded) [6] contains this reference, originally used in the GSL article lead. "The perceived gap in the law is the source of a commonly used, albeit somewhat flawed term — “the gun-show loophole.” Darknipples (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Darknipples, ATF basically can't call it a "loophole" because "loophole" is such a loaded/biased term. The source refers to the concept (private sellers selling things without recordkeeping or background checks), which is as close as we're ever going to get with some sources. It's like a biased (but still reliable) source calling the American Civil War "the War of Northern/Southern Aggression" (except in this case Wikipedia is the one using the biased term because it's the WP:COMMONNAME). Just because the term doesn't appear in a source doesn't mean the source doesn't discuss the concept (though of course it's going to be a bit more confusing/challenging to work with). That being said, I don't yet have an opinion on which lead is better. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Even if it is true the "ATF basically can't call it a "loophole" because "loophole" is such a loaded/biased term", I don't think we should "interpret" it (verbatim or not) in the GSL article to say what the source in question only "suggests". It is reminiscent of WP:SYNTH. Using the term "he" for example suggests it only refers men. It seems inappropriate that it should be in the LEAD in this context. Not to mention this source is already used in the lead in an entirely more appropriate context, referring to;
  • "Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, record the sale, or ask for identification. Federal law prohibits private individuals from selling a firearm to a resident of another state, or anyone they have reason to believe is prohibited from owning a firearm"
To insert this type of content twice in the lead is redundant. Darknipples (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This is on the wrong board. This is a content dispute not a question of reliability. J8079s (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Freiewelt.net[edit]

There is some disagreement over at Men Going Their Own Way (on talk page at 1 and 2) about the use of freiewelt.net as a source. Below is the statement and reference in question. Is this source a reliable source for this statement? (Note: I don't have any stake in this, I'm just sick of the bickering about it)

The German periodical Freie Welt compared MGTOW to the trend of Herbivore men in Japan and the overall decline of American men choosing to become married as described in Helen Smith's book, Men on Strike.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Feminismusdebatte: „Men On Strike“". Freie Welt (in German). 2015-03-05. Retrieved 2016-01-08. Das Phänomen MGTOW lässt sich in Europa und der gesamten englischsprachigen Welt beobachten. Das japanische bzw. ostasiatische Pendant dazu sind die „Herbivore Men“. In Japan trägt dieser Trend erheblich zum Bevölkerungsschwund bei.... Eine neues Buch zu diesem Thema ist von der US-amerikanischen Psychologin Dr. Helen Smith unter dem Titel „Men On Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – And Why It Matters“ (Encounter Books: New York 2013) erschienen. 

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 09:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

FreieWelt.net is not an appropriate source for an article that is WP:FRINGE. It’s a partisan website that promotes an extremist* agenda and also appears to be a blog with little or no editorial oversight or fact checking. The argument being used in favor of including this source is based on WP:BIASED: “Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.” But this source is being used to support a contentious claim (MGTOWs are comparable to Japanese herbivore men) that has not been made by a single reliable independent source and lends undue weight to an exceptional claim in an article about a fringe view. These are just some the policies that preclude using FreieWelt.net as non-neutral source in this context:
  • WP:QUESTIONABLE: Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist...Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.
  • WP:ONEWAY: Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.
It’s hypothetically possible that Freie Welt could have a limited, appropriate use as a non-neutral source on MGTOWs, but it cannot be used to connect MGTOWs with other topics since similar views have not been expressed by any independent reliable sources “in a serious and prominent way.” I've only seen the comparison made between MGTOW and herbivore men in questionable and primary sources, most of which are self-published, usergenerated and/or biased (AKA not exceptional sources).
*I changed my wording from saying Freie Welt promotes a "specific agenda" to "extremist agenda" to be more precise about why exactly I don't think it's an appropriate source for this context. I believe that this extremist viewpoint is promoted throughout the whole Freie Welt website, not just the entry being debated for MGTOW's article, although I'm not sure if that's relevant to this discussion. IMHO "right-wing" doesn't accurately describe Freie Welt's agenda, which is why I'm deliberately not using that term. (I added the last few things to address Scarpy's questions from TALK:Men Going Their Own Way.)
One more thing re:Freie Welt's reference to MGTOW and Helen Smith's book, Men on Strike,... The phrases "Men going their own way" and "MGTOW" don't get any hits in a text search of that book. Helen Smith also presents a biased, fringe view. Freie Welt should not be used as a stand-alone source to connect Men on Strike with MGTOW for all of the same reasons mentioned above re:herbivore men. Permstrump (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
At first glance Die Freie Welt appears to be an online news website with authored articles,comparable to the Huffington Post. I don't think it's reasonable to characterise it as a whole as having a specific extremist agenda. Rather there is one article on this topic making the links which you object to. I may be missing something but the suggestion that these phenomena may be related doesn't seem to be critical or negative. To my mind the main issue here is WP:UNDUE, but since there is relatively little discussion of the topic I would include a short neutral statement cited to the author. Martinlc (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussing this with @Permstrump: on the MGTOW talk page my three concerns were (1) that when discussing the the "source" we should distinguish whether were discussing the specific article on it vs the publication as a whole (as I'm not seeing anything specifically WP:FRINGE in that article) and (2) further that if we're going to characterize a source in any sense as biased/fringe/extreme we need to have better evidence for such claims (I haven't seen much presented so far) and (3) lastly that the information cited from the specific article on Freie Welt is specific non-contentious expository information about MGTOW and regardless of any overall bias in the publication, it's not reflected in the information supported by it in the MGTOW article. For this discussion I would only add that characterizations of Men on Strike as biased/fringe/extreme need to be supported with evidence as well. - Scarpy (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Looking now, there are other sources making the comparison to Herbivore Men Vice (also cited in the MGTOW article), and a Lithuanian source (just found this, haven't done any checking). But in both cases they seem serious and prominent enough. - Scarpy (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
"Freie Welt" is definitely a fringe publication with an extreme editorial bias and questionable to non-existent fact-checking. It seems to mostly regurgitate Alternative for Germany talking point, with no separation between news and opinion. Not WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Good to hear from a native. - Scarpy (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Contentiousness of comparing MGTOW to Herbivore Men[edit]

@Permstrump: I'm in agreement now that Freie Welt a biased source, so it would seem the only disagreement is how contentious it is to compare MGTOW to herbivore men. Just going from the first sentence in the Wikipedia article on herbivore men (e.g. they are "...men who have no interest in getting married or finding a girlfriend") in that regard both groups are virtually identical. On the other hand, I can see a few subtle differences. For example some self-published MGTOW sources discuss having short-term relationships (e.g. which would entail finding a girlfriend) and it could be argued that the phenomenon of herbivore men is more emergent based on socioeconomic changes (the same could be said about the decreasing trend in marriage in America) where as MGTOW is more deliberate. That being said, there are still obvious similarities between them. Would you still have an objection to these comparisons if the similarities and differences where explained in a less ambiguous way? - Scarpy (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There has been some other discussion of this here: Talk:Men_Going_Their_Own_Way#Edits_in_the_spirit_of_compromised_offered_on_RSN. - Scarpy (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources not used for citations in MILHIST articles[edit]

There are a number of military history/biography articles that list sources either in Further reading or in References that are not used for citations. I'm seeking input on whether they should be kept or removed.

Author: Gordon Williamson

Article: Herbert Otto Gille

Book in question:

Williamson is considered an "admirer" of Waffen-SS, who "sought to restore [its] tarnished reputation in the West and reiterate its superb fighting qualities by letting the veterans tell their stories. The results are predictably positive." [1]. Cited to: MacKenzie, S.P. (2014). Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era: A Revisionist Approach. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415867771. 

Author: Karl Alman, aka Franz Kurowski

Articles: Adelbert Schulz; Hans-Detloff von Cossel; Hermann Bix; Hermann Hoth

Books in question:

  • Alman, Karl (2008). Panzer vor - Die dramtische Geschichte der deutschen Panzerwaffe und ihre tapferen Soldaten (in German). Würzburg, Germany: Flechsig Verlag. ISBN 978-3-88189-638-2.
  • Kurowski, Franz (2004). Panzer Aces: German Tank Commanders of WWII. Mechanicsburg PA, USA.StackPole Books. ISBN 0-8117-3173-1.

Karl Alman is a pseudonym of Franz Kurowski; the translated title of the 1st book is Panzers: The dramatic history of German armored forces and their brave soldiers.

In their work The myth of the Eastern Front: the Nazi-Soviet war in American popular culture, historians Smelser and Davies characterize Kurowski as a leading "guru" (gurus, in their definition, are "authors popular among the readers who romanticize the German army and, in particular, the Waffen-SS"). Franz Kurowski, a veteran of the Eastern front, saw his two major works released in the U.S. in 1992 (Panzer Aces and 1994 (Infantry Aces). Smelser & Davis write:[2]

Kurowski, like all true gurus, ignores the charges of serious misdeeds leveled against the German military and provides a heroic context for the men he describes in his many works.... [He] gives the readers an almost heroic version of the German soldier, guiltless of any war crimes, actually incapable of such behavior... Sacrifice and humility are his hallmarks. Their actions win them medals, badges and promotions, yet they remain indifferent to these awards.

Kurowski's accounts are "laudatory texts that cast the German soldier in an extraordinarily favorable light", they conclude.[3]

Also see: Kurowski on De Wikipedia

(Citations are from Smelser, Ronald; Davies, Edward J. (2008). The myth of the Eastern Front: the Nazi-Soviet war in American popular culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521833653. )

Author: Günther Fraschka

Article: Herbert Otto Gille

Book in question:

  • Fraschka, Günther (1994). Knights of the Reich. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Military/Aviation History. ISBN 978-0-88740-580-8. 

I don't have a secondary source for Knights of the Reich but I believe some original research is permitted when evaluating sources for inclusion. Title speaks for itself (IMO), but here's an Amazon review:

That Gunther Fraschka is a hero worshipper, not a biographer and certainly not a scholar, is painfully evident in this collection of sketches purporting to commemorate the deeds of Hitler's greatest heroes. Worse, his writing style is atrocious (or Johnston's translation is), consisting of prose more appropriate to a high-school essay than a serious study of the essence of heroism.

Author: Florian Berger

Article: Hermann Hoth

Book in question:

  • Berger, Florian (1999). Mit Eichenlaub und Schwertern. Die höchstdekorierten Soldaten des Zweiten Weltkrieges [With Oak Leaves and Swords. The Highest Decorated Soldiers of the Second World War] (in German). Vienna, Austria: Selbstverlag Florian Berger. ISBN 978-3-9501307-0-6. 

I don't have access to the book, but here's a sample of his writing in Face of Courage, The: The 98 Men Who Received the Knight's Cross and the Close-Combat Clasp in Gold: link. The tone and the narrative does not sound like that of an objective, reputable historian.

References

  1. ^ Mackenzie 2011, pp. 140.
  2. ^ Smelser & Davies 2008, pp. 173–178.
  3. ^ Smelser & Davies 2008, p. 251.

I therefore question the inclusion of the works by these authors in the bibliography as biased and not written by reputable historians.

More, they serve no purpose in the articles as they are not used for citations.

Per WP:MILMOS:

Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. (Emphasis mine)

I earlier had two separate discussions on this topic on other (separate) articles, where the issue was resolved quickly. Here are the discussions in question:

Disagreements arose as to whether keep the books I listed (and similar) in several other articles (above), so I'm seeking further input in this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have the time to check all of these. But "Selbstverlag Florian Berger" means "Self-published by Florian Berger", the author, so WP:SELFPUB applies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Are Google Scholar and NASA ADS h indexes reliable sources for a BLP?[edit]

They are being used, as raw data, at Michael Efroimsky. I didn't think we normally include these, although perhaps as I can't find anything discussing him they might be intended to show notability. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say no. People use GS simply because it's easier than Web of Science. But it has some well known problems. On the one hand, it tends to lack coverage in journals that aren't available electronically; on the other, it includes lots of citations in gray-literature sources such as tech reports or conference proceedings. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Well, Google Scholars h-index is usually significantly inflated compared to e.g. the Web of Science h-index. On the other hand, it reflects practice in e.g. computer science (where we rarely write journal articles but have seriously peer-reviewed conferences) better than WoS. I've increasingly seen the Google h-index used in resumes, but rarely in independent discussions. As for reliability: In an absolute sense, the value is not reliable (Google is far from perfect in matching articles to authors), but with attribution to Google scholar, it should be ok. I'm less sure about notability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
It's one thing to discuss a scholar's h-index ratings on the article's talk page, or in an AFD discussion (should it come to that)... but to actually highlight them in the scholar's bio article seems UNDUE to me. Better to discuss what earned him the rating... rather than the rating itself. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for input: Overtime Politics RfC[edit]

Input would be appreciated on an RfC on the inclusion of Overtime Politics polls here. 108.2.58.56 (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the RFC asks the right question... the question shouldn't be whether the poll is reliable or not... but whether mentioning it gives it WP:UNDUE weight. The Overtime Politics poll a new and fairly obscure poll - rarely (if ever) discussed by notable political commentators or by the broader media... as such, I think there is a legitimate question as to whether it has enough of a reputation (good or bad) to merit being included. I will copy this comment over to the RFC, so no need to respond here. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we use a genetic study not aimed at the DNA history of Egypt in that article?[edit]

I brought this up duing the holidays, bad timing. Resurrecting it now. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

For some time now editors and socks have been inserting material into articles from a BMJ article, eg today "According to a genetic study in December 2012, Ramesses III and the the famed mummy "Unknown Man E" (probably Pentawer), belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1a.[1]" The article can be read at [7] and [8] which appear to be non-copyvio links. The stated objective is "To investigate the true character of the harem conspiracydescribed in the Judicial Papyrus of Turin and determine whether Ramesses III was indeed killed." The only mention of the haplogroup is in the paragraph which reads "Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies (table 1?); using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a. The testing of polymorphic autosomal microsatellite loci provided similar results in at least one allele of each marker (table 2?). Although the mummy of Ramesses III’s wife Tiy was not available for testing, the identical Y chromosomal DNA and autosomal half allele sharing of the two male mummies strongly suggests a father-son relationship." Our article is about the genetic history of the demographics of Egypt. This bit of data has been placed in the section on Ancient DNA. Other studies there are described "Consequently, most DNA studies have been carried out on modern Egyptian populations with the intent of learning about the influences of historical migrations on the population of Egypt.[9][10][11][12] One successful 1993 study was performed on ancient mummies of the 12th Dynasty, by Dr. Svante Pääbo and Dr. Anna Di Rienzo, which identified multiple lines of descent, some of which originated in Sub-Saharan Africa.[13]" In another the DNA of ancient mummies is compared to modern Egyptians. All the studies are comparative over time and or space. The Hawass study was not designed to look at these aspects of genetics and I do not think it is a reliable source for this specific use. Without interpretation the haplogroup is just raw data picked out of the study and dropped into this article. If it had been designed to look at lineage over time and/or space it would have had different results.

Every time this is inserted it's clear that it is to argue a case for the race of Egyptians. At one point it even included a statement that the haplogroup's origin was East Africa. The BMJ is without a doubt a reliable source, but the issue here is if it is a reliable source for this bit of data in this particular article. The discussion at Talk:DNA history of Egypt is going nowhere. I and another experienced editor believe it doesn't belong, but it's being argued that because a 2nd editor with about 20 edits thinks we shouldn't hide it from the world it belongs. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a primary source. It can't be used to support these claims. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I also agree that it shouldn't be used since it's a primary source. Usually that's a weight issue, but this case seems to be a reliability issue in trying to potentially cherrypick some technical language to support something not intended by the authors. Whatever specific conclusions that can be made from the study will be reflected in secondary sources citing it and then those conclusions will be considered reliable. Otherwise, we're getting into potential issues of editors synthesizing a technical source where editors' interpretations are likely not reliable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hawass (2012). "Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study". BMJ 345: e8268. doi:10.1136/bmj.e8268. 

The use of self-published sources in cue-sport articles[edit]

I have started a RFC to discuss the proliferation of personal blogs and fansites in cuesport articles, usually to source sporting statistics. The RFC isn't gaining much traction so I am bringing it to the attention of this noticeboard. The RFC is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS?. A huge number of articles are affected (i.e. hundreds) so it would be great if we could get some community input to settle this for once and for all i.e. when does a good blog become a "reliable source"? Does BLPSPS still apply to sport stats and so forth? Betty Logan (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Communities Directory - A Guide to Cooperative Living by the Fellowship for Intentional Community[edit]

Is this entry in the 'Communities Directory' by the Fellowship for Intentional Community a reliable source for the subject Manitonquat, which is a BLP currently throwing up a number of interesting reliable source questions? It's a wiki, but there's a solid-looking org behind it. It's currently the subject of a kickstarter. The site does do a good job of linking to both positive and negative materials about the subject. Thoughts? Stuartyeates (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It's an article from a wiki. It appears to be largely mirrored from a previously deleted version of this en-wiki article it is being used in. There's not enough info to know if it's a completely open wiki, but that's one of the problems: Who wrote it? Was there any review or accountablity or oversight? With wikis we usually don't know, so they are almost never useable as inline sources. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 00:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Bullfrogspond.com[edit]

An editor is adding dubious record chart information to song articles citing a web site bullfrogspond.com (see example diff). The chart information being added to Wikipedia is variously described as "Billboard year-end chart" or "Whitburn rankings". The web site in question appears to be a hobbyist web site created by an "avid music lover" who "threw this site together just for a few friends to use." This is obviously the creator's own rankings as they don't match the actual Billboard year-end charts, nor do they appear in Whitburn's books. It also appears this web site represents a copyright violation as it contains copyrighted research from Billboard (magazine) or Joel Whitburn, which he apparently has run afoul with. How can this be considered a reliable source? Piriczki (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The source is question is far from reliable. I reverted the user's most recent contribution and watchlisted the page to keep an eye on it. Meatsgains (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

famouskin.com[edit]

I'm helping a new editor, Kirk Leonard, who is writing his first article about an early settler in Massachusetts (Draft:Isaac Stearns). He's wanting to include a paragraph about notable descendants, and is sourcing that paragraph, in part, to this website. I tend to be wary of using genealogy websites as sources in Wikipedia, as a lot of them rely on user-generated content. I've not heard of this one before. They have this disclaimer on some (but not all) pages:

Please note: The ancestor reports on this website have been compiled from thousands of different sources, many over 100 years old. These sources are attached to each ancestor so that you can personally judge their reliability. As with any good genealogical research, if you discover a link to your own family tree, consider it a starting point for further research. It is always preferable to locate primary records where possible. FamousKin.com cannot and does not guarantee the accuracy and reliability of these sources.

So, is this website a reliable source for listing notable descendants of this early settler? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Use the sources that site gives to see what does and does not meet RS requirements. Collect (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't see it meeting the requirements for RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The website wouldn't be reliable, especially with the disclaimer that it's there to let users decide how reliable it is. Similar to how we say that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, but that's it's good for finding sources, the same can be done here. If a source listed is reliable and a secondary source, it should be fine instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the help everybody. I'll remove that source as unreliable. Kirk Leonard (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for an article[edit]

http://www.toptenz.net/10-abandoned-malls-around-world-change-title.php

I would like to create an article for the Greeley Mall in Greeley, Colo. Is this a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppy9000 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Puppy9000: I wouldn't start with that one. Going through the results from a Google News Archive search on Greeley Mall there seems to be many other sources, most of which will have a better reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (nothing against toptenz.net, just saying there's plenty that are better). Be sure you've read the pages at the following links: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:NOR. - Scarpy (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
As noted above, the source can most definitely be used but there are far better and more reliable sources out there that you can use to start a page for Greeley Mall such as: The Washington Post, Denver Post, and The Coloradoan. Meatsgains (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

12 Years a Slave[edit]

There's been a dispute going on in the article White savior narrative in film which revolvers around the inclusion of the film 12 Years a Slave. This dispute involves myself, 70.190.188.48, Erik, and Betty Logan. We've taken this to WP:DRN, where it was more or less agreed that this was the right venue to take the dispute after it turned out that the dispute revolved mainly around the sources. The sources in question are presented here (see agreement on sources [9], [10]) and a RfC is humbly requested, as per [11]. Apologies if anything is unclear.

Dschslava (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently I can't make a proper collapse box properly. Unfortunately, I have to go, but do note that the discussion is not closed. Dschslava (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. Dschslava (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
When the dispute started, the film 12 Years a Slave was listed at white savior narrative in film with three sources. I added a fourth source, an academic publication that identified the criticism in retrospect. None of these satisfied the IP editor. I went on and found many more sources (listed above, after the first four) that identified the white savior in 12 Years a Slave and reinforces its inclusion. We as editors need to cite reliable sources and not our personal opinions, which do not override such sources. We can implement counter-arguments from such sources (such as Oyelowo's statement that the film does not have a white savior throughout), but there are many sources discussing how Brad Pitt's character is perceived as a white savior. I see no grounds for excluding 12 Years a Slave in its entirety from the article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd first like to commend Dschslava for a neutrally worded post. I had no idea who was on which side of the argument until I read Erik's post. That being said, there are clearly numerous reliable sources that discuss 12 years a slave as a movie with a "white savior" aspect. I see no reason for it not to be included in the article. Even Oyelowo's statement doesn't contradict what's being said here. Just because there wasn't a white savior throughout the film, doesn't mean there wasn't one at all. Here's a peer reviewed source, "The White Savior Film: Content, Critics, and Consumption by Matthew W. Hughey" by Kocurek that also mentions 12 Years a Slave: "In the concluding chapter, Hughey turns to the larger cultural frame of the white savior film and in particular the genre’s implications in contemporary culture. Pointing to the critic James Hoberman’s question of when we might see “an Obama-inflected Hollywood cinema” (165), Hughey argues that this cinema, marked by films like 12 Years a Slave (2013), Belle (2013), and The Keeping Room (2013) has already emerged; its key characteristic is a desire to look backward to our racist past in part to subtly frame our present with a certain hopefulness."Scoobydunk (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Wait, where did you get "12 Years a Slave is a white savior film" from that quote? 70.190.188.48 (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the IP editor that the Hughey statement does not apply here (I have the book). He does not comment on 12 Years a Slave directly. I would definitely be interested in hearing what he has to say, but I did not find any commentary from him anywhere about the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 04:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Kocurek clearly explains how Hughly refers to 12 Years a Slave as one of the "Obama-inflected Hollywood cinema" which Kocurek believes is part of the larger cultural frame of the "white savior" narrative. Note that I didn't quote Hughly, I quoted Kocurek who has a scholarly analysis of Hughly's work.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Looking at this passage, it looks to be about racial films vs. post-racial films. Will quote the passage at length here: "In 2012 film critic James Hoberman of the New York Review of Books wrote, 'I've been wondering for a while now when we were going to see an Obama-inflected Hollywood cinema.' While Hoberman wrote that he expected such cinema to circulate around color-blind themes of community organizers and messengers of abstract qualities such as hope and change, I take a different tack. Coinciding with Obama's reelection, such inflected films might be better understood as stories that highlight the racist past to make our racial present seem hopeful and progressive simply by comparison. For example, 2012-2013 bears witness to the release of at least nine films on the question of slavery: 12 Years a Slave (2013, directed by Steven McQueen), Belle (2013, directed by Amma Asante), The Keeping Room (2013, directed by Daniel Barber), The North Star (2013, directed by Thomas K. Phillips, Something Whispered (2013, directed by Peter Cousens), Tula (2013, directed by Jereon Leinders), Savannah (2012, directed by Annette Haywood-Carter), and the aforementioned Lincoln (2012) and Django Unchained (2013). Never before has Hollywood embraced this theme, and at the sesquicentenntial of the emancipation proclamation (and Obama's embrace of the iamge of Lincoln), these films trade on belief in the racial and national mythology of linear progress." Hughey analyzed Lincoln and Django Unchained in the book, hence him saying "the aforementioned" films. I don't find that Hughey is talking about any of the others as white savior films because at the start of the next paragraph, he says, "Moreover, Lincoln and Django Unchained fall within the genre of white savior cinema." I would love to have Hughey's insight on 12 Years a Slave (as well as these other films), but I don't find that this commentary applies. I think we need to look at the more timely sources instead. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Wow, for once we actually agree on something. Thanks for backing me up. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
And thanks for staying quite civil guys :P Dschslava (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The problem here is that it seems you're quoting Hughey, when the source I supplied is Kocurek. The misunderstanding might be part of my mistake because I didn't include "a review" at the end of the title I gave. However, even looking at the Hughey source, in the preceding section titled "An Iron First in a Velvet Glove: The White Savior in a Postracial World" Hughey lists 5 characteristics of the cultural frame in which white savior films are produced. The first one is "prevalent hope and desire for a societal change" and thus, the following section is titled "Hope and Change: Toward a Racial Utopia". So this following section directly pertains to the first characteristic of the white savior film. You can continue down the list because each following section follows the characteristics in the same order. The second characteristic is the "embrace of individualist explanations and solutions" and the second following section starts with "Second, the discourse of a postracial society is now marked by individualist explanations for the causes of, and solutions to, racial inequality." The third characteristic is "belief in the cultural or moral dysfunctions of people of color" and the 3rd following section starts with "The third aspect of the postracial worldview is the belief in cultural dysfunctions of people of color." Each of the following sections correlate to the 5 characteristics of white savior films that Hughey outlines. This is probably the reason why the scholarly review of Hughey's work done by Carly Kocurek lists "12 Years a Slave" as one of the examples of the white savior film. I'm not the one making this interpretation, a scholarly peer reviewed source is making this interpretation and it's accurate, though it's none of my business to comment on such. I will say that there might be some ambiguity in what Kocurek says, as it's not clear if the author is directly referring to the white savior film, or the larger cultural frame in which white savior films exist. So, if you don't want to use it, that's fine. However, I think the passage could be read either way. Scoobydunk (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

High Country News[edit]

What do you folks think of High Country News? Disclaimer - I did add some glowing praise to that article before posting here Earlier today, Somedifferentstuff (talk · contribs) decided to challenge a large edit I made, and in the edit summary he questioned the RS quality of that source. To be clear, the ping to SomeDifferentstuff is my first communication about this to him/her, and we're not at loggerheads. I just thought this would be a reasonable place to involve additional eds in the discussion.

Comments on this source anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly reliable, in my opinion. It has won serious journalism awards, and for many years (For example, it won a Polk Award in 1987) and in 2007). It has editorial control. In 2000, Oregon State University Press published an anthology of articles published in the HCN, "the newspaper that sets the standard for coverage of environmental issues in the West." This indicates reliability. Neutralitytalk 02:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely reliable. It is a longstanding, mainstream publication (paper and ink) covering public affairs, environmental, and land use issues in the American West. In addition to the previously mentioned awards, it's also won a Hillman Prize. [16] LavaBaron (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
100% reliable. Highly-respected and long-standing non-profit, non-partisan regional newspaper with particularly strong coverage of issues relating to the environment, growth, sustainability, cultural change and natural resources management. Has clear editorial controls and a reputation for accuracy and fairness. [17] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Reliable for coverage regarding western Colorado only.[18]. Anything beyond that area will e covered by national news (or outside western Colorado local news) if it's notable. --DHeyward (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You have the wrong link - that's the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel's website, not High Country News, which does not only cover western Colorado. The relevant link on HCN's site would be here. The organization covers the entire Western United States, but particularly the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin regions. You may wish to peruse their recent issues for examples of articles discussing paleontological finds in Nevada, the campaign against coal mining in Wyoming and the rise of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Through in-depth reporting, High Country News covers the American West's public lands, water, natural resources, grazing, wilderness, wildlife, logging, politics, communities, growth and other issues now changing the face of the West. From Alaska and the Northern Rockies to the desert Southwest, from the Great Plains to the West Coast, High Country News’ coverage spans 12 Western states and is the leading source for regional environmental news, analysis and commentary -- an essential resource for those who care about this region. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Noting the usual caveat - the source includes opinion and commentary - and, as ever, opinions should be cited and sourced as opinion, and not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. And this is true of every source pretty much across the board - opinions are not "facts." Collect (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Transcription of YouTube video[edit]

At Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, an editor has added a statement ascribed to a speech by Hillary Clinton.[19] The citation for this is a one-hour long video posted on YouTube by something called "PSB Satellite News". I can find no information about this body, its structure, funding, or editorial policy, and I question whether it can be accepted as a reliable source. Further, there is no link to a transcription of this speech, nor any indication as to when the words in question were used, and the only way in which editors and readers could confirm that the words have been accurately transcribed and cited in context is by listening to the entire hour. Is a personal transcription of part of a YouTube video ever acceptable as a reliable source? RolandR (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a ref to a printed version of Hillary's remarks. I had to tweak the grammar of some of the text inserted in the article before google turned it up. (Demonizing >> demonizes) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
From which it can be seen that the transcription in the article is inaccurate. A clause alleging a rise in antisemitism in Europe, which does not appear in any form in the transcript you offer, has been added, as has a side comment about no nation being above criticism. This adds weight to my second point: is a personal transcription of part of a YouTube video ever acceptable as a reliable source? RolandR (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Good question; just to be clear, I have not studied the underlying article/edit/reversion, and have no opinion on that. Was just trying to be helpful with a good link; happy consensus seeking, all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@RolandR: you bring up a good point. I can see both sides of the argument. There is no doubt that if an individual was video recorded making statements, that is sufficient proof. However, who has the time to sit through an hour + long video to confirm if in fact the statements were accurately transcribed. I have a feeling this issue has come up and been addressed before on RSN and is archived. Meatsgains (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Since I can find no information about the source of this video, PSB Satellite News, I am reluctant to accept it as a reliable source. How can we be sure that the recording has not been tampered with? And surely, if a personal transcript of an hour long video is to be acceptable, then the editor must be required to state at what time the words were uttered, in order that others can check this. RolandR (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at BLP regarding meaning of "tabloid journalism"[edit]

Please see ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Clarification_question_on_the_policy which is entirely relevant to this noticeboard. --ℕ ℱ 00:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Albanian nationalist sites[edit]

Are Malsia.eu and Albaniapress.com reliable sources? They are openly Albanian nationalist, using Greater Albania and Kosovo Liberation Army in their banners, articles cites no sources, no author, and are used by an user, Albanian Historian (talk · contribs · count), in several articles. --Zoupan 09:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I actually use http://www.elsie.de, a Canadian writer and author. Other sources: http://www.radiokosovaelire.com/?nav=70,2&id=14011 , An Albanian source for example referring to Zhuj Selmani article. For Plava and Gucia-article, i use mentioned articles and also journalist pages such as http://koha.net/?id=27&l=13602 "Time". This as well: http://www.zeriamerikes.com/media/video/2981252.html "Expulsion of Albanians from Gucia and Plava". These pages are not nationalist, they write about the albanian history. There is nothing irredentist or nationalist about this. I've provided sources and authors in my articles. --Albanian Historian (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=699963754"