Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • 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: [].
  • 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 lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
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, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240

Sources in World War II GA articles[edit]

Gerhard Bracke[edit]

  • Source: Bracke, Gerhard (1997). Gegen vielfache Übermacht—Mit dem Jagdflieger und Ritterkreuzträger Hans Waldmann an der Ostfront, an der Invasionsfront und in der Reichsverteidigung [Against Manifold Supremacy—With the Fighter Pilot and Knight's Cross Bearer Hans Waldmann on the Eastern Front, on the Invasion Front and in Defense of the Reich] (in German).
  • Article: Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot)
  • Content: Most of the article

I am cleaning up Good Articles with cleanup tags and came across this article. It has been tagged with unreliable source, with a comment on the talk page saying it is an extremest publisher. I don't speak German or know much about military historians, but would like to know whether this article should be delisted due to this source (which is used to cover a large percentage of this article) or if the tag can be removed.

@K.e.coffman, Auntieruth55, and MisterBee1966: as the tagger, commentator and major editor respectively. I will also leave a message at the MilHist wikiproject. AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If the de-wiki article on publisher VDM Heinz Nickel is to be believed, they acquired the extreme right-wing publisher Schild-Verlag in 2004, and publish memoirs and other accounts by non-historians of WWII figures. I can't make out whether they are an SPS or not, but I see no author come-ons on their website. They also sell model aviation kits, and other paraphernalia. Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Thanks. It does not look terribly promising then. AIRcorn (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
They also publish Luftwaffe unit histories, which are perfectly fine, IMO. So not an SPS, nor can they be solely judged on their memoirs. Which I've never seen and have no way of knowing how biased they might or might not be.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
@Aircorn: please see my comments below. My assessment of this source from VDM Heinz Nickel is similar. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I nearly combined them. If I hadn't come across them individually I probably would have started one general discussion. I will wait to for other comments before deciding what to do at these articles re Good status. AIRcorn (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I left some background information on Gerhard Bracke on the talk page.[1] In a nutshell: He is a leading member of the esoteric and extremist Bund für Gotteserkenntnis (see Mathilde Ludendorff) and is, among other things, of the opinion that England had forced Germany to go to war in 1939.--Assayer (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


I have come across another Good Article with the Unreliable source tags. This book is Schumann, Ralf (2014). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 13 Rudolf Frank — Eichenlaubträger der Nachtjagd (Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 13 Rudolf Frank — Oak Leaves Bearer of the Night Fighter Force) (in German). UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. OCLC 883388135. ASIN B00JQ4TPDO  (16 June 2014).  and the article is Rudolf Frank. It alos is used to reference most of the article. The issue again seems to be the reliability of the publisher. @K.e.coffman, MisterBee1966, and Ian Rose:AIRcorn (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

First, here are my general comments on German language sources from VDM Heinz Nickel (de) and similar militaria / revisionist publishers. These are questionable sources, which tend to be hobbyist and / or non-independent in nature and skew towards fan fiction and hagiography. Undertones of war-time Wehrmacht propaganda are also present since that’s where the origins of the sources often lay.[1]
This particular booklet seems to be part of the Landser-pulp literature, known in German as Landser-Hefte, which aims to heroicise the military men and strays into historical fiction while doing so. Franz Kurowski is the prime example of such authors. These books promote the concept of Nur-Soldat ("merely soldier") which celebrates the martial accomplishments of military men with a focus on their medals, "ace" status, enemy materiel destroyed—ships sunk, aircraft downed, tanks "busted", bridges blown up,— and so on. The authors are mostly obscure and self-trained.
Here’s the description of the source that I found on German eBay (sorry for Google translate; I included the original German as hidden text):
Knight’s Cross Bearer Profile No. 13: Rudolf Frank – Oak Leaves Recipient in the Night Fighter Force
This profile series is dedicated to known and lesser-known Knight Cross bearers of the Wehrmacht. In the form of a timeless biography, we remember those who have fulfilled their military duty and remained rather unknown after the war. It is a lasting legacy of National Socialism and the World War II that it unleashed that it was difficult to gain access to personalities of that time, even if they were not in the foreground as National Socialists but for other reasons. Such life-paths provide insights into the laborious self-realization attempt between a sense of duty and the urge to develop (?). One of the most successful night fighters of the Luftwaffe, Private Rudolf Frank started training with the Night Hunting Squadron 3. He quickly achieved success and became one of the best night fighter pilots of the Luftwaffe. Ultimately, he was awarded the Knight's Cross and honored after his death posthumously with the Oak Leaves and promoted to officer.
Here are more of the profiles from the same series: RITTERKREUZ Profiles. The subject of the article does not seem to be particularly notable, as the description alludes to: “remained rather unknown after the war”. He does not a page, so I doubt that other sources, suitable for GA, are available on him. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


Again, let's be careful of painting with a broad brush here. I'd agree that this publisher's biographies are unlikely to be unbiased, given the advertising, but other books, if any, may well be perfectly neutral. They'll need to be assessed on their own merits, barring use of similar advertising.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia should avoid using the Landser-Hefte. Today they appeal to the small number of persons in Germany who idolize the Nazi era. During the cold war the Western Allies in NATO wanted to build up the West German military so they encouraged a German military tradition, they puffed Wehrmacht fighter pilots and tank gunners into heros, Rommel, Guderian and von Manstein became super heros in US Army publications like Military Review. The WW2 German military was puffed by the US military as an example to emulate because of superior unit cohesion. They cited the discredited statistics of the German High Command to prove how efficient the German Army was in battle. On Wikipedia we should avoid the publications that idolize the Nazi era military and use only reliable academic sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I came across a past discussion that's relevant here as it touched on both VDM Heinz Nickel and Landser-Hefte publications:
--K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
@Aircorn: are you satisfied with the scope of the discussion that has taken place? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. I am interested in cleaning up or delisting Good Articles so having some closure in regards to these as a whole is fine. AIRcorn (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Standard for sourcing for cryptozoology terms[edit]

A more specific question regarding cryptozoology that I would like to get some uninvolved opinions on (I would urge those already involved in the discussion at talk:list of cryptids to hold off, lest we just reproduce that thread here).

What kind of sourcing is required to call a subject a "cryptid", a term in cryptozoology? Are cryptozoology sources themselves sufficient to include the term in relation to subjects about which other sources do not use that term?

To elaborate, obviously cryptozoologists and cryptozoology works are reliable sources for what cryptozoologists believe (of course, per WP:FRINGE, some qualification via other sources is required), but I'm mainly asking about when sources justify inclusion. and are two sites that pop up in many of our folklore/mythology/legend/popular culture articles, but there are also a number of encyclopedias/books like this one published by mainstream publishers.

A hypothetical: Let's say we have an article like bigfoot (let's not get hung up on the specifics of this example, though, since it's among the most likely to have other sources about it), which is very notable well outside of cryptozoology. If no sources other than cryptozoology websites/books/magazines claimed bigfoot as a "cryptid", would it be appropriate to include that in the article? What about in a list of cryptids? Is it a list of creatures that cryptozoologist publications have claimed as cryptids, or is it a list of subjects that more mainstream and/or academic sources have called a "cryptid"?

Note that this discussion takes something for granted: that cryptozoology sources should not be disqualified outright based on WP:FRINGE -- since it's rare we disqualify sources as such, it seemed most productive to ask the former question here first.

Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: we're talking about a tiny fringe group here (cryptozoology), not academics, eg. folklorists (folkloristics) or biologists (biology). In scholarly works, folklorists certainly do not use the term cryptid, a term coined by cryptozoologists to replace monster and which implies a central tenant that marks cryptozoology as a pseudoscience: the idea that a creature from the folklore record might be, say, a hidden dinosaur that we just can't detect. For this reason — and an array of others — cryptozoology receives harsh criticism from academics. Before weighing in on this topic, please first read this essay on Wikipedia and cryptozoology. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Giving this thread a bump before it gets archived. If there's no additional input here, an RfC will likely have to be next. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Assuming that, in a given case, sources that use the term "cryptid" are considered to be suitable and reliable sources for a cryptozoology article: then I see no issue with using that term in summarizing the content of these sources. I can't agree with the attempted stigmatization of the terminology in the essay linked above; List of cryptids gives a well-hedged definition, and as long as there's no claim that terming something a "cryptid" asserts any sort of mainstream zoological credentials, using that definition is informative and should be uncontroversial. - Maybe that RfC wouldn't be a bad idea, though, just to clear the air. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Note that list of cryptid's discussion regarding cryptid is taken from Cryptozoology, where the use and etymology of the term is explained more in depth, including the context of its coinage. Note that the word cryptid is very rarely used in media , and when it is used, it appears to be under the influence of a related Wikipedia article that used it at the time. Again, it's important to highlight that cryptozoology consists of a tiny fringe group over represented on Wikipedia, today itself all but dead as a subculture.
Unless we're specifically talking about crypozoology, we should not be using this term in Wikipedia's coverage of folklore-related or biology-related topics per WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:RS, and a buffet of other policies. If anyone deems an RfC necessary, go ahead, but as anyone who regularly works with Wikipedia's coverage of folklore-related topics can tell you, this time would be far better spent cleaning the heaps of pseudoscience from our folklore-related articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Elmindae: Assuming that, in a given case, sources that use the term "cryptid" are considered to be suitable and reliable sources for a cryptozoology article -- this is a big part of the question in this thread. A similar question to when an "in-universe" source is reliable for articles about that universe. If there were a concept related to The Simpsons that did not receive coverage except in the various Encyclopedia of the Simpsons or (I'm making these up btw -- no idea if they're real), should we be covering that. Then, beyond that, to what extent is the reliability of those sources affected by WP:FRINGE. If it were, say, a pseudoscientific medical treatment called goofiology that claimed to cure cancer without scientific evidence, we simply would not be covering it if the only sources about it were the and Encyclopedia of Goofiology (again, making these up). We would only cover its claims to the extent they have received coverage by mainstream, reliable publications. Should treat cryptozoology the same way? Should we only cover it according to sources that are not themselves associated with cryptozoology/cryptozoologists? What weight should cryptozoology books have? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: I started to write a long reply to that, but found that honestly, I find I don't have a clear answer. I would have no problem applying that cut-off to the Simpsons example, but I don't find it obvious for the term 'cryptid' - which merely shows where my personal bias lies for considering things general background knowledge :) Basically, I would assume that if a subject is primarily known for its importance in field A and there is a certain critical mass of material, then including coverage from that field is appropriate, and that includes the terminology used in that field. To what extent that is applicable to the term 'cryptid' is unclear to me; I would say it easily qualifies, but apparently that is not clear to others. - I think an RfC might indeed be useful here. RfCs that attempt to codify topic-specific applications of policies generally are - particularly for a policy that happily underwrites this type of in-universe wanking while at the same time arguably proscribing the use of a single widely-used term across an entire subject area. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Opinion poll reported in Raven: A Journal of Vexillology[edit]

Is this article reporting on a survey of the members of the North American Vexillological Association a reliable source for the following statements:

  • "In 2001, a survey conducted by the North American Vexillological Association (NAVA) placed Wisconsin's flag 65th out of the 72 Canadian provincial, U.S. state and U.S. territory flags. The NAVA stated that about half of U.S. states used blue fields making them difficult to distinguish and the survey ranked flags with words and complex seals the lowest. The NAVA survey "favored strong, simple, distinctive flags" and ranked "seal-on-a-bedsheet" type flags the lowest."
  • "In 2001, the North American Vexillological Association surveyed its members and other flag enthusiasts on the designs of the 72 U.S. state, U.S. territorial, and Canadian provincial flags. Members ranked the Washington state flag 47th out of the 72 flags surveyed, with a score of 4.53 points out of 10.[30] Washington's flag was criticized for its complicated seal, use of lettering, and similarities to other U.S. state flags that used seals on solid colors." (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Is there some suggestion that this is something more than a hobbyist's group? If not, then I can't see it being considered a reliable source, nor having due weight for that opinion. --Calton | Talk 02:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
According to North American Vexillological Association, the organization is devoted to "the scientific and scholarly study of flags", so much more than a hobbyists' association. Its journal, Raven: A Journal of Vexillology, is peer-reviewed. (See: [2].) (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
the organization is devoted to "the scientific and scholarly study of flags". That's a claim, not a fact.
peer-reviewed. By whom? It also say Articles are subject to a juried review, and are accepted for publication based on criteria set by the Editorial Board.
So, again, some third-party EVIDENCE that this is something more than a hobbyist's group? --Calton | Talk 03:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the documentation itself, the author of the article was the editor of the publication that printed it, an apparent conflict of interest, and the article itself states “those who seek to create or improve flags should disclose that their agenda is not scholarly but activist[,]” and the the author considered himself an activist, thus the author himself disclosed that the internet survey was not scholarly. Also, the article disclosed that the survey was subject to manipulation because, as the article notes, “for a brief period in March, Texas led the rankings after NAVA president Dave Martucci mentioned the survey in a radio interview on Texas Flag Day. But the subsequent three-day flurry of responses (likely from Texans) was eventually diluted by other responses and Texas fell back into second place. Others betrayed their partisanship in their comments, such as “Long live the green flag” from a Washingtonian.” The poll did not rely on a represenative sample, which is a generally accepted norm in the social sciences — as described here: In this instance, the source is not reliable.Georgepreble (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  1. "That's a claim, not a fact." By your rigorous standards, the American Association for the Advancement of Science's statement that The AAAS seeks to "advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people." is a claim, not a fact, and therefore everything they write is suspect. Ridiculous.
  2. "the author of the article was the editor of the publication that printed it" The usual procedure when this happens is for another editor to be in charge of the editing and review process.
  3. No one is claiming that the survey is scientifically rigorous, only that it represents the opinions of the respondents in the North American Vexillological Association.
  4. Surveys often have comments sections so that respondents can make comments about anything they wish: the survey itself; their feelings; etc.
  5. Again, no one is saying the opinion poll met the highest scientific rigor; it was an informal poll just like thousands of other polls used in Wikipedia (e.g., "best place to live", "favorite character"; "reader's choice"; polls of film fans. Wikipedia has entire articles devoted to unscientific polls, e.g., People's Choice Awards, Historical rankings of presidents of the United States, U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking, ad nauseam. As long as the the nature of the poll is described, there is nothing wrong with including information from it. (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The examples you cite actually point the other way. The US News rankings have a described methodology that relies on objective data of outputs/inputs in addition to survey data; although criticized, as noted in the article, the methodology is replicable as also noted in the article. Using the NAVA survey methodology, it is not replicable. It appears that all of the public opinion polls for the historical ranking of the Presidents are representative sample polls. For the historian polls, the sample is presidential experts. The NAVA survey did not survey experts, unless you are claiming that all NAVA members are experts in flag design (which is not claimed by the survey itself). As for the People's Choice Awards, the first round is conducted through a representative sample, with the public voting on that statistically valid sample.
The Wikipedia policy disfavors isolated studies such as this one.
There is no indication of transparency in any peer review process, and the article is expanded version of an earlier press release by the group, which suggests that it is essentially a self-published primary source.
To say that it only represents the opinions of the respondents is true but misleading, as are the statements that were deleted. First, each survey/poll represents the opinions of the respondents. What gives those opinions usefulness is that those opinions are gained from a representative sample of the country (or some other community) and that gives some assurances that the opinions reflect those of the population as a whole. That is, a survey of a 1,000 adult representative sample should yield the incidences of the reported opinions in a country of 323 million. The terms "survey" and "poll" have a generally accepted meaning as being soundings of representative samples. In this instance, the statement is misleading because it suggests that the survey/poll was of a representative sample. This survey only represents the opinions of those ~400 respondents and not the opinion by proxy of the U.S. or any other part of the world.Georgepreble (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems legit RS: the Journal does appear to publish legit university scholars, eg [3], in the present online era it appears indexed here [4] and in the old paper era at university [5]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
This point goes only to 1/3 issues for reliable sourcing: the publisher. Per the RS policy, "[a] claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs."[1] The issues here are the work itself and the creator.Georgepreble (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, no. The issue is that a regarded publication in the relevant academic topic (vexillology) published a poll - you don't have to believe that poll, just like you don't have to believe anything in any journal. But a question of design is always going to be a matter for the critiquing community to comment upon. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I haven't bothered to read your long-winded personal opinion of the research because the bottom line is that no one appointed you "research God" and your second-guessing the quality of the research is original research. (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It is not original research. It is evaluating the credibility/reliability of a source, which is what Wikipedians do. The errors are evident on the face of the source itself. 18:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a secondary source saying that the survey is lousy? If so, cite it. If not, your personal opinion is irrelevant. (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This was a member's survey of NAVA correct? Then its a valid primary source for what NAVA members think and should be phrased as such. The next question (to answer UNDUE claims) is "Why are NAVA member's opinion on the flag relevant?" and the answer to that is "Because NAVA runs a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of flags, if their opinion is not relevant about the design of a flag, absolutely no one else's is." Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm come to dislike this source for two reason: 1) I suspect it is low quality on the basis that I'm not convinced the author knows how to conduct a scientific poll; and 2) I don't understand why anyone would care what NAVA thinks. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of IDONTLIKIT, multiple publications: [Washington Post] [Wall Street Journal], [Public Television], [The Hill], [Idaho State Journal], and the list goes on, still use the NAVA poll to report on and discuss flags. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


Academia : Tara Farhid[edit]

Is this article (ZOROASTRIAN ESCHATOLOGY INFLUENCE ON JUDAISM) a reliable source and academic for wikipedia in religion studies? --Dandamayev (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No. This is an assignment by a graduate student. It wasn't published in a journal (or conference), nor is the author an expert in the field.Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
agreed. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Is Conor Friedersdorf and the Atlantic a Reliable Source?[edit]

Source: [6] Article: White Privilege


Friedersdorf argues that White privilege may be counter productive since its focus on race replaces the theory of color-blindness with a hyper-emphasis on group identity which in turn leads to doomed ‘Balkanisation’. [Reference:]

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talkcontribs) 11:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

An attributed statement to him seems fine. The Atlantic is a notable publication and Friedersdorf isn't a crackpot. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
As an attributed opinion, this is a perfectly fine source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
This heinously misrepresents the source, as has been discussed on the article's talk page in mind-numbing detail. Friedersdorf is not arguing that "white privilege may be counter productive". For one thing, who is saying it's "productive"? Friedersdorf acknowledges that it exists and is a serious issue, making this summary of the source misleading and selective. Grayfell (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The content is not supported by the source. What we do in WP is summarize sources; the proposed content doesn't summarize it. Friedersdorf describes the reality of white privilege thoroughly and has no question that it exists nor that it is important. What he discusses, is what is happening in some schools where (he says) it is being taught theoretically by people of one generation to another, and white kids are sitting around talking about it in clubs they form. He looks at all this as just navel-gazing and more or less useless and perhaps dangerous. He seems to think that direct experience of people who lack white privilege is something that would serve these kids much better. The beginning part of the content - "Friedersdorf argues that White privilege may be counter productive" is no where in the source and is actually nonsense. It would be like saying "Friedersdorf argues that sex may be counter productive" if he were writing about sex education. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, there are three things going on here so please be clear what we are agreeing or objecting to:
1) Is the Atlantic a reliable source?
2) Is Friedersdorf a reliable source?
3) Is the summary fair? Friedersdorf says:
"nothing in U.S. history leads me to believe that encouraging people to regard whiteness as the core of their identity will end well." He isn't saying its productive.Keith Johnston (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
You continue to conflate the thing with how people talk about or deal with the thing. Again, sex is not the same thing as sex education; white privilege and how these elite schools and students in them are addressing it, are not the same thing. Friedersdorf is objecting to the latter; he absolutely sees and describes white privilege itself. I don't know how to say it more clearly than that. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Note, i fixed your indenting. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks and good point, theory and practice are two different things. Could you be clear if you object to the Atlantic or Friedersdorf as a reliable source in principle? Keith Johnston (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I fixed the indenting of the above. Sources are generally not declared as reliable in principle. Just about any source might be reliable for something (such as that the source exists). What counts is the combination of source + assertion. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Keith thanks for replying and acknowledging some level of problem, but you are still missing the main problem with your proposed content. This is not a "theory/practice" thing, like say how well even given Christian practices his or her religion, or good laboratory practice and how well any given lab implements it. The difference is between a thing and how people teach or talk about it or deal with it. Another example of the kind of conflation you are making would be between History of the United States (events that actually happened) and how US history has been taught. Sticking that analogy into your proposed content we get "Friedersdorf argues that the history of the united states may be counter productive" - the statement is just nonsense. About your two questions, see what Johnuniq wrote above. I think what you are angling at is really a WEIGHT question - namely "if we are able to agree on some way to summarize this source, would the resulting content be noteworthy to include? Would it be DUE or UNDUE? That is not a question that we can answer at RSN. RSN is only about whether a given bit of content is reliably sourced. The actual proposed content here, is not. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
"The statement is just nonsense" Uh, yeah WP:IRS says analysis from intellectuals published in the atlantic get more weight than self proclaimed wikipedia intellectuals. I mean, when The Atlantic publishes "Jytdog's treatise on race" let us know, but until then... (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    1. The Atlantic is a reliable source, and has been for 150 years.
    2. Friedersdorf is an authoritative, well-respected journalist who writes about his analyses, interpretations, and beliefs about events. He is well respected.
  • Mathglot (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[edit] is a database website used to collect and present information on VHS and other former home media format releases from around the world by different distributors. The content on the site, whilst contributed with evidence and research by members, is organized, verified and published by the website's owners and staff, with a credit to the user out of respect. Unlike IMDb or any wiki, the content is not freely edited and can only be changed by site staff. I wish to use the site as a source for when citing home media releases for various feature films and television series and would like to know the consensus on its use as a reliable source, not including page comments and forum posts published by users. Currently, there aren't many reliable sources in regards to providing information for these home media releases, especially for VHS from the 1970s to 90s, and this is the closest I could find that provides the information I need. --AnonUser1 (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Captcha whitelist for major newspapers etc.[edit]

New editors can now cite certain publishers' websites without completing a Captcha. I have proposed that we also exempt major newspapers, etc. Please comment there, and suggest more URLs. Certes (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Newspaper Página 12[edit]

Hi! is it ok to use newspaper Página 12 as a source? I know it is on spanish section of Wikipedia and it's commonly used there, but I thought I should I ask on the english section about it. Thanks!

Agustin6 (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Is Quillette and Spencer Case a reliable source?[edit]

1.[7] 2. White Privilege

"The most fundamental problem for this or any proposal to offset white privilege is this: American whites’ advantages do not constitute white privilege. Therefore, there’s nothing that needs to be offset in the first place."

It would be a reliable source for the author's attributed opinion, if it's determined that the particular source here merits inclusion, which is a question for consensus determination on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I would echo this. The source is verifiable, so it qualifies to cite Spencer, but whether or not Spencer qualifies as an authority on "white privilege" is a separate question. I'm not familiar with him but a cursory review would indicate that he lacks the usual academic credential (a PhD. or similar professional accreditation) or the usual recognition from peers (other topical subject matter experts in concurrence with his expertise). I would proceed with limited expectations. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

More eyes needed on IOTA (cryptocurrency)[edit]

IOTA (cryptocurrency) has a new version which appears to me to be entirely primary sourced. I'm in dispute with another editor over this - more eyes would be welcomed. See also Talk:IOTA_(cryptocurrency)#Huge_primary-sourced_addition_-_what's_useful_here? - David Gerard (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Might be better to post this at WP:COIN. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight[edit]

Regarding this subsection, do the sources claiming the occurrence of the book-burning incident in old Persia bear enough weight compared to the ones refuting it? What I see hear is big names saying it did not happen versus non-history scholars saying it did. Please, advise.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No, unless there is a clear consensus one way (and I note one of the sources does not link).Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)