Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Delfi

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Delfi

 –  Newslinger talk 23:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Islamic Republic News Agency

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Islamic Republic News Agency

 –  Newslinger talk 23:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Film Music Reporter

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Film Music Reporter

 – Chompy Ace 21:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Got Questions

Please blacklist gotquestions.org . It was used as WP:RS in many articles, but it is not WP:RS, it is a user-generated website for WP:ADVOCACY for lying for Jesus. According to Richard Carrier, is the idea that apologetics is actually specifically designed to avoid discovering the truth about things it's designed to specifically justify things you want to believe.

We do WP:CITE the Catholic Catechism as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for the Catholic Church. gotquestions.org is nobody's catechism. We just don't WP:CITE WP:RANDY.

Ditto for tektonics.org . See Talk:Internal consistency of the Bible/Archive 1#Is www.tektonics.org a WP:RS? and Talk:Jesus/Archive 127#Cause of death = pericardial effusion + pleural effusion and User talk:Dethbethlehem#Gotquestions.org and Talk:Hillsong Church#First few lines....

As you perhaps know, Christians are not allowed to tell lies, so an explicitly non-denominational website cannot speak on behalf of the Baptist Church. As long as they wear the non-denominational hat, they may represent no church and they do not speak for any church. It's heresy that a bunch of non-denominational Christians would represent the Baptist Church. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSP just summarizes discussions from (mostly) WP:BLPN. I found one previous discussion for tektonics.org, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Tektonics.org_and_The_God_Who_Wasn't_There_article but none for the other, so WP:BLPN is probably where you should start for any kind of "blacklisting." Unless you actually want WP:BLACKLISTing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Local Reach plc/Trinity Mirror newspapers

I'm not so sure if newspapers owned by Reach plc/Trinity Mirror should fall under the same WP:MREL categorisation as the national Daily Mirror? My local newspaper, the Hull Daily Mail, was bought by the group in 2015, and in my own opinion, it has seen a steady decline towards the tabloid journalism (i.e. clickbait headlines, apparent anti-traveller content, articles taken from other Reach local newspapers and printed under the HDM, entertainment news articles with no link to Hull at all) that has already been cited for the Daily Mirror. I'm seeing this tabloid-style reporting pattern emerge in the other Reach papers, such as the Manchester Evening News, Liverpool Echo and the Birmingham Mail as well, and while I know that these local newspapers can be handy for local issues and history (i.e. nostalgia articles), as well as there being no other notable alternatives to these newspapers, the sensationalism of some of the articles on the Reach websites makes me question whether Reach papers are good, reliable references to cite anymore. Hullian111 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Daily Beast

Why is the Daily Beast listed as green? Per this 2021 discussion, and the fact that this RSP discussion seemed to mostly favor "no consensus" even in 2020, it should be changed to "no consensus". One of the users, IHateAccounts, advocating for "reliable" at that RSP discussion has since been indeffed as a sockpuppet. Pinging Newslinger. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

For whatever reason, Newslinger has not edited since May 1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh no. I hope they're doing well. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Health Impact News

I recommend that this be a site that Wikipedia lists as untrustworthy. It is hosting much misinformation about Covid-19, "cures" for Covid and the vaccines. Advertisements for dubious natural treatments are on the site. Here are examples of what the site is posting: https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/20595-dead-1-9-million-injured-50-serious-reported-in-european-unions-database-of-adverse-drug-reactions-for-covid-19-shots/ https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/cdc-11940-dead-618648-injuries-and-1175-unborn-babies-dead-following-covid-19-shots/ Dogru144 (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes it's unreliable, as are many other quack medical websites. Has there been a problem with Health Impact News? There are zero main space articles that link to the site. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

CNN

CNN should be downgraded from a reliable source https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/ TheeFactChecker (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This user is WP:NOTHERE. They tried this three months ago, were told RSP was the wrong venue, GorillaWarfare moved it to RSN, and it was subsequently closed and hatted. After almost completely ceasing editing for three months, they're back to pursue this disruption again. Grandpallama (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

mediabiasfactcheck is not a reliable source for either the bias or the accuracy of any media outlet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

And if mediabiasfactcheck were reliable, you can still be left leaning and reliable, and given we reference the web version over the pundits, there's really nothing to do here but maintain the status quo of generally reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Perennial sources or perennially discussed sources

The page title "Perennial sources" is misleading. It should be something like "Perennially discussed sources" or "Repeatedly discussed sources". Nurg (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Gold Derby

Goldderby.com has been referenced 371 times on WP, mainly in articles for actors/tv series/movies and some awards+noms list, but is not on the list of sources. I found only one mention of it in an archived discussion from August 2011 where it's reliability (or lack thereof) was not addressed by the editor who responded to the query. WP article indicates ownership by Penske Media Corporation, who own several other accepted sources on the list, but ik reliability isn't automatically inherited so I'd like surefire confirmation that it is (or isn't) an acceptable source for entertainment news before using it. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Why these are not on spam list?

Why Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Urban Dictionary, and other social medias not on spam list? GogoLion (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Twitter, FB, etc have occasional uses as WP:ABOUTSELF. Reddit and Urban Dictionary fall under WP:USERG (like WP itself). WP:RSP and WP:Spam blacklist are different things. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

CNN Credibility

Why is CNN listed as a reliable source? It’s pretty widely accepted that CNN is not a credible source of information, as with Fox News’ status, partisan media outlets cannot be considered as reliable sources on the subjects of Science and Politics, but that disclaimer has been omitted for CNN.

Pretty clear indicator that there is a lack of objectivity on what is and is not considered reliable, Since when did we start letting the political ideologies of editors dictate a site which is supposed to be objective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.174.97 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

On "why", here is the latest discussion on that: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_307#RFC_on_CNN. If you check the CNN entry at WP:RSP you'll find links to 16 earlier discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine

Would someone please take the time to summarize the results of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_351#Science-Based_Medicine? fiveby(zero) 17:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: anyone who closes that discussion should also keep in mind the 2019 RSN RfC on this subject: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_256#RfC_on_sciencebasedmedicine.org — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Upgrading The Daily Wire's rating to No Consensus WP:MREL

I have read through the past discussions about Daily Wire. Since the last discussion, Ben Shapiro has stepped down and John Bickley PHD has become the new editor-in-chief. The Daily Wire now has a few investigative journalists, which makes part of the company a publisher of first reported facts. The Daily Wire has now a commitment for accuracy and retraction here - https://www.dailywire.com/standards-policies . I do understand that Daily Wire has failed a few climate change factchecks, so asides from that they're reliable, in conjunction with the referenced fact check fails for other subject matters a few years old. These factors show changes for the better to improve the journalistic integrity of the entire company. Huff post has political as questionable and everything else reliable, even when they are rated the same for factual reporting. Couldn't we split the talk shows and the independent journalism like Huff Post? Titaniumman23 (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Titaniumman23: The way to do this would be a request for comment (RfC) on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. If you're interested in breaking out different reliability on different topics, see the current Reliable Sources noticeboard for a an examples of how to structure the request. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I concur w/ Titaniumman23 Buffs (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

World Socialist Web Site

How should we categorise the World Socialist Web Site, a socialist news website owned by the International Committee of the Fourth International? While they have a clear Troskyist slant and bias, they have also covered a range of international issues that have attracted international coverage including the 1619 Project (where they played a key role in rallying opposition), the Pike River Mine disaster] in New Zealand and Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Are we allowed to cite the WSWS in articles? Is is safe to use articles from them if the story is covered by other more reliable and less partisan media? Just wanted to get some clarity on the issue. Andykatib 12:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Andykatib: You should ask this on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This talk page is for discussing the list of Perennial sources. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, will raise the issue there. Andykatib (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, I was reading through the discussions on this website and I don't think the new entry you added in Special:Diff/1045416287 accurately reflects the consensus in the discussions. Moreover you have extensive involvement in two of the discussions (Archive 341 and the ongoing RSN discussion) so I don't think you should be making an assessment on its consensus, it's better left to an admin or at least an uninvolved editor. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

CBS not listed

CBS is not listed. Shouldn't it be listed?

(I'm glad I found this list!) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

no, if something is uncontroversially a normal news organisation, we generally don't bother listing every single one in the world - so this list is for when there's been some controversy in practice - David Gerard (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if there's enough WP:RSN discussions (2?) about it to justify an inclusion here, but someone has to dig them out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've encountered several people who get their news from sources that I consider to be unreliable. I say "Watch ABC, NBC, or CBS at 6:30", but they don't believe those sources. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Question about Elan magazine

Hi, i would like your advice on the following sources. Elan magazine : https://www.elanmagazine.com/ I dont know this magazine well and neither your criterias for evaluating a source. Kind regards, Nattes à chat (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Question about Wall Street International

How is this magazine rated https://wsimag.com/ ? Nattes à chat (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nattes à chat, I can't find an about-page, but per [1] it seems like a group-blog (WP:BLOGS). However, WP:RSN is the right place for this kind of question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Drudge Report

Should Drudge Report be listed? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Daily Wire

Daily Wire's entry was added without any formal support for such inclusion & blacklisting. I absolutely concur that it should be included as a partisan source (they openly state this), but to say that it engages in promoting conspiracy theories or otherwise misleading articles at a rate above, for example, the NYT is absurd and inaccurate. It should be listed as WP:OPINION in many cases. The rationales listed for such exclusion are of a hyperpartisan nature and without backing. Snopes is also self-published and definitely has a leftward tilt. When you look at what was published, virtually all "errors" are matters of opinion (Example: Did people start to dig up a grave? Or did they merely take a shovelful of dirt near the grave and encouraged others to do so until it was dug up"? I mean...you're really splitting hairs if you say that's not "starting to dig up a grave"), were cited to another source that later retracted and DW did the same, or are simply matters of opinion. Buffs (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Wire's entry meets WP:RSPCRITERIA and it's not blacklisted. Snopes is not "self-published" and the errors were all matters of fact (well matters of false facts, to be precise). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, Which part of RSPCriteria does it meet?

• "two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past" - I see only two with very skowsh participation. That's at least arguably NOT a "significant discussion"
• "RFC" I see no RFC at all, certainly not one with a conclusion

Which ones were "errors of fact" or omission?

Snopes was a husband and wife team for a LONG time...while they've expanded, they are still self-published, IMHO. (Full disclosure, I've had conversations with them when they were in their first decade of operations). Buffs (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability. Here's discussion #1. I count about 8 editors arguing the source is unreliable and about 5 arguing the source is reliable. A few others argue the source should be used with caution. Here's discussion #2. I count about 5 editors arguing the source is unreliable and 0 editors arguing the source is reliable. Here's discussion #3. I count about 5-6 editors arguing the source is unreliable or undue and 0 editors arguing the source is reliable. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, entirely uninvolved editor here. And I agree with @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's assessment of those discussions. There is clearly consensus in favor of marking The Daily Wire as generally unreliable. I believe the RSP entry is in order. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

(ec x too many) The number of !votes total in the last 2 discussions (even counting repeats) doesn't even come close to the total !votes in the first discussion and many are repeats. No one pinged previous participants, so I find it suspect that this is an appropriate conclusion.

Second, and more importantly, many of the initial !votes indicate a simple hostility to the site with zero regard for content with nothing more than unsubstantiated accusations and ad hominem attacks

"The site regularly publishes false and misleading stories" Accusation, no evidence

"Lacks reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" Accusation, no evidence

"An extremist website" Accusation, no evidence

"Has no reputation for reliability, fact-checking and accuracy. That its editor is a Breitbart castoff is troubling; that its content is largely Trumpist apologia is telling." As noted (and ignored), Daily Wire and Shapiro regularly criticized Trump ESPECIALLY after the post-election fiasco. He's hardly alt-right (the FBI arrested someone from the alt-right plotting to kill him and he was the #1 target of alt-right attacks for several years).

"Generic partisan hack website" straight up ad hominem

"The editor-in-chief and founder of the Daily Wire is the former editor-in-chief of Breitbart News, a website renowned for publishing hoaxes, conspiracy theories and falsehoods." Accusation, no evidence. He was A former editor and left as their quality deteriorated.

To his credit, one editor (only one) posted links to Snopes and FactCheck. But when you look at the articles cited, you'll find that Daily Wire either deleted or updated every single one once new information became available just like the NYT and hundreds of other "reliable" sources...

criticism article removed Example of repeated story. Note that the problem was that the article didn't specify that this wasn't found by Carson himself, but by an entity that now worked for him as the Secretary of HUD and that it wasn't done at his direction. Things that happen in agencies are credited to their leaders all the time even if the leader didn't have a direct say in the matter. It happened with Biden. It happened with Trump. It happens with literally every President and Secretary and their respective departments. But, as stated above, the article was removed, as you'd expect from a reputable news source.

criticism article referencing PowNed.tv and was filed under commentary which is commentary on the work of another, not a news story.

I would also argue that many of these editors have a hyperpartisan/hostile agenda against conservatives in general and their opinions are far from objective and should carry less weight. One even proudly displays that he was "previously involved in slanting articles about the Russia investigation [into Trump]"

Lastly, I don't agree with your count these. Of those that offered clear opinions on the first one:

1. Avoid (8)

BullRangifer (now known as Valjean)

Snooganssnoogans

K.e.coffman

MastCell

Rhododendrites

Aquillion

Guy

NorthBySouthBaranof

1. Use Caution/Partisan/Depends on context (5)

Sangdeboeuf

E.M.Gregory

Icewhiz

Springee

Patapsco913

1. Ok to use (3)

wumbolo

Lionel

XavierItzm

As such, it seems to me that the result of the first discussion (without discounting any opinions) was, at a bare minimum, not conclusive. When you throw out those that are openly hostile toward conservatism or didn't cite any sources for their opinions, it's much closer to Partisan... as the outcome.

The second had Blueboar voicing support for Use Caution and mostly the same opposing people offering the same opinions. Another editor offered criticism of the opposition, but did not voice a clear opinion. 5 against.

The third (started by an IP that went straight for WP discussion pages...pardon my skepticism that this was a real anonymous IP), but most of the discussion focused on whether using the source was appropriate as a primary source for a specific article or whether it was undue weight. Multiple people said an RFC should have been started to properly assess whether it should be on the WP:RS perennial list. That's hardly support or opposition. Buffs (talk) 04:11, September 27, 2021‎ (UTC)

When you throw out those that are openly hostile toward conservatism - ah yes, the Trumpian approach to counting !votes comes to Wikipedia. "They reject my beliefs, therefore their !votes don't count here." lollerskates. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

That's not what I said and you know it. If you ask 10 conservatives a question, you'll get a largely conservative response from them, as a whole. If you ask 10 liberals a question, you'll get a largely liberal response as a whole. If you take into account that the editors on WP (and in particular those involved in these sporadic responses over a 3-year span) are highly biased/anti-conservative and are clearly not objective their !vote should be taken with a grain of salt; for that matter, mine too! NBSB's response here is a perfect example. He associates my response with Trump in an effort to discredit me personally rather than focusing on the argument I made and one Trump never did. Buffs (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

You should be aware the user you are responding to has quite a long history of partisan abuse, capitulated by the Wikipedia authority with bannings and then conspicuously unexplained premature unbannings, essentially signing off on the bad behavior, ultimately. So if you are hoping for non-bad faith discussion, I'm sure you won't find it here, unfortunately. And I empathize, seeing as the washington post is still seen as a reliable source, even after their erroneous, and possibly even dangerous, January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation coverage and Nick Sandmann's victory in court, but the new york post and daily wire are still perpetually railroaded. As the neoliberal establishment wish it, so shall it be, I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.224.240.80 (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware of this user's history. While I agree with most of your points, in general, if not specifically, I would request you get an account so you aren't blocked from editing by proxy. Buffs (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Not RS for anything other than its own opinion in its own article. The status quo version is fine. -- Valjean (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any articulated reason why the RSP consensus would be changed. Has The Daily Wire radically changed its reporting or its editorial structure? Has its reputation in general changed? I took a look at the site and it seems to be the same mix of conservative opinion and clickbaity partisan "news" articles as it always has been. Sample headline: "Taliban, After Praise From Biden Admin, Hang Man In Town Square; Pin Note To Chest." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Or hey, look at this wildly homophobic article published three days ago, which claims that a gay school board member spends much of his energy on the school board focusing on gay and transgender issues rather than education (as if, you know, gay and transgender issues aren't part of education), and describes an acclaimed coming-of-age novel with positive reviews from an array of mainstream sources as "gay porn" because it GASP describes gay youths talking about sex. (Remember, heterosexual youths talking about sex is normal and OK. But if they're gay, it's DANGEROUS PORNOGRAPHY!) It's like a throwback to the gay panic defense era - "OMG gay people exist, and our children are reading about them?!" Congratulations, TDW, you've successfully demonstrated how unfit you are to be a reliable source. Nothing has changed here - the evidence is crystal clear that The Daily Wire is still clickbaity partisan extremist claptrap, now with even more homophobia inside. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I checked the archives and found this discussion on RSN, in which editors generally appear to have agreed that subject-matter experts in the field of climate science writing for Climate Feedback were reliable for the claim that the Daily Wire was misleading a number of times when writing about climate change. This discussion isn't linked on the Daily Wire's entry and I am not certain of whether it would be appropriate for me to add it, but I think it's supportive that the Daily Wire has been misleading on topics that aren't a simple splitting hairs over a matter of opinion the way Buffs has described. --Chillabit (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it not news that a man was hung by the Taliban right after Biden praised them for their cooperation? Your apparent disdain for anything conservative is getting a bit tiring. Vox has no less "clickbaity" headlines from my totally biased opinion, but they are considered reliable (no criticism of democrats on that page, criticism of GOP=yep).

As for that specific passage, it wasn't just graphic descriptions of gay sex that were the problem, but graphic depictions, depictions of sex with minors, and depictions of sex between minors and adults (not all consensual) and it's apparent acceptability in a school library. General libraries have much more leeway than school libraries, but the depictions of sex (regardless of homosexuality or not) in this context are illegal in most jurisdictions. Your assessment is far from accurate. Buffs (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

No one cares about most jurisdictions - the First Amendment protects literary depictions of sex in the United States, the end. Your defense of rank homophobia is noted, and entirely unsurprising. Doesn't change the fact that you're not getting what you want; The Daily Wire is staying red here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Should've added a bullet point to my post, my bad. Don't know whether you confused me for North or not, but that's two separate posts. --Chillabit (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• The discussions seem to have been pretty clear-cut to me, but if you need more sources, it's pretty easy to determine how useless the Daily Wire is as a source. It does no original reporting and has repeatedly spread misinformation, especially about COVID ([2]) but also eg. the election ([3]), Greta Thunberg ([4]), climate change ([5]), and the George Floyd protests ([6]); academic sources describe it as a low-quality source ([7]) and as unreliable ([8]) and have used it as an example of misinformation and junk news ([9][10][11][12]). The issue isn't simply that it is partisan, the issue is that its purpose is to publish intentionally false stories in order to advance its partisan goals. If anything, based on the sources I found in a quick search, I suspect that a full RFC would result in full depreciation rather than merely marking it unreliable - unreliable sources are ones that lack valid fact-checking or editorial controls or a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. As I said in some of the previous discussions, that is certainly true, but the bigger problem is that academic coverage largely describes it as publishing intentional misinformation, which is the sort of thing that requires depreciation if it seems like there are people still trying to use it. --Aquillion (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Leave as is - Regarding the reasons given for removing or upgrading its reliability: without any formal support for such inclusion & blacklisting - there was [for inclusion]. and it's not blacklisted. It was absent from this page for over a decade. I would argue that's a higher precedence - this page hasn't existed for a decade. at a rate above, for example, the NYT is absurd and inaccurate - This makes it hard to take the rest seriously.
  Regarding why it's unreliable, beyond what's been linked above, here's a little more:

Paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences uses a methodology which puts Daily Wire in a category of "low-quality sources" with InfoWars and Breitbart.

Paper by the German Marshall Fund: "Daily Wire—a prominent “instrumental media”11 or biased site that takes on the appearance of a news site without applying journalistic standards or attempting to report accurately". Also "Fringe media sources and clearly mis/disinformative stories dominated top news stories for this narrative, including Voice of Europe, Big League Politics, and the Daily Wire"

Daily Wire is a staple in Oxford's Weekly Misinformation Briefings about covid-19. Too many to link here -- just do a google scholar search for "'daily wire' 'coronavirus misinformation'". e.g. "A Daily Wire article with over 87,000 engagements—nearly 8% of all engagements of junk health news sources received last week—celebrated Trumps false claims of success"

More important than any of this, however, is that I'm seeing anywhere in this thread an argument providing evidence that it is a reliable source for statements of fact. The entirety of the argument seems to be an exercise in wikilawyering and edit warring. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"wikilawyering"? C'mon, you're WAY better than that. Following procedures is warranted. It's what keeps us from absolute chaos.

Yeah...let's try google scholar and see what comes up. Hmm. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=%22daily+wire%22+%22coronavirus+misinformation%22&btnG=

The first article "Social Media Misinformation and Lockdown Measures in Democracies" is criticism of draconian measures as a punitive response for a protest that followed social distancing guidelines. There's nothing incorrect there. That's exactly what happened and is a reasonable criticism for her choice of words.

The second is "Social Media Misinformation about the WHO" where the Daily Wire criticizes the WHO as being part of the problem with the spread of the virus. They did simply accept the Chinese word that this wasn't a pandemic when it appears likely this was an escaped virus from the Wuhan lab. That's a reasonable criticism.

I can go on, but I don't think the sources you are citing say what you think they say. Buffs (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"wikilawyering"? I'll grant that on a page as meta as this one, it's easy to see most arguments as a form of wikilawyering.

That's exactly what happened and is a reasonable criticism for her choice of words. - That you agree with the Daily Wire's criticism doesn't change that the source files it under misinformation (they also include "junk sources" and other terms, but the purpose of inclusion is to highlight bad information related to covid-19).

I don't think the sources you are citing say what you think they say - I included direct quotes and referenced a search. I'm sure you can find examples within that search that do not support what I'm saying, but many do (including Daily Wire in various covid-19 misinformation reports). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The only article in the link mentioning Trump was this incident in which Candance Owens was censored from Facebook over a claim that was legally accurate (in which she also clarified what was legally true vs popularly correct). I'm not seeing the articles you are referencing. Buffs (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• I have started an official RfC at WP:RS/N#RfC: The Daily Wire, so this discussion is now redundant. Feel free to !vote there and copy your arguments from this section to the RfC. -- Valjean (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Pinging editors above who may not be aware of the RfC: Shibbolethink, Chillabit, Aquillion, Rhododendrites.

I would encourage you to participate AND copy the appropriate substance of your comments from above, with their sources, to the RfC. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• I went through the discussions on this one and they point towards an obvious consensus for general unreliability so I can't see how one can advocate for changing the entry in the manner it was done in Special:Diff/1046690184. The RfC discussion appears to be going the same way. It also met inclusion criteria before the RfC, there were three discussions with the source's name in the section heading and where all of them had three or more participants who commented on its reliability. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  And if you look at those, while there might be a majority overall, there are a lot of duplicate opinions. When you add them up (across all 3), there are nearly as many support !votes as oppose !votes. My attempt was to put in what IS widely agreed upon: such sources should be used with caution, which seems reasonable. Buffs (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Voice of America

As pointed out in RSN it has beed discussed before. So we should add it here.--GZWDer (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:RSPCRITERIA we need a proper RfC or at least two significant discussions on WP:RSN. The last RfC was hardly a proper one, so you either need to start a new one or make a case that all the past discussions converged on a certain status. Alaexis_¿question? 13:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinkvilla, Meaww & Bollywood Life

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Pinkvilla, Meaww & Bollywood Life

 – Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

reliable sources

Your image is not a reliable source,a nd it is used with no attribution (WP:COPYVIO). Neither is it in the text of this page so I can remove it as not being a reliable source. My edit got tagged because I quoted the daily mail, yet coming here i find no reference to anything except unreliable pictures that someone made up one day. I am angry. The word hypocrisy springs to mind, as apparently the Daily Mail is not a reliable source, but you headline your essay with a source that cannot even be found in the text, let alone verified. Hypocrisy writ large. Craig Brown (satirist) usually writes for Private Eye, he is a well established journalist, so where he as a freelancer publishes is not a matter of RS. But your picture is not sourced. So source it.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, it's by Racheli Rottner, a non-notable Israeli cartoonist. I stand by it – sheer hypocrisy. You have an essay about unreliable sources yet you can1t yourself provide sources. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The image is not a source for anything, and was released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license by the copyright holder. Hope that helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Margaret Hamilton

Out of curiosity, I searched "source" on Commons and Margaret Hamilton was the first image suggested. It's not that bad, actually. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Then it is not a reliable source. Yes, I checked he image status etc: that does not stop you putting "By Racheli Rottner" as a caption. My argument is that I got tagged for mentioning a reliable journalist in a reference, from what Wikpedia thinks is an unreliable source. (Believe me, Private Eye to which I subscribe and Craig Brown (satirist) contributes are no fans of the Daily Mail). It is reliably sourced in that it is attributed to him as the author. I find the whole business of deprecating whole publications rather shady, as Ian Hislop has said many times "The British press is dirty, but it's free [freedom of speech sense]. If you don't like it, don't ban it. Just don't buy it."

So after adding a reference I get to here by actually clicking through it and the first thing I come upon is a load of bollox that would never stand as an article, with pictures without captions or accreditation, right in the WP:LEAD. As I said, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: If you're gonna make good-faith editors click your page, you should also have reliable sources for what you say. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The CC-By SA licence requires you to attribute the work. I shouldn't have to go through WikiMedia to find that out. It should be clearly attributed on the page itself.Were I to do that on an article, it would quite quickly get {{unreliable source}} or {{refimprove}}. I realise templates are not articles. But if you tag contributions with your tags, then I expect you to uphold the very standards the tag complains about. As I say, sheer hypocrisy. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

You also realize that WP:RS is about articles and that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources isn't an article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

CNN not reliable for UK News OR David Amess News

This started with the Killing of David Amess, a British politician who was stabbed to death, CNN stated the killing was an "Assassination" when no other British sources called it an assassination. {NOTE: CNN has since editing the article and removed the term "assassination".} A discussion began about renaming the article to "Assassination of David Amess", but the renaming discussion ended in it remaining "Killing of David Amess". One user, Alalch Emis, made the comment "Support comments are entirely discountable, while oppose comments are eminently well-founded and form a massive majority. This should not last seven days. An administrator should close this per WP:SNOWPRO". After a discussion with Alalch Emis, they did say CNN is still fully reliable. Since the discussion, on the killing of David Amess, sort of started from that CNN article and the support !votes somewhat stemmed from it, I got to wondering if a consensus should be drawn about CNN not being reliable for UK news OR News pertaining to David Amess. Either way, I think this discussion should be had, because if we (Editors who participate in this !vote), decide CNN is reliable for UK news and/or David Amess news, then that gives the renaming discussion new merit as an RS and a precedent on Wikipedia; Where an RS, being wrong but fixing it, would still be considered 100% reliable in terms of that subject, even though they published wrong information on that subject originally. Below are three options to pick from in the !vote.

Options

1. Option 1 - CNN is not reliable for UK news, unless supported by a British RS.
2. Option 2 - CNN is not reliable for news about David Amess and his death.
3. Option 3 - CNN is reliable for UK News & David Amess and his death news.

!Votes/Discussion

• Option 2 I personally believe CNN is still a good, reliable source for UK news, but believe it is no longer reliable for news about David Amess and his death. Even though they have removed the term assassination from the article, adding it in the first place + Wikipedia's renaming discussion gives me doubts about CNN for his death. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 They fixed the issue, part of expected journalist practice from RSes. Also asking us to cut this small a topic out from general reliability of a source asking for too much trouble in the future. --Masem (t) 15:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• RFC is an Overreaction per Masem above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. From what I can tell, this is more of an issue of British English style usage vs American English style usage – in which case MOS:ENGVAR applies to the article. 'Assassination' seems to be more prevalent than 'murder' in US sources for the same thing (the Murder of Jo Cox, for example, is described as an assassination by US politicians, but is commonly described as a 'murder' in the UK). Use the common term in British English sources, keeping in mind ENGVAR, and generally give precedence to UK sources for UK topics (and US topics for US subjects). But this does not make CNN an unreliable source to use in the article. Plus, as mentioned above: CNN changed the language they used, so the issue seems to have resolved itself. —AFreshStart (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Murder of Jo Cox is the Wikipedia article title despite various attempts/requests to change it to "Assassination of Jo Cox". Thomas Mair was convicted of her murder, this is the most accurate way to describe it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• None of the Above we are encouraged to take context into account when decided if a particular source is reliable, all of these options make it seem black and white. JeffUK (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3, but JeffUK has a point. This was a temporary thing they fixed. CNN in the USA and in Europe are two different animals, and the European desk is excellent for international news, unlike the USA desk, which is boring as hell and USA centric. -- Valjean (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural close (wrong venue), and change venue to MR. Elijahandskip in a sense appealed a RM close on my talk page (link) instead of on the closer's talk page (diff of a comment where I explain what happened), saying that they might start an RfC on his unrealistically narrow issue of reliability which masks (unintentionally) a desire to review the RM close. Proper venue, and the only place where the RM close can be constructively discussed, together with this microscopic tentative issue of reliability, is Wikipedia:Move review. Proper recourse was appealing on the closer's talk page, not starting an unnecessary RfC, and if unhappy with closer's reply, starting a move review. This RfC is not constructive. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The message in your talk page was not a closure message. I wanted to make sure you knew what your comment meant. As I stated above, I said you did say CNN is still reliable. My question on your talk page was to see if you wanted to change the wording and explanation of your previous comment, as you did. This RFC will probably be closed as a withdrawal soon, but just for the record, I was asking for a comment clarification, not a closure request... Elijahandskip (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• RFC Withdrawn by starter. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Encyclopedia Britannica

Why is Encyclopedia Britannica listed in yellow? According to the entry, "The Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online) is a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It should have a green entry. Some editors have used the coloration to argue that this is a "no consensus" source. The issue of "a small number" of 2009-2010 articles can still be explained in the text of the entry without implying the encyclopedia is not that reliable. Or put in a separate entry. Compare the green WP:HUFFPO entry - and Britannica is a much better source than HuffPo.

As for the assertion that "Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available", what is this based on? If it is just the first sentence of WP:PSTS, then that should not be mentioned here, as it implies that Britannica is special in being somehow worse than other tertiary sources. If editors have claimed this in the past, if those assertions are unsupported by policy or other sources, they should be disregarded. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree. We usually put caveats in the description, not change the colour to "no consensus". (similarly, "generally reliable" doesn't mean "always reliable", so documenting exceptions is not unusual even for green-list sources). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

In discussion #12, at the end, Newslinger states that its yellow classification "is solely due to its status as a tertiary source". But that is confusing and misleading. Many other news organizations listed here in green publish WP:PRIMARY sources like columns, reviews, and interviews, yet we don't list them as yellow due to those pre-existing cautions. EB is generally reliable and should be presented as such. Tertiary sources are superior to primary sources and - in any case I can think of - are equivalent to secondary sources in reliability. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Britannica is a substantially worse source than more specialist encylopedias like Iranica, and often out of date. For instance, in the Britannica article on Notoungulata, the article states Notoungulata, extinct group of hoofed mammals found as fossils, mostly in South America, although the oldest forms seem to have originated in East Asia. This is apparently a reference to the family Arctostylopidae, which were historically grouped with Notoungulates. This has been considered spurious by most authors since a study was released in 2006 [13]. I would never trust anything in Britannica over what is written in the scholarly literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

That is quite niche, and little different from the sort of errors that other green list sources make. Preferring specialist academic sources over news media and less specialist sources is normal and does not mean we should single out EB as not-green. And besides, RSP is about summarizing existing discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Most facts on Wikipedia that are likely to be citing Britannica are quite niche. Britannica never cites their sources, a basic policy of Wikipedia, making it essentially impossible to assess the reliability of the claims made. Other specialist encyclopedias like Iranica and even other generalist encyclopedias have a bibliography. In any case where Britannica could be cited, there are always better and equally accessible sources that could be used as an alternative. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

'Hypothetically better sources exist' and 'they don't cite their own sources' apply equally to other green-listed sources here. They aren't a reason to single out Britannica. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree. It comes across as knocking the competition, especially as many articles owe a large debt to public domain EB The concerns are

• Not referenced. I checked EB has always had references in two forms 1/ some inline cites to works 2/ Signed original research (the first major publication of the original Rosetta Stone translation 3/ Synthesis by expert by famous article authors (One edition had articles written by included 18 Nobel Laureates, others have included Malthus, Roget, Lord Kelvin, Lillian Gish,..) 4/ Since 1985 the Macropaedia (in depth knowledge) has had detailed sources.The Harvard style for citing includes space for the entry author.
• Citing Sources : It is not necessary for a source being considered reliable; Newspapers do not always cite sources Encyclopedia Britannica's methodology is to be cautious not topical, and to have experts in their field create articles, with profession editors to oversee and help synthesise.
• Accuracy and Bias : A study found that EB is also considered less biased than WP, based on word choice. There is another in Nature in 2005 that found it was slightly more accurate, although EB disputed this as whole articles were not compared
• TImeliness - It's on line now, but it still has a conservative policy update which is more in line with [[WP:NOTTHENEWS]]
• Academic Standard : the proof is WB is not considered an academic source, but EB is for General overviews
• Pragmatism : It is better to have a reference that is general (174 K uses), than none 533,242 or

Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Your critique about citations and the Macropaedia is irrelevant, we are talking about the modern online edition, which does not have inline citations. Why are you citing the 1911 PD Encyclopedia Britannica to support your positions? At this point the 1911 edition is a fossil, it has no relevance as a reliable source outside of historical curiosity as to the state of knowledge at time it was printed. When I've found refernces to 1911 material I've often removed it wholesale for being useless.
• Whenever I have read a topic I have knowledge in, I have found Britannica to have had numerous errors, which were not present in the relevant Wikipedia articles.
• The purpose of a newspaper is totally different from an encyclopedia, heavily relying on primary sources, so this isn't valid criticism either.
• Your timliness claim is laughable, it means that their articles are usually way out of date, not that they have problems with WP:NOTNEWS.
• Britannica does not have an academic standard of writing, it is far below that in most cases. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Daily mail

Daily mail was made a non reliable source in 2017, however where does that actually start from? I ask this as I added a ref from This is Money, a Mail subsidiary, from 2001 to an article. It was deleted as unreliable as per this page. The article is just factual reporting, and prior to the Mail standards dropping.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

1/ Does reliability with change time? Looking at the Daily Mail history it seems to have declined since the 1970s, but not in Sport where they continue to receive awards. Looking around the web, there may also be a split on reliability based on whether Daily mail web only.

2/ And is reliability changed, if a paper expresses a common views at the time which we disagree with now? The "Daily Mail" were against Jewish immigration pre WW2, but that was a world wide shame. But they did celebrate the death of Kissinger!

Anyway, your reference will be probably removed Slate reports that since the "Daily Mail" unreliable reference change. the referrals have decreased from 40 K to 10 K and mentions " A February 2017 editorial in The Times commenting on the decision stated that "Newspapers make errors and have the responsibility to correct them. Wikipedia editors' fastidiousness, however, appears to reflect less a concern for accuracy than dislike of the Daily Mail's opinions." This means any change, even just saying only non- sensational articles pre 1980 or Sport only, would not be accepted as political and unpopular with editors Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library sources

There 63 sources on WIkipedia library . They seem to be very reliable looking (Oxford various, Journals various,) should they be added. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Some of them are more reliable than others; we shouldn't paint them all with the same brush. Do you have a question about one source in particular? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Add a source?

Became aware recently of broadwayworld.com - this has been used as a source to establish notability, but I found this page which seems to indicate that anyone can just submit a press release to the site and have it put up as an "article". Should this be added to the list? Fred Zepelin (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I found this discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_203#BroadwayWorld.com? which agrees it should not be used for WP:N, but per WP:RSPCRITERIA you need a bit more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

A Coordinate Graph

What would be useful here would be the addition of a 2-dimensional coordinate graph with a recognized metric of the sources on a left/right scale on the x-axis, and the source status from this article on an y-axis. Both variables are ordinal, but graphing is still possible. Not intended as original research, any more than this article itself is. Tachypaidia (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You are perhaps assuming all entries are related to politics and also the USA; not so. Alternative media lists may be found at Alternative media (U.S. political left) and Alternative media (U.S. political right), and Category:Conservative media in the United States. There may well be more articles and categories. And would it really matter for RSP? The list is intended to advise whether you can, shouldn't, or shan't use a source in a citation. Platonk (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Pronews.gr (and other small Greek sites) should be excluded from Wikipedia, since they are not reliable.

Pronews.gr should be excluded from WP. It is not reliable, it is the exact opposite of it.

• At the master thesis of Ev. Athanasiou on Nationalistic and hate rhetoric in Greek internet media with the extensive use of disinformation practices and its influence in military/law enforcement personnel (2020) from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki there is a case study on Pronews (see page 29). Other popular greek sites fail as well (pentapostagma.gr and defence-point.gr), but I suppose these two are of less significance (smaller sites).

I think it should be included in the list at #Sources section. (with the advice not to be used, as in Deprecated) Cinadon36 12:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hm...I hadn't noticed the requirements for inclusion. WP:RSPCRITERIA Cinadon36 12:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36, seeing as pronews.gr   is used in only 20 articles at present, I'd suggest just removing them from the respective articles and bringing it to WP:RSN if anyone disputes the removal. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

pentapostagma.gr   and defence-point.gr   are being used in 12 and 14 articles respectively, I'd suggest the same for them. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be good to establish the reliability of the master thesis referenced here before taking action. Alaexis_¿question? 15:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Master's theses aren't reliable for content in articles but it cites Ellinika Hoaxes which is the sole Greek fact-checking org listed on WP:IFCN's signatories list. When the use case is this low and someone reasonably thinks it's an unreliable source, then imo, it's alright if they just take action till there is a dispute over it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for your input. I removed the pronews from all articles in WP and added a {{cn}} template. Now, if I 'll get reverted, I will take it to RSN and discuss it further. If not, then, I guess, no action is needed. @Alaexis: I do not know if there are specific criteria for master theses but unless there are making an extraordinary claim I think of them as reliable. A search for the term pronews at Ellinika Hoaxes yields >750 results. Efimerida ton Syntakton has two articles mentioning pronews and linking them to antivax movement. This article cites (but gives no link) to Nikos Smyrnaios of Toulouze University. Other one (same storyline though) is this one. I also found an article in Lifo.gr, also based on Ellinika-Hoaxes, saying that Pronews, posted a news article, about a white woman, married to a white man, giving birth to a black baby and accusing her husband for drinking too much coffee! [14]. El-hoaxes concluded it was a fault story. It was a story that appeared at satirical pages like thereisnews.com a year earlier. For me, if it smells like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck and says quack-quack, it is not a RS. Cinadon36 06:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I am sure you are right about it. Mine was a more general comment that a lot of supposed fact checkers and fake news researchers themselves often have an agenda and aren't always reliable, so major decisions should not be based on a single questionable source. However, Pronews do appear to be unreliable. Alaexis_¿question? 12:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

update: I remove pronews and pentapostagma.gr from various articles, none of them has been contested as of now, as far as I know. Cinadon36 13:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Project

Since there's unlikely to be more participation there and that the request seems uncontroversial, I'm pinging Alaexis and relaying the discussion here:

• (Permalink) WP:RSN @ RfC: Joshua Project

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, PaleoNeonate. If we don't get new feedback in a week or so I think I'll add it to the RSP list. If someone can help me with it, I'd greatly appreciate it. Alaexis_¿question? 07:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

There are six discussions on it so I've added it to the list. Tell me if you think anything in the entry needs to be changed/added. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, perhaps worth adding would be that the sources it cites are themselves unreliable... —PaleoNeonate – 05:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I took a glance at the discussions again and yes, it does seem to be worth adding so I've added a line mentioning that. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Proto Thema

Proto Thema is not a reliable source in my opinion. It is used 205 times across en.WP [15] There is sensationalism, lack of accuracy and their fact are not regularly checked.

• A report for European Commission, posted by prof Anna Triandafyllidou (see also here) is devastating for ProtoThema. You can download the report from here
• Media Bias Fact Check has a small essay on protothema.gr that supports the above view. [16]
• Fact checking site Ellinika hoaxes has 188 entries on protothema.gr. [17] Ellinika Hoaxes is the sole Greek fact-checking org listed on WP:IFCN's signatories list
• Another report (on greek media coverage of covid pandemic) shows the inadequate verifiability of protothema articles (see page 9 and esp page 14 use of links [18])

Worth noting that Protothema ranks among the biggest newsportals in greece in terms of articles posted per day and traffic. (see discussion here [19])

Poor fact checking plus sensationalism means does not stand against WP criteria for RS.Cinadon36 12:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you not read the banner? WP:RSN is the place where sources are discussed, not here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, this should be moved to RSN. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Will move. Apologies. Cinadon36 20:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

CNBC

I was wondering - is CNBC considered a reliable source? Bob (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

If you cite straight news articles from cnbc.com, in most cases, facing challenges on CNBC's reliability alone would be unlikely and citing news articles for all purposes should be generally fine.

If someone does challenge you, the dispute should primarily be resolved on the article's talk page. If that is not possible, you may ask WP:RSN whether a specific CNBC source is reliable for specific statement in specific Wikipedia article, but questions like "is CNBC generally reliable" are too trivial and generally fruitless.

If nobody challenges you, there is no need for discussion. RSP should not be considered an exhaustive list. Politrukki (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Evaluating sources

Editors should reconsider how they evaluate sources. We know what RS say about the following points, and we have articles, based on RS, which debunk these lies.

Any source that repeatedly sows doubt about these facts:

1. that Russia interfered in the election,
2. that their goal was to put Trump in power, and
3. that Trump and his campaign lied about and cooperated with that interference, or

or makes claims:

1. that Trump won the 2020 election and
2. that it was stolen from him by Biden,
3. that climate change isn't serious,
4. that vaccines are unsafe,
5. that Trump is truthful in any sense,

is not a RS. Those sources are the ones that should be removed and deprecated. We all know which sources do that, and that those sources are often defended here at Wikipedia. The Washington Post and the New York Times are not such sources. -- Valjean (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Legacy.com

Any objection to adding legacy.com to the list? This site hosts the generally family-written obituaries (without regard to newsworthiness or noteworthiness). It's been previously discussed here and here, and the consensus is that it really should not be cited for much more than death dates.

We generally do a good job of scrubbing articles where it's used (currently, discounting for non-article space, it's only used in a couple dozen articles, but new articles, especially biographies of borderline notables, citing it continue to crop up; it is a textbook perennial source. A recent example is Eleanor Foraker.

I propose to add it with the notation "legacy.com is discouraged as a source and should be cited, if at all, only for the date of death of the subject."; with pointers to the two discussions linked above.

Any objections? TJRC (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I take back the point of how well we scrub articles: when you include the "www." prefix, there are several thousand uses. TJRC (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The bias of the liberal media

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I posted this before and my edit was reverted by Hemiauchenia claiming it's a soap opera. Their "evidence" for the claim was a joke made by Colbert in 2006 about Bush supporters (they seem to see liberal bias everywhere).

I'm not sure how many Wikipedia editors noticed, but many people in the general public already noticed that there is a strong bias in the liberal media. I think that pretty much everyone agrees that there are two types of media outlets in USA:

• Conservative publications who support former president Donald Trump and are critical to the current president Joe Biden - like Fox News, New York Post, Daily Caller, Daily Wire and probably Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, The Hill, Washington Times, Washington Examiner and maybe a few others.
• Pretty much the rest of the media, which Fox News names simply "the media" (which includes big media - Facebook and Twitter) who are very hard on Donald Trump and very much defend Joe Biden.

Both sides are visibly biased against the other camp. My question is this: Is there any place to discuss the liberal media bias? I do not believe that this topic should be avoided. Because the criticism against Biden largely doesn't exist in the liberal media. And when Fox News or New York Post are publishing a story targeting Biden, the liberal media pretends that the topic simply doesn't exist - disinformation by omission [20]. And then Wikipedia editors will have to ignore a story because what the liberal media doesn't want to see, doesn't exist. For example the Hunter Biden Libyan assets story [21]. I think both sides are biased. However it's impossible not to see the liberal bias, and, in my view, the liberal bias exists here at Wikipedia too, with editors trying to avoid including information that can potentially make Biden, the Democratic party and their supporters look bad. If the liberal media bias exists then it's very likely it will be reflected here at Wikipedia too. Even more so if the majority of the Wikipedia editors have liberal views. And Wikipedia should be aware of that, instead of pretending this issue doesn't exist.

On a larger scale, the liberal bias is connected to the cancel culture and visible in other sense making institutions: Social networks, Hollywood studios, Universities plus the Silicon Valley - and of course the Democrat Party. I'm not sure if neutral media outlets that make comments on politics exist. There are various sources who comment on the liberal media bias. Le Monde diplomatique talks at length about the liberal hysteria surrounding Trump (which outlives his presidency) and the media war against Trump. [22] Other sources talk about a liberal hysteria about Trump [23] [24] [25] [26]. There is a huge number of instances that prove the liberal media bias. The sustained disinformation campaign against Kyle Rittenhouse, [27] the CNN lies about Joe Rogan [28] the media (CNN, WaPo, others) lies about Nick Sandman [29], the liberal media insisting on the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory, CNN instructing viewers to see "peaceful protests" where rioters burn buildings including a police station and then (Don Lemon) suggesting violence is normal because the country started with violence [30], Washington Post instructing readers: Don’t rant about short-staffed stores and supply chain woes and lower your expectations, LA Times telling readers to stop consuming so much in order to solve supply chains problems [31] (as opposed to cricticize the Biden administration for this situation), the media complaining about vulgar taunts against Biden [32] but having no problem with vulgar taunts against Trump. The media complaining about Trump being authoritarian [33] and the same Media Supports Calling Parents "Domestic Terrorists" [34]. The media being angry because of the "xenophobic" Trump travel ban related to COVID [35] but having no problem with Biden travel ban. [36] Journalists and White House press secretary singing happy birthday to each other [37] [38] - which shows the huge love of the press for Biden administration (and also looks a bit dystopian). When Biden's approval ratings sink, instead of pointing at what the president is doing wrong, CNN defends Biden and discovers that the ratings are going down because of the memes - which "make USA a more difficult country to govern". [39] Twitter and Facebook cancelled Rittenhouse, Twitter admits they were wrong and Facebook refuses to acknowledge they were wrong and blame the fact checkers. Liberal media ignoring the Waukesha massacre [40] claiming what looks like a terrorist attack to be "caused by a SUV" [41] and there are many such examples which some ridicule in memes like The Babylon Bee. [42]

There is a recent video made by NYT titled Liberal Hypocrisy is Fueling American Inequality. Here’s How. - which focuses on the hypocrisy of the liberals but it focuses on the liberal politicians. Since they are part of the liberal media, it's very unrealistic to expect them to make another video about the hypocrisy of the liberal media too. However, you can't suspect the politicians to be hypocrites and in the same time to believe that the very media who supports them are not hypocrites. So I think this topic should be discussed instead of being avoided because it is very much about the credibility and reliability of the vast majority of the press. -- Barecode (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

tl;dr. This isn't a forum for generalized complaining. If you have an issue with a specific source, you're welcome to open a specific thread about it on the Noticeboard. No, "you're all biased Marxist liberals who hate America" is not actionable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof I don't believe this has anything to do with being marxists or with hating America. You can't add an allegation about Hunter Biden simply because the liberal media pretends that issue does not exist. The source points to the fact that the liberal media ignores it. Then you Google "liberal bias" and you find an article in Le Monde diplomatique that confirms there is a significant bias in the liberal media. Then you find more indications there is a liberal bias. If the liberal bias is a reality, then Wikipedia should be aware of that. I tried to find a way to bring this into discussion. Maybe Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources is a better place for such an issue? I don't know. This is real-life situation: you can't mention a specific information in a Wikipedia article because the liberal sources pretend that thing didn't exist. And the sources mentioning that information are considered to be unreliable - Talk:Hunter Biden#Libyan assets unfreezing. The liberal media is not perfect, therefore if they pretend an issue doesn't exist, it doesn't actually mean that it actually does not exist. Wikipedia should not pretend that things do not exist simply because the liberal media pretends those things do not exist. Barecode (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course, Barecode, there is bias in the liberal media, just as there is bias in the far left media, the moderate media, the conservative media and the far right media. What matters most is whether or not the source in question is reliable. Few editors would contest the reliability of a straight news story in the Wall Street Journal even though its editorial stance is conservative to right. So, Wikipedia editors, after intensive conversation that anyone is free to participate in, decide together whether various sources are reliable or not. Many left sources have been judged unreliable by consensus of editors. These debates are based on well-defined criteria, and if solid evidence is produced that a given source is actually reliable, then that previous conclusion will be changed. We like evidence here rather thab unsupported assertions. Cullen328 (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 - You don't need any evidence to mention an allegation/accusation/innuendo. E.g. Clinton Body Count. The question is if a specific allegation has due weight to deserve to be mentioned in an article. And what should Wikipedia do when the liberal media is completely silent about an allegation. When that happens, the liberal media silence does not prove the issue should be ignored at Wikipedia. They don't have a monopoly on truth nor a monopoly on what is relevant. This is not an allegation about a town mayor, printed in a local paper. It is an accusation presented by one of the top TV outlets, about the president's son. The size of that publication and the high profile of the accused person indicate that such an accusation should be mentioned. Using only the reliability of the source in order to ignore such an allegation is simply not enough in order to decide the due weight. -- Barecode (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You are going on and on and on about the biased liberal media and saying nothing about the biased conservative media which is strong evidence of your own bias. What matters is reliability not bias. A reliable conservative source is perfectly acceptable. An unreliable liberal source is unacceptable. So, if reliable conservative sources are discussing your laundry list of concerns, then use those sources to build content. Cullen328 (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"but many people in the general public already noticed that there is a strong bias in the liberal media". In the wise words of Dara O'Briain "So what? Zombies are at all-time low level, but the fear of zombies could be incredibly high. Doesn't mean you need to have to have government policies dealing with the fear of zombies." And so it goes for most of the so-called accusation of 'liberal bias'. Most of those complaining about liberal bias wouldn't know a reliable source if it bit them in the face. And since Colbert's remark in 2006, the conservative political landscape has gone off the deep end, making reality even more 'liberal'. But that's only due to liberals not full on embracing conspiracy theories and 'alternative facts'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Headbomb - Fact: Zombies did not say lies. The liberal media said many lies. The Sandman case was even confirmed in court. Same with Rittenhouse. Zombies did not create a hysteria and a massive campaign of lies about Trump-Russia conspiracy theory. If you don't like Republicans that's irrelevant. Side notice: I don't like them either. But Wikipedia is not supposed to be the place where any criticism against liberal media can be dismissed with "those pesky Republicans are nuts anyways". This is not the place to play identity politics so please stop doing that. This is not about Republican views. The views of the Republican nuts are irrelevant. Suggesting all Republicans are nuts is playing identity politics. This is about something even Le Monde diplomatique noticed: The liberal hysteria and a media war against Trump, which outlives Trump. I was talking about the flat out lies of the media and you try to derail the conversation about fringe conspiracy theories. But anyways, your point is that liberal media is not biased, am I correct?

I would add to my previous message that such decisions of the liberal media to stay completely silent on such allegations against USA president's son had consequences: resignation of high profile journalists: Glenn Greenwald and Bari Weiss. That's another reason why the liberal media silence can not be used as an excuse for Wikipedia silence. Barecode (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a gowning FakeVerse out there. We should keep out of WP media that do not separate facts from opinion or fiction. Cinadon36 11:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

How has this massive temper tantrum about "the liberal media" been allowed o stay on the talk page? It has nothing to do with the Wikipedia. ValarianB (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, this should have been just removed again for soapboxing but too many people responded to it already so meh.. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36 - You mean the media like CNN should be kept out of Wikipedia? Because CNN did spread a lot of lies.

ValarianB - The term "massive temper tantrum" sounds quite insulting. Thanks for being so gracious. This is one of the reasons why the Republicans wouldn't even bother to argue with the liberals. Anyways, I was talking about the liberal media, which is a reliable source for Wikipedia. I also mentioned a real life situation where the Wikipedia edits are affected by this situations. How is that "nothing to do with the Wikipedia" ?

Tayi Arajakate - You mean Wikipedia should pretend that group bias doesn't exist? This topic is about the bias of a group of (reliable) sources. Barecode (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Barecode: if that is the conclusion of multiple RS (that CNN is unreliable), then we should let it out. But I feel it is just your opinion. Cinadon36 14:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Cinadon36 - What kind of RS? You mean the other liberal media outlets who repeated the same lies? Because Fox or NYP or others like them are not considered reliable sources. And even if they would be considered reliable, it would not be the best source, since they are enemies. Or maybe some publications from Mexico or Nigeria or China or Japan? Hard to believe they would even bother. No liberal publication would attack another liberal publication: "By attacking one of us I risk to support Trump". Le Monde diplomatique bothered, but not with CNN - with the liberal media as a whole. At this moment, challenging CNN's reliability means supporting Trump for pretty much everyone. Even for Wikipedia editors. And are you sure the Fox News Wikipedia un-reliability was the count of the conclusions of multiple RS and not a Fox News RFC? Barecode (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32 - I provided a real life example: allegations about Hunter Biden - Libyan assets unfreezing can not be added to the article simply because the liberal media decided to completely ignore the topic. Not only that, the liberal media is outcasting their own journalists when they try to publish such stories (Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss). I suggested such things have due weight, and the proposal is obvious: such things should be considered to have due weight, even when the liberal media ignores them.

My claims were far from unsubstantiated, I gave a lot of real life facts and sources.

And are you sure this is a time sink? Nobody has any obligation to read or to answer such a topic. Barecode (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have sources that contain additional information that needs to be added to the Hunter Biden article, please go to Talk:Hunter Biden and make your case there. "The news ignores this true story because they have a bias" is an unsubstantiated claim, unless you have, you know, actual reliable sources that substantiate it. Even if you do, don't put them here. Instead, go to Talk:Hunter Biden and make your case for changes you want to make to that article using reliable sources that contain the omissions. --Jayron32 16:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32 - Please do not misquote people because that is kind of insulting. I never suggested "The news ignores this true story". I suggested "The news ignores this allegation". I am not a political hack so I'm not interested in using Wikipedia to promote my views. I want to present the encyclopedic facts (which include allegations, hoaxes and conspiracy theories) in a neutral manner. It's not me playing with deciding what is the truth, but I already noticed a lot of editors who are doing that. I already made my case at Talk:Hunter Biden and of course, the item was rejected because no reliable sources mention it. Therefore I went one level up. So I arrived here. My proposal was very clear: liberal media silence can not be used as an excuse for Wikipedia silence. If this issue is boring or irritating for you or you think it's a time sink then you can simply skip this and concentrate on more productive endeavors - and let others talk about it.

For the record, lets notice that you jumped into a discussion without really bothering to try to understand what is it about and then you quickly found it to be a time sink and then you closed it declaring (against the evidence) that it is based on 'unsubstantiated' claims - to use a compatible terminology. Barecode (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Allegations, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories are only worth mentioning if reliable sources are mentioning them. This discussion is growing wearisome. When you throw around phrases like "liberal media silence", it belies your attitudes you claim to not hold. Look, I'm re-opening the discussion because you really seem to want even more people to tell you that you're wrong. I'm not that kind of sadist myself, so I don't understand your desire to expose yourself to more abuse, but you do you. Don't bother me again with this issue, someone else can spend time dispossessing you of your delusions. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 16:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32 - Thanks. "Abuse" sounds a bit stretched. In line with the mindset of the people who are professionals in weaponizing offense taking. I don't feel any abuse against me, I'm not a professional outrage person. It's impossible not to see the automatic reflex of the people on topics that touch politics. "This guy is criticizin CNN - so he must be pro-Trump. He must be a Republican who believes in all kind of fringe theories. Very likely, he is an alt right, white supremacist. If he happens to be black, that's even worse - he is also a traitor. He must be delusional anyways. We can't agree with him because that means we help Trump to score points." And above all "Trump is the biggest threat, he must be attacked and defeated at all costs" - which makes people act disingenuous, finding all kind of excuses and make their reactions look even comical and hilarious. This fear against Trump makes people become tribal and therefore they alienate the other side, burning bridges instead of building them. This is not an essay, but just an observation about how fear and tribalism tends to drive the debates even at Wikipedia. Barecode (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Softpedia

Softpedia is currently listed as 'No consensus... Softpedia is considered reliable for its software and product reviews.' The linked discussions do not show consensus for the view that the site's software reviews are reliable, and numerous deletion discussions in the software category have raised the issue that softpedia reviews almost always contain download links, so should not be considered independent coverage.Dialectric (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Dialectric, it might be a better idea to start a RSN discussion on it particularly if you have specific pages that you are concerned about. The listed discussions includes a compilation of viewpoints (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5 § Softpedia) across discussions in WT:VG and WP:RSN which does demonstrate a consensus for that view, but it is a decade old. The only discussion since then has involved one person commenting on it, who endorsed the above compilation. That said, the entry doesn't meet WP:RSPCRITERIA anyways, so I've removed it from the list; it seems to have been added in the earlier days of the list when the criteria didn't even exist. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on citing Patheos

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Request for comment on citing Patheos

 – Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

RoyLeban, please read the notice at the top which states: "To discuss the reliability of a source, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). Discussions on the noticeboard will be added to this list. This talk page is for discussing the maintenance of the list itself, and arguments posted here will not be taken into consideration." Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Metro news description

Needs rewording, updating in the list metro.news was merged into metro.co.uk ages ago. Maybe the (accessible via metro.news domain) should be removed from the description now? Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed it and added an updated line instead. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

TMZ

After a brief "scare" that TMZ may have falsely reported on Betty White's death (though they were proven true within an hour from other RSes), might I suggest that the wording for TMZ be added to to say that TMZ should not be used as the only source (or primary source when other sources point back to it) related to celebrity's death? We have a statement on controversial BLP claims and I would think death would be covered in that, but it should be clear that TMZ should be avoided very much as the only source in this type of case. --Masem (t) 19:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

This may have been a unique situation, where for at least the last 5 years, maybe 10, it has been a twitter meme that when "Betty White" trends, everyone rushed to make sure she was still alive. ValarianB (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think it makes sense to raise the issue following a situation where they were correct. More generally, if there is going to be a specific carve-out for a source (whether positive or negative), I feel we would need secondary sourcing focusing on their coverage of that carve-out directly - ie. if you want to say that a source is particularly unusable for celebrity deaths, you need to back it up with sources that indicate that that's a particular problem there. The only exceptions would be cases like WP:MEDRS or WP:BLP as a whole, where our standards are higher (so it's possible for a source to be reliable in some respects but fail those just on a general assessment.) But when I read a RSP entry saying "specifically be careful about using this source for X" or the like, I would expect that that means there's coverage indicating that the source has a unique problem with X (as is eg. often the case with sources that deny the science on climate change) - the wording you're suggesting would imply that there is secondary sourcing indicating that TMZ is a specifically worse source for celebrity deaths than it is for BLPs in general. --Aquillion (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Review of WSWS assessment

I am, as was rightly noted in Archive 6 discussion, involved in the discussions on the source, but no one cared at the time to provide a summary entry for the website so I did it, simultaneously asking for opinions on that entry formulation. Tayi Arajakate changed the entry, but that is not what I believe to be the consensus arising from all discussions on the source. I therefore ask to assess whether the current version reflects consensus best. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't write it to be reflective of all the discussions, just the latest one. The latest one had substantial participation and from what I remember, I did take some things into consideration from the more recent ones. Consensus changes over time and the discussions stretch over a period of around 14 years starting from 2008 so the earlier ones are clearly outdated. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Media Matters for America

WP:RSP currently says that "There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed." I agree with the second sentence, but not the first. The last RfC on this matter showed most !votes as "generally reliable" and "additional considerations apply", but I don't see anyone saying its "unreliable". But "no consensus" sounds ambiguous and could mean "some editors think it is reliable, while other editors think its unreliable". VR _talk 08:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Good points. The wording should be changed to:

There is consensus that Media Matters for America is generally reliable. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed.

The last RfC should be linked. -- Valjean (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The last RfC explicitly reaffirmed the "No consensus" status. I don't think we should second-guess the closer here. Alaexis_¿question? 21:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not quite what the closer said (they said "the current reliability status of Media Matters for America is generally reaffirmed"). But its clear even from the closer's statement that the two predominant choices were "reliable" and "uncertain", not "reliable" and "unreliable".VR _talk 22:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The "current reliability status" before the December 2019 RfC was "No consensus." The closer wrote that it was reaffirmed. Alaexis_¿question? 22:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe what they meant by "current reliability status" was the color, and I agree that the color was reaffirmed by the RfC. Your interpretation of the closer's first sentence appears to contradict the closer's second sentence. If the closer truly meant that consensus is split between reliable and unreliable (I don't think they meant that), then that RfC should be re-closed, as I don't see a single !vote that considered MMfA unreliable during the RfC.VR _talk 22:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

No, the closer didn't mean that consensus was split between reliable and unreliable. The closer meant that consensus was split between "reliable" and "uncertain" but "a lot of the arguments in general default to "uncertain."" By "uncertain," I am quite confident that was simply the closer's shorthand for a marginally reliable source, which is defined as a No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. This makes sense since a great deal of editors !voted "additional considerations apply." Even many of the editors who !voted generally reliable stated that the source should be used on a "case-by-case basis" or is "context dependent." These types of qualifiers are more in line with a marginal source than a generally reliable source, and the closer accurately reflected this in their closing. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But I feel this is not accurately reflected in the simplistic sentence "There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America" and it should be worded differently.VR _talk 23:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay. We can write something to the degree of: There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be be attributed. But I'm open to other suggestions. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good. -- Valjean (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I think its an improvement over the current wording, so I'd support replacing it.VR _talk 02:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Last RFC was almost exactly two years ago. If there's any uncertainty, we could always just hold another RFC now. --Aquillion (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Why are we splitting hairs here what the closer may have meant two years ago when it's possible to hold a new RfC at the RSN. Alaexis_¿question? 11:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• As the proposal by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d was supported by Valjean and myself and opposed by none, I updated the text.VR _talk 16:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That's an improvement. Consensus has changed for the better. -- Valjean (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Far too partisan for my liking, I oppose the proposal. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  The question was never what any of us think about MMfA (also please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT) but how to best interpret consensus.VR _talk 01:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  What consensus? The consensus of whatever random half-dozen editors happen to be on this page over a very short but unspecified period of time? Wikipedia shouldn't simply be replicating the failed bipolarized US media model, it should be attempting to rise above it. What possible justification is there for using describing clearly politically partisan sources as RS when there are so much better on offer? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, minor Wikipedia editors have no right to decide what is the right consensus or not. That phrase "no consensus" and "there is a consensus" can and is so biased. There is a consensus for everything okay people? Things change too. Anyway, there should at least be much more sources to other outside decent publishers/sites. Wikipedia themselves admitted they aren't a reliable source, especially for citations elsewhere in itself. Good day; case closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:C968:6050:DDB:EF6F (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with the proposed rewrite but better to strike out and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. We wikilink to marginally reliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

"We wikilink to marginally reliable." - Ever cross your mind to ask yourself "Why?" EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Spiked

Is there a consensus on the reliability of this media outlet ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infty1000 0110 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, will do that from now on. Thanks for the link on how to use talk pages Infty1000 0110 (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

invisibleoranges.com

I am looking to get https://www.invisibleoranges.com/ listed as a Reliable source.

can aynone help? H8eternal (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@H8eternal: Per the box at the top, you should discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Could someone update the Who's Who UK entry with the RfC?

Hi! Could a patroller or experienced user update the Who's Who (UK) entry to reflect this ongoing RfC? I got spooked by the reference number for the discussion I was supposed to add. Thanks in advance. Pilaz (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I beat my deepest fears and made it, y'all. I am a Wikipedia god. Cheers, Pilaz (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Cheers! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Update on Encyclopaedia Iranica

I added a new discussion of Encyclopaedia Iranica, a 2021 one with two significant contributors and the article name stated. Please feel free to correct my edits if it is not a significant discussion. Thanks- VickKiang (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia itself as a source, miscategorized

If citing Wikipedia as a source is disallowed,why is it categorized as "generally unreliable" instead of "deprecated" or "blacklisted"?

This seems to imply you can use Wikipedia as a source, but that's not the case. 176.119.195.50 (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Deprecation is reserved for sources that publish known and deliberate falsehoods, as opposed to sources with weak editorial controls. Wikipedia fits under the "generally unreliable" category because it tries to get it right, but it does not have quality control mechanisms in place like a truly reliable source does. --Jayron32 14:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems different people have different ideas of what deprecation means. I think this is the first time I've seen someone say it's reserved for "known and deliberate falsehoods". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a common conception for which sources are deprecated. Though if we go by WP:DEPS there is per se no difference between unreliable and deprecated sources (neither should be used per WP:QS) other than that a prohibition is enforced for the latter because there are a small number of editors who strongly insist on using a certain source. Generally the kind of sources for which the insistence exists and the kind of sources that publish known and deliberate falsehoods, more or less overlap so both the ideas for deprecation have largely co-existed. For example regarding Wikipedia, the insistence just doesn't exist, other than some new contributors no one cites it and the new contributors themselves tend to listen when they are told not to use it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:ELONMUSK" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:ELONMUSK and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 16#Wikipedia:ELONMUSK until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vitaium (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Youtube should either be completely unreliable or completely reliable.

Just because an account on youtube is affiliated with a company that wikipedia considers reliable does not mean that the youtube account should be. It makes no sense to put a blanket ban on any youtube video unless it happens to be affiliated with some news outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A448:411:1:A8AD:45C:7808:D163 (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The reliability of a source is attached to the people who created the source, not the site that hosts it. --Jayron32 15:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

No source is completely reliable, context matters. YT is like the rest of the internet a platform, not a source. CNN's YT-channel has the RS-ness of CNN. Blogger X's YT-channel has the RS-ness of blogger X. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Not applicable. I think a video is just difficult for RS as a matter of utility and access so it would be reasonable to say *any* video from *any* source is generally less desirable than a print support and prefer one use WP:BESTSOURCES of printed material. The Oxford book publication simply is a better source and more useable than a BBC one programme. So - not a RSP or ban at all. (I do not think there are any situations where a video is more useful, but perhaps someone can give an example?) Also I think the reputation of a source does not fully convey. The credibility of an author in a different media may convey some personal credibility, but they lose the RS qualifications they have in print media such as expertise, editorial oversight mechanics, peer review, and deep research just cannot be applied. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

We should not discount video sources as substandard simply because the format is less accessible. We do require that the video source be created and verified by a reputable publisher (eg BBC's own videos), obviously, and most YouTube videos fail this. And in cases where a print/web article serves the same purpose as a video we should probably prefer that. But videos like documentaries which do not get printed versions are extremely useful reference works once you have chased down to validate the reliability of the creator. --Masem (t) 13:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Jacobin (magazine)

In the latest RfC about Jacobin, I am not sure that "[e]ditors achieved a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable. [emphasis mine; strong consensus and successive close wording is bolded in original], and in general did not seem to account for Option 1 and/or Option 1/2 comments when stating that "there is strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable" — e.g. it appears to be there was no clear or strong consensus on whether it was 1 or 2, with a minority supporting 3. The rest of the closure and yellow rating, however, was fine; the current (RSP entry) also appears to be too wordy and could be improved. Davide King (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Hemiauchenia and Tayi Arajakate, since they worked on entries, but anyone's thought would be helpful — is it just me? Davide King (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Davide King, I would rather not touch that entry since I had made a comment in the discussion itself but yeah, looking at the discussion, I think you might be correct that the entry does not reflect it. The wording in the entry is directly copied from the close summary though, so a close review at WP:AN and a reclose/amendment would be needed if you want to modify it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Since I was pinged on my talk: the close is meant to convey that there is a strong consensus that it is not better than Option 2 (I.E. the arguments against it being an Option 1 news publisher were quite strong and were more than enough to achieve a clear consensus against that designation) and that there are particular additional considerations to apply to Jacobin (I.E. in-text attribution and some issues expressed regarding contentious BLP claims). If people would like to challenge a 3-month old RfC close on AN, I technically cannot stop you but also I think the fact that none of the many RfC participants did so sooner indicates that the closure was proper. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I see no reason to change it. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure that makes sense, going by headcount at least, there were 19 participants whose position can be described as endorsing "not better than Option 2" (13 for Option 2 and 6 for Option 3) and 18 participants whose position can be described as endorsing "not worse than Option 2" (13 for Option 1 and 5 for Option 1/2). There were policy based arguments on both ends. The close is quite verbose so it's possible no one paid attention to its specifics, at least that's the case with me. There is also only one person among the 37 who said anything about BLPs (i.e, Crossroads). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. So many words and little makes sense. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

[T]he arguments against it being an Option 1 news publisher were quite strong and were more than enough to achieve a clear consensus against that designation, that looks more like your personal opinion or view that an admin may not agree with, if they closed it themselves; as noted by Tayi Arajakate, both sides gave strong arguments (in particular Aquillion, and the fact, as was noted by Tayi Arajakate, that There is still a lack of examples of any factual inaccuracies in its coverage. This was pointed out in the last two discussions as well. It is as if it is deemed too biased to be reliable, even though no strong evidence has been presented to support this fact, and the mere fact it is more opinion rather than straight news already means we cannot always use it, as noted by The Four Deuces — it does not mean it is not reliable or cannot be reliable, or that it is unreliable on facts) and it is very close, much closer than your own closure implied (I also noticed only now that Tayi Arajakate is correct that it was only a single user out of the 37th who mentioned BLPs, so the closure gave way too much weight to one side than was warranted, and was closer than it is assumed), which is why I asked that an admin review it and re-close it with a better summary and entry here. I think an admin close review is warranted. Davide King (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

As for challeng[ing] a 3-month old RfC close on AN, ... I think the fact that none of the many RfC participants did so sooner indicates that the closure was proper. I missed it (or else I would have participated too) and I saw it only those days, and I thought that it was worth a review. I do not think that other users ignoring it means they are fine with it (they are free to comment here or someone other than me may ping them if they disagree), and the mere fact it was closed by a non-admin, and at least two other users have agreed with my concerns and about verbosity, of which I know what I am talking about since I am guilty of this and I try to improve, while two users who disagree are the closure themselves and a user who voted for Option 3 — I see no reason not to look further and get a better summary of consensus, or lack thereof.

Davide King (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I also noticed only now that Tayi Arajakate is correct that it was only a single user out of the 37th who mentioned BLPs - exactly. What a mess. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Jlevi, Jr8825, and WMrapids (who gave a better summary entry that takes in consideration both sides) gave very good policy-based, summaries, and well-addressed counter-arguments — again, policy-wise and even numerically, this was much closer than was assumed ... Davide King (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Given that the closer has not responded further to these concerns and the close review at AN was archived with no endorsements, I'm going to go ahead and remove it from the list. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted that removal. If you're going to open up a close challenge on AN, please follow the giant notice on top of the page and actually leave me a talk page message when opening a discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't open the close review and the notice is for discussions on editors not reviews. Unlike reports on conduct, it isn't a requirement to specifically notify closers of a review on their talk page, though they usually are aware. See for instance, the most recent close review at AN or for the matter, most other reviews in the archives where the closers were not specifically notified and it did not cause any issue.

Similarly, you were notified on your talk page about this discussion where the recommendation was a close review, you then went on to comment about the close review and you were active at AN when the close review was open. It seems like you were aware as well. Instead of reaching for technicalities, perhaps you could try responding to the actual concerns being brought up. The more I look at it, the more it looks like a supervote and the lack of response does not help. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note, I've unarchived the discussion at WP:AN seeking wider community input. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, the AN discussion has been running for three weeks and there's a strong consensus for a reclose. Since the Jacobin entry in the RSP list is based solely on that RfC, I've yanked it: if it's premised on a faulty close, then it's a faulty entry. Einsof (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Einsof and Tayi Arajakate, that discussion has been archived. The RfC has not been revised or overturned yet, and in case some admin want to do that or is already working to do it, that is the link. Davide King (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Sdkb closed the AN discussion as "reclose", and I've reclosed the original discussion accordingly: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_351#Rfc:_Jacobin_(magazine). – Joe (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I would ask someone to update the RSP entry accordingly (I participated in that discussion, so I'd probably not do that myself). The deleted entry looked this way. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I've just done it. – Joe (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:Deprecated sources vs WP:DEPREC

I raised this issue at the ongoing RFC about deprecated sources here, but I just want to note the definition of deprecated provided on this page is different than the definition given on the information page Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. Calidum 17:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

All most like this whole "deprecation" thing has been poorly thought out and interpreted differently by different people. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hear, hear. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

One person reads one page and thinks it the consensus, but another reads another and thinks it is consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for the article reliability review to be added

Please add reliability/unreliability review of https://popculture.com/ website to this article please. Thank you! JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Requests go on the mainpage not the talkpage. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, I'm confused. By "main page," are you referring to just the article itself that's observed by this article talk page? If so, that to me seems rather anomalous. Could you clarify? Thank you JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. We do not normally call those types of pages articles, but I am sorry for any confusion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh! My apologies! What are they called? Also, could you redirect this conversation to the correct spot as I'm unaware of where to put it at that Wikipedia page. Thank you! :) JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It is called a project page, and I have put in a section for it there. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Yahoo! News

I notice that some editors use articles from Yahoo News articles as references. This is understandable as they are a convenient and easy to use source, but these articles are almost always reprints from somewhere else. It would be helpful if this list made it clearer that Yahoo is only as reliable as the article that is being republished and that editors try should use the original upstream source whenever possible.

Nothing complicated, something similar to the entry for Heavy.com would be helpful. e.g. "When Yahoo! News cites another source for an article, it is preferable for editors to read and cite that source instead." -- 109.76.203.12 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

AllSides

I added a new source- AllSides- which is perennial with 5 discussions, although I rated it as no consensus because the results are less clear compared to MBFC or Ad Fontes Media. Please feel free to change the rating and inform me here about anything that I've done wrong. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang: I basically agree with your finding. IMO, there just hasn't been enough discussion yet: lots of solid arguments have been raised, but nobody has really commented on anyone else's arguments in any detail yet, so its hard to say how the community feels about all these different pieces. I have carefully attempted to flesh out the rationale a little more by briefly summarizing the nature of the contention; however, I participated in the most recent discussion and absolutely should not edit the RSP entry myself, which would be tantamount to an involved closure. So I, in turn, would appreciate your (and anyone else's) feedback on the following:

There is no consensus on the reliability of Allsides.com's media bias ratings. Proponents suggested that Allsides has professional editorial control and noted that it publishes explanations of how each rating was reached. Critics raised concerns about Allsides's use of surveys to help determine bias, including at least one instance where survey results were the only criterion considered. There is no consensus on whether Allsides's media bias ratings constitute due weight; if they are used, there is a consensus that they should be attributed in-line. Note that Allsides.com contains other content, including brief news articles and a blog, which have not been discussed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been removing it, treating it as unreliable based upon the discussions. Yes, better discussions would be helpful. --Hipal (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Oof, clearly we need a more formal discussion that can actually be closed if we're disagreeing on how to read the consensus. If there are no objections, I'll probably start an RfC when I have time a few hours from now. @Hipal and VickKiang: —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: I would totally agree with you starting an RfC. IMO it is generally unreliable but unfortunately, there is no consensus yet. VickKiang (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There's been considerable discussion about it (at RSN and on talk pages), it's not actually used anywhere other than at AllSides, and I've received no real pushback removing it's use. I noted it as a problem reference in Dec'19, and started actively removing it around Sep'20. By searching my edit summaries, I only am seeing four times that I actually removed it, though that might not catch situations where I removed it along with other poor references (especially mediabiasfactcheck.com). --Hipal (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal and VickKiang: RfC started. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Interfax (Russia) is not rated here and should be

Interfax is a widely known news outlet in Russia, yet it is not rated for reliability here.

There is also an “Interfax - Ukraine” but I don’t if it is connected to the Russian Interfax or not.

Both should be rated for reliability.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This page is just a summary of discussions at WP:RSN, so there would have to be a discussion there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Chesapeake77 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Split list into sections?

I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, but when I have attempted to edit the table entries lately, I have experienced significant lag due to its massive size. I don't want to remove entries or split this into multiple pages—I think it is convenient to have everything it one location—but I think it would be prudent to split the table into multiple sections (like an A–M and N–Z section). Any objections? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, splitting the list into sections would break the table sorting feature. One solution is to make a separate page that contains this same list, broken down into smaller sections like the ones you described, and create a bot to sync edits between these two lists. Of course, this would require some effort to implement. — Newslinger talk 02:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Should have shortcuts for all the entries. Countless people get linked here to no avail.Moxy- 02:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Each entry has an ID that is specified in the line immediately above the source name. For example, the first entry for 112 Ukraine has this: id="112_Ukraine". You can link to the specific entry on the list by treating the ID as a section title of an article. The link to the 112 Ukraine entry is WP:RSP#112 Ukraine. (In links, Wikipedia treats the underscore character _ as an equivalent to the space character .)

Shortcuts like WP:NYT can be created and added to the list whenever someone feels a need to do so. Most of the entries aren't linked often enough for editors to bother creating shortcuts for them. — Newslinger talk 02:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

MSNBC

I think MSNBC's reliability should change due to it being controversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies Master106 (talk)

You should open a conversation at WP:RSN to establish a consensus for that change. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll post it there. Master106 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Buzzfeed - End of News Operations Pending

As of March 2022, Buzzfeed is no longer a reliable source. Their entire premise a news organization is lacking and the remaining writers are in the stringer role.

The notable articles from buzzfeed in the past may be reliable sources, but in the general case they do not resemble a journalistic organization as of March 2022.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/22/1088117006/buzzfeed-news-buyouts

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/22/buzzfeed-investors-have-pushed-ceo-jonah-peretti-to-shut-down-newsroom.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/business/media/buzzfeed-news-editors-newsroom-cuts.html Loopbackdude (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Loopbackdude please enlighten us as to how this source in particular negates their reliability? CUPIDICAE💕 15:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It's far too early to make a decision on this; Buzzfeednews is under a process of reorganization; but unless and until we see the work that gets put out after the reorganization, there's no way to make a decision one way or the other. If that reorganization ultimately results in the entire outlet closing shop, then there will be no more news from them to evaluate; that's not an unreliable source, that's a defunct source. The existing writing remains reliable, but if they don't write anything more, then there's nothing to assess for reliability. If they newsroom does continue in some form, we should wait until we have some data on the new form. For all we know, the editorial policies and practices will continue with just smaller staff and less pieces going to print; there's nothing wrong with that. --Jayron32 15:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If you ignore the history of the organization quality, I guess. So it is your position buzzfeed can still exist as reliable source with 3 editors and some content managers paying for articles by the word? The news articles highlight that a majority of the "respected news editors" have moved out the door. Sure we can give this two weeks to see what further content escapes the "Buzzfeed News" division in turn around mode. Probation mode in my mind. Loopbackdude (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Loopbackdude, thanks for sharing those articles. It's useful information to be aware of in evaluating future BuzzFeed articles. It may end up being a situation like WP:NEWSWEEK, where the community establishes a cutoff date for reliability. But it's definitely premature to declare post-March 2022 BuzzFeed as questionable or unreliable simply based on their restructuring plans. Schazjmd (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

WaPo also reporting on it. Premature to say it's now unreliable. --Chillabit (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I concur. This development is not encouraging, but as Jayron32 says, it's possible that they will just produce fewer stories that are each still individually good. It might take months to notice a difference and have the evidence for it to establish it clearly. XOR'easter (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Should a separate subpage of WP:RS be created for perennial databases?

Should a separate subpage of Wikipedia: Reliable sources be created for perennial databases, such as Olympedia, GNIS, and Soccerway? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, as starter — These databases are used both for article and content creation in dozens of thousands of our articles. Additionally, new editors may not be entirely aware of Wikipedia consensus on the use of databases (especially of particular databases). Some, like GNIS, have their own entry at WP:RSNP. However, creating a separate page (such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial databases) would both help keep a record of community consensus on these under-discussed sources, encourage communication outside of the insulated communities within WikiProjects, and drive Wikipedia towards a more consistent and purposeful use of databases. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Perennial" means "frequently discussed" in the phrase "perennial sources". It's unclear as to what, if any purpose, creating even more entries on the RSP list would serve for sources that are "under-discussed", except to create a database of all possible databases. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes if you mean 'should a list of both reliable and unreliable database-style websites be centrally maintained'? GiantSnowman 20:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  That is what I mean, yes, GiantSnowman. If you feel the wording should be changed I'd like to discuss this in the discussion section so we don't bulk up the survey :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, sounds like it could be useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• No WP:RSP already exists and would be a fine place to put entries about databases. Separating out the databases (and it's not always clear where to draw that line, what with websites being procedurally generated, etc.) would only decrease the attention paid to them and thin the pool of community members who contribute to the discussions about how to use them. XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• No. WP:RSP is bloated and its purpose isn't to categorize every possible source ever used, or even ones that are frequently used. The point is to categorize sources that are frequently discussed at WP:RSN. If editors are adding too many "under-discussed sources" to the central WP:RSP list, the solution isn't to create WP:RSPD as some pseudo-sublist of WP:RSP; it's to remove entries that aren't linked to much discussion. Soccerway has been mentioned 3 times at WP:RSN [43] and neither of them were actual discussions about the source. Olympedia, on the other hand, has been discussed twice. [44] The first time, nothing happened since the issue that drove the discussion was mooted after one outside comment. [45] The second time someone started a discussion solely about adding it to WP:RSP for the sole purpose of adding it to WP:RSP, without providing any real opinion of their own on if it's reliable. [46] I don't really see the purpose of creating a "perennial database" list if 2/3 of the provided examples haven't actually been perennially discussed at RSN. What would we even be basing this list on? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• No Am I missing something important? I'd have thought WP:RSP could handle them and about the most one really says is that they are in general reliable but are PRIMARY sources rather than secondary so can't be used for notability or interpretation just straight facts. NadVolum (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• No, not a separate subpage. Part of what makes RSP useful is that you can quickly ctrl-F and search it to get a temperature check on a source you are unfamiliar with. Spinning anything off onto subpages should be resisted for as long as possible (ie. unless it reaches the point where RSP is so big that people are having trouble loading it.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• No (and maybe). RSP should have this covered where necessary. The real problem is contributors scraping from databases without validating information against independent reliable sources, which seems to happen far more frequently than it does with non-database sources. To follow up on important points made above. These databases are (extremely) widely used as sources on WP. In many cases, their general reliability has been accepted without proper (if any) discussion; where there has been discussion, it has often been contained within a narrow interest group, which on occasion includes parties who are involved in or have close links to the databases. Due to their proliferation, perhaps it is necessary to discuss all of these databases individually. If so, as a consequence of those discussions, it may then be useful to maintain a separate (to RSP) list of the most commonly scraped databases/websites with a summary of the community consensus on their reliability (especially for historical data). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• No RSP is sufficient. --Jayron32 12:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes we need to do something to halt the creation of articles sourced only to sports tables.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  How would this stop that? We already have plenty of guidance that tells people not to do that. This adds nothing to our existing guidance. --Jayron32 15:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  When criteria for article creation can be based on facts and not coverage (see WP:NSPORTS and WP:NGEO as SNGs that support this type of article creation), we need to acknowledge this guidance is neither effective nor coherent, Jayron32. There are many databases (such as Olympedia) used for this purpose. RSNP is based on discussion, perhaps we need one for databases based on use to at least improve these article creations. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  That will no longer be the case once the pending RfC closes. Subproposal 5 has overwhelming support and specifically provides that we can no longer have new articles bases solely on databases, as there will need to be at least one example of SIGCOV in the article from the point of creation. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• No, it's so rarely appropriate to source an encyclopaedia article to a database that this is not needed.—S Marshall T/C 16:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• No The purpose of this page is to determine if the sources are reliable. They are. They should not be used as exclusive sources to start articles but that is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether they are reliable. This discussion has dragged on for months and is trying to kill NSPORT by death by a thousand cuts and is getting very tiring. Please stop. Smartyllama (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Is there a way to better draw users to The Wikipedia Library? I feel like any such list is going to be incomplete without emphasizing the free databases that we have access to through wikipedia. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• No - no, better to not fragment when RSP can handle it; no, it seems unnecessary as such are seldom used; and no, databases in general is not suitable for RSP because they are not perennial RSN discussions so there is nothing there to capture. It seems just unnecessary inventing of a fork topic where there is no previous need. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• No per my concerns in #Do we need a separate list? below and similar ones raised by e.g. Aquillion above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• No, I concur with the "bloated" argument, and would support not doing this. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• WikiProject Football already has a list - Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links - which probably needs updating. GiantSnowman 20:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  That's exactly what made me think of this, GiantSnowman! I was like "That's such a great resource they've built there, I wonder if it would be positive for the wikipedia as a whole to have something along those lines" but instead of being just a resource list it was similar to RSNP. Databases are kind of a beast of their own compared to sources like journalism or academia, but not any more or less reliable necessarily so I thought splitting them off from RSNP might be significantly more productive. Hopefully others agree. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The reason I mention unreliable as well as reliable in my !vote is because it would also help as a place to director editors to who add unreliable databases (Transfermarkt is a classic example) in good faith. GiantSnowman 20:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Perennial" has negative connotations to me. These websites are actually incredibly useful. GiantSnowman 20:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  The word came from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, GiantSnowman. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I know, I'm just noting the usefulness of the sources! GiantSnowman 20:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Perennials should make you happy.

Maybe we need to rename this page to WP:Frequently disputed sources or WP:Frequently discussed sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Do we need a separate list?

I absolutely support us having more centralized information on perennial sources, but I question whether we should create a new separate page, which just adds to our growing maze. Shouldn't we just add entries on these databases to WP:RSP, as has already been done for some? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussions related to the NSPORTS proposals such as this thread, for example (I'd list the project page but don't want to waste too much of your time), indicated that the current wiki approach to discussing databases was creating problems both in terms of guidance on how and when to use them as sources as well as differing local consensuses on particular sources. My personal view is having its own page would be most useful (as I see databases as quite a different type of source as the journalistic or academic ones commonly discussed at RSNP), but it is possible that having a section of RSNP dedicated to databases and creating a guideline or essay on databases would be beneficial as well. I've only been here a year so I'm not experienced enough to be confident on the best way to solve the nuanced issues that came up in the NSPORTS discussion, but thought at least this RfC will bring some positive discussion on the topic. Apologies for the wall of text, although I would like to get your thoughts on it, Sdkb. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

My concern is mainly that it's really easy to create a new page or system, and 9 times out of 10, what ultimately happens is that it fails to gain much traction but isn't ever deleted or marked historical, either, so it just exists as largely a fork of another page, making things more confusing for newcomers. The ultimate direction we want to be heading is to have a single database with hundreds or even thousands of entries for sources discussed at RSN. This database will be automatically referenced when you add a citation in the edit window, providing immediate warning to editors who might be about to use an unreliable source. RSP is the early version of what will one day become that database, so we should be putting our energy into developing it, not spinning off separate pages which will come to have their own norms and have to one day be folded back (likely with some difficulty/controversy) into the larger database.

I should note that this isn't just a hypothetical concern for RSP. There are a few forks of RSP, including ​User:Syced/Wikipedia Reference Search, ​User:Headbomb/unreliable, Template:Predatory open access source list, Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, and Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide (and likely others). Each of these applications has a distinct purpose, but fundamentally they're all doing the same thing (listing out sources and rating their reliability), and it'd save us a massive amount of wasted duplicate effort if they all drew from one centralized database rather than each maintaining their own. I should also note that there are some editors who have long objected to the existence of RSP because the use of any source needs to be evaluated in context (which is true, but I think most editors recognize that RSP on balance is a positive) and another group who resist the idea of expanding RSP for fear it'll become unwieldy or less accurate (which I think is a genuine but misguided concern). Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think these are good points. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel there's should be a more refined "rate/rank a source" (from 1-10), and it would be open for any registered editor who has been on Wikipedia for over 5 years. Folks could post the questionable information (from that source) in a log file which would show what content exactly got a source to be possibly restricted. Just using cancel culture for sources doesn't bring about a teachable moment in how to spot misinformation. CaribDigita (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a better way than this deprecation (or depreciation as some seem to think it is) system. Not sure if that 5 years would be too high a barrier to entry though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A 5-tier system had previously been suggested at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 1 § Add more levels of reliability?, though there hasn't been enough interest to implement it. One of the challenges of adding more tiers is defining them. — Newslinger talk 10:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It is a challenge, but it is a benefit too. We would be forced to define instead of following this not very defined deprecation (or depreciation as some seem to think it is) system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Can we find out if arynews.tv is a RS?

This one https://arynews.tv/ is used, if I searched correctly, on 139 articles. Not being familiar with this site, how can I request we review the reliability of this site. Cheers! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Raise one or more specific example(s) At WP:RSN following the instructions at the top of that page. This page is just an index of what has happened there. Alexbrn (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Color-coding

I have two suggestions:

1. The legend headers should also show the background colors. Now the color definitions are not clear to me. Why differ pink from red?

2. The colors should essentially be the same as the nice CiteHighlighter tool shows. Pink is not used by that tool, and purple (plum) is used but for another purpose, news aggregator websites.

Comments? @Novem Linguae: Tomastvivlaren (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

1) That sounds like a good idea. I went ahead and made a bold edit to implement this.

1a) That unreliable and deprecated are so close to each other in color and a little hard to differentiate is a valid concern. I imagine that was done because they are both shades of red, and therefore convey unreliability.

2) This page has a lot more age, traffic, and consensus than my CiteHighlighter script. As the senior page, I don't expect they'd be interested in changing their color coding to match my tool.

Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing the colors in the legend. In Special:Diff/1081061833, I've switched out {{box}} for {{legend}} to keep the line heights consistent. — Newslinger talk 02:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The color scheme should remain as is, WP:UPSD uses it too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

WikiHow ?

can we use wikihow as a reliable source?

Link : https://www.wikihow.com Religiousmyth (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Religiousmyth: WikiHow is user-generated and therefore unreliable. Dexxor (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's for sure not a reliable source. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Case-by-case reliability. They say they have an Editorial Process[47]; they have a panel of experts including medical professionals[48]; They have a review process including "check mark" labeling of articles that "received an additional layer of review." and they got reliability endorsements by other reliable press.[49] Not that it carries much weight, but it is used as a wiki-source hundreds of times. [50] Wikihow may be user-generated/submitted content, but it appears to have more extensive review process as compared with, say Wikipedia. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer RfC

The RfC for the Skeptical Inquirer was recently closed at WP:RSN § Skeptical Inquirer at Arbcom. The closing statement states that there is consensus for option 1 ("Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact") and option 2 ("Marginally reliable for supporting statements of fact, or additional considerations apply"). Since the closing statement does not specify the topic areas (e.g. general topics vs. politics) or aspects (e.g. staff vs. contributors) of the source that the options apply to, it is up to us to interpret the closing statement and the rest of the RfC in a way that would fit the format of this list.

One potential solution is to have a split entry classifying the Skeptical Inquirer under "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise" for claims unrelated to living persons, and under "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" for claims related to living persons. Many editors in the RfC regarded SI as more reliable for non-BLP claims than for BLP claims, which this representation would reflect.

@Eggishorn: Thank you for closing the RfC. As the closer, would you like to make any comments that would help us interpret your closing summary for this list? — Newslinger talk 07:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

SI uses a "newspaper model" for fact-checking. This is less rigorous than the fact-checking in traditional print magazines, but now common for online sources and not an indication SI is self published. Extra care should be exercised in evaluating the qualifications of the author and how the particular piece fits within the publisher's area of expertise.

CSI engages in advocacy, and some SI articles will not be an independent source for WP (for instance interviewing their own lawyer concerning ongoing lawsuits.)

As for any source consideration should be given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy. fiveby(zero) 14:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

SI does not need to go on RSNP. As the close indicated, this is a matter that can be discussed on a case by case basis. I don't see a benefit to adding it to RSNP nor do I think it is wise for us to relitigate it here. If the closer wishes to further clarify their conclusion they can do this here but involved editors should probably keep away imo. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Trying to add an entry at RSP will just invite drama (and this is not a "perennial" source). Case in point: Fiveby's proposal is tendentious nonsense. Newslinger's is at least sensible. Alexbrn (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Newslinger:, I apologize for being AfK for a little while. I have been working of some very time-sensitive tax return stuff for clients yesterday and today but I will try to respond more fully tomorrow. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think it would be yellow with additional considerations apply and a don't use for BLPs. Any objections to adding that? PackMecEng (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  I would rather wait a bit longer for clarification from the closer. There's no rush. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  It has been a couple weeks since the close and getting close to that since they have last commented anywhere. I don't mind waiting a couple more days but given their lack of discussion on their talk about it and lack of engagement here, it should be added soon or possibly overturned. PackMecEng (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish, but what do you propose the additional considerations are? BilledMammal (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Additional considerations apply is standard nomenclature for coding it yellow per WP:MREL. Specifically when it comes to BLP topics. PackMecEng (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  My interpretation of the close is that additional considerations beyond BLP apply, but the close is very non-specific - it is why I want to give Eggishorn time to return and provide additional details. BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  If there are others we can certainly add more to it. I just think it is good to get a baseline, something broad we can build off of. @Eggishorn: Do you have some additional thoughts? PackMecEng (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps at this point this should be brought to close review? It was questioned on the closer's talk page, as well as here. With no further elaboration at this point, I'd rather see a more standard closure with a closer available to answer questions than interpret a vague closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm honestly not sure how to list it at this point. The close seems to be a case of 1/2, so maybe yellow with a note about the considerations to apply? — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  That's why I'd prefer a close review, as there's no real way to summarize it. ...establishes a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy doesn't actually help, since the discussion was about how the use of the source fits with existing sourcing and content policy. Seeing as Eggishorn has not been active to elaborate, a better close would help a lot more than trying to summarize this one. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's been a month; I think a consensus to overturn the close and allow it to be reclosed by a more active editor is needed. BilledMammal (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Which, I believe, means going to WP:AN, oh good.

  1 2 3 not it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  To be honest, SFR I think you probably have the most good will from both sides to take it there peacefully. Either that or Tryptofish if they're willing. If I took it there it will become a shitshow so I'd rather not. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  You can't see because this is the Internet, but my finger has been on my nose for the past hour and a half. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Responding to ping. First, here is an updated link to the RfC: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373#Skeptical Inquirer at Arbcom. I have two reactions to the above discussion. I think editors need to think twice before asking for an overturn of the close. Maybe it should be reclosed, but there would have to be a clear consensus that the close was flawed, and it shouldn't be based on the views of users who were "partisans" in the ArbCom case. Second, I find it reasonable to leave it, as suggested above, as a determination to be made on a case-by-case basis. Having said those two things, I don't want anything to do with taking this to AN. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  I have started a thread but will not comment there as that would be bad form as a party to the arbcom case. Link for convenience: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closure_review_of_the_Skeptical_Inquirer_RSN_RfC. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Amnesty International RFC never closed or reflected here

I think the result of this RFC was obvious (1), but I was involved so don't think I should be the person to add AI to this list, but can some other regular review the RFC and add an entry for AI? nableezy - 23:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's so obvious, but maybe folks at WP:CR can help. Alaexis_¿question? 05:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Its been closed, but the closer would rather somebody else update RSP. I can do it, but again Im not sure I am sufficiently uninvolved to distill the closure in to an entry (generally reliable for facts, in text attribution for views would be my reading of the close). Could a regular here do that? Newslinger? nableezy - 16:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I added it, Nableezy view of outcome seems correct, I never added one before so if anyone wants to verify? Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

My reading of the close is that we also need to be careful about how it presents those facts; I think the RSP entry should mention that. BilledMammal (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I amended so that "presentation of facts" is explained (ie consider using less intemperate wording where necessary) @S Marshall: Is the entry a fair reflection of your close? Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Tolerable, yep.—S Marshall T/C 13:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

My reading of the close is that in context of Israel, in particular about the specific mention “apartheid”, AI comments should be attributed. (My !vote was to not use at all.) This all seems a bit of trying to argue one edit by an overall RSP though. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Newspapers of record

I have been trying to clean up the table of newspapers of record recently, and found the WP:RS/P list to be very helpful in terms of looking for missing entries. I have been able to reconcile that all of the "green" entries on WP:RS/P are on the NoR table. However, while I am still pairing down the NoR table (bad ref and no other refs to be found to support), I can see that there are other strong "green" candidates that are not listed on WP:RS/P. Examples like Neue Zürcher Zeitung (Switz) or Die Presse (Aus), or The Irish Times (Rep. Ire) should be very strong WP:RS/P candidates? It is possible to run a batch of the "no-brainer" candidates, OR, should they be run one-by-one? Ultimately, the NoR list should be run through the WP:RS/P screening process? 78.18.251.161 (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

RSP is not supposed to be exhaustive. Its purpose is to save time discussing the same sources over and over again. If a source's reliability or unreliability is clear enough that it rarely needs to be discussed, it doesn't need to be added to this list. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any RS that is beyond being questioned, which I suspected is why there are so many "no-brainer" "green" WP:RS/Ps listed. However, if obvious large English language sources like the New York Times and The Times need to be listed, then other non-English or smaller English (both per my examples above), should be assessed? 78.18.251.161 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Check the RSP-entries for the 2 papers you mentioned just above. See the links to previous discussions? That's why they're listed, for whatever reason these aren't "no brainer" in WP-verse. Also, those discussions are what the consensus-text is based on, which is needed for inclusion. If you find some ok-ish earlier discussions on your above examples in the WP:RSN archives (or wherever on en-WP), then you have an argument for inclusion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that - I might have a look in the archives for that. If I read you right, you need to have a specific reference/piece of text to generate a discussion around a specific newspaper? 78.18.251.161 (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

No. When a source has been discussed to a significant extent at WP:RSN etc, then inclusion at WP:RSP can be considered. Or yes, if you want to suggest an addition, something like "I think we should add source X, based on these Y earlier discussions, saying Z." would be a good start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Can E! @ eonline.com be given an entry?

E! is owned by NBCUniversal Television and Streaming the same people that own the reliable NBC news. Could some reference be made to the reliability of E!? GregKaye 12:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a "reliability is inherited" argument will work, so, what earlier discussions are there to base a RSP-entry on? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit in "How to improve this list" section.

@Alexbrn made this removal of text, but my understanding of Wikipedia:RFCBEFORE is that it is intended to encourage discussion, and the presentation of evidence or arguments before wasting resources on RfC's on something that has never been discussed. The entire paragraph Alexbrn edited seems to encourage this selfsame process, and even embodies it specifically by name, count by count, as it refers to "recent discussions", "new evidence emerging", and "arguments not previously covered". This is supportive of RFCBEFORE, and exact opposite of the claim made in the edit summary that it ignores RFCBEFORE. Furthermore, the removal takes away an option from editors who may not be aware the option is available to them. Huggums537 (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

What we don't want is new RfCs appearing out of the blue at WP:RSN because somebody thinks this list "needs improving". That is what the text I removed, was encouraging. Alexbrn (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You make it appear as if you removed the text under a false pretense in your edit summary by giving all of us an out of the blue new reason for the removal that now says "you" removed the text because "we" don't want new RfCs appearing at RSN because somebody thinks the list needs improving. You could have simply said that in your summary in the first place just like so;

We don't want new RfCs appearing out of the blue at WP:RSN because somebody thinks this list "needs improving."

However, I suspect you would get reverted in fairly short order with a summary like that considering you were taking away something with no justification other than "we" don't want it simply because "we" just don't agree that somebody in a situation where they think the list needs improving because they believe circumstances have evolved, new evidence has emerged, or a new line of argument not previously covered should be presented with an option for an RfC. Huggums537 (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a load of mystifying anger in response to the simple thought that an RfC should not be a first step. Alexbrn (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted everything. I'm not angry at all, and nothing in the whole passage, including the text you removed, ever said anything contrary to the simple thought that an RfC should not be a first step. Everybody who is anybody knows that an RfC should not be a first step. If your thought is that the text was implying an RfC should be a first step, then I implore you to restore it, because I truly believe you have misunderstood, but I honestly don't see how. Huggums537 (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

From the original text:

If you believe [blah] consider starting a discussion or a request for comment (RfC) at the reliable sources noticeboard

So this encourages an editor, just if they "believe" some new evidence has emerged, to maybe go straight to a RfC at RSN. RSN already gets enough "Should we revisit the Daily Mail" type threads. Heaven help us if these started as RfCs instead! Alexbrn (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I see no cause for concern whatsoever. This belief [blah] that revisiting daily mail threads will suddenly start out as RfCs simply because we offer the option to them will somehow make them imagine they had a magic epiphany of new evidence is totally unfounded, unreasonable, and unrealistic. If these daily mail threads are not already being started out as RfCs, and it isn't already a problem, then this is the very definition of a solution looking for a problem. Huggums537 (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

"There's a bad thing we don't want people to do, but let's say it's an option because everybody know not to do it anyway" seems to be your argument. I am baffled. Alexbrn (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I see that as a grossly mixed up misinterpretation of my argument, and a pretty effed up summary too. You're gonna be fired if you don't show some improvement. "We" have seen much better work from you. A more accurate description of my argument would be one that says, "There's a good thing we want people to do the right way, so let's stop hiding the option that everyone already has anyway, because we can make other simple changes to prevent them from doing it wrong"

For example, you said your concern was editors might start daily mail RfCs on the flimsy basis that they "just believe". Well, this worry can easily be solved with some minor changes in the language of the text that eliminates "belief" from the concept without the removal of the option for an RfC like so;

Change: If you believe that circumstances have evolved...

To: If circumstances have evolved...

It's very easy. I will make the edit to show you what I'm talking about, and you can just revert if you don't agree. Huggums537 (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Kommersant in Cyrillic

@Srich32977: What was wrong with my edit? E.g. the Russian Wikipedia doesn't use stress marks. The practice is the same as in other Slavic languages with unpredictable stress. Moreover, including only the marked version of the word breaks searching the webpage for the non-marked version. Daß Wölf 19:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I am not clear on which edit you are referring to. – S. Rich (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

You are right, there should be no stress mark there. Alaexis_¿question? 19:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Alaexis has fixed it. Thanks to both of your. – S. Rich (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The Straits Times

I've made a slight change to the list for The Straits Times (ST), to be more in-line with its RfC. The previous summary had lacked important information such as the fact that it was the country's newspaper of record, which was mentioned multiple times in the RfC. The RfC had also generally agreed that the paper is generally reliable for general issues except for politics, especially local ones, due to influence by the government and therefore possible bias. Therefore, additional considerations are to be made. However, bias ≠ unreliability. In my view, ST is probably not much different to SCMP and the like, whereby they are also generally reliable with additional considerations for political issues in relation to the host country. SCMP is classified as generally reliable on the list – without even a split for political topics – and it's highly doubtful that ST is on a much lower tier than SCMP, no one treats ST as such.

Paraphrasing some of the users opinions on the RfC, there is no evidence that ST in unreliable (e.g. fake news, disinformation, etc.) ST is treated as such by other reliable sources, and that bias is not the same as unreliability. Obvious links to the government means common sense should be applied when using as a source on local politics, and statements in that topic area should preferably be attributed. Hence, I had split the classification into two, as the previous status may jeopardize its usage for various other topics related to the country, especially non-political ones, as it is the largest and oldest English-language newspaper in the country. I welcome additional comments about my change, if any. John Yunshire (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This discussion should be held at the same place the original RfC was discussed: WP:RSN. Alaexis_¿question? 17:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Alaexis I just reverted him for what I don’t see as an accurate reflection of the RFC and for ignoring your advice. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Credibility of Amnesty International

The credibility of Amnesty International is very doubtful. Many sources have considered it to be biased, especially regarding Israel.

Source 1, NGO Monitor: https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/amnesty-internationals-cruel-assault-on-israel/ Source 2, Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-apartheid-libel-of-israel-amnesty-international-report-11643669544?mod=article_inline Source 3, Jerusalem Post: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/amnesty-international-biased-against-israel-report-611761

They all seem to draw similar conclusions about the bias and single-outing of Amnesty against the Jewish state. Therefore, I suggest that the status of Amnesty International as a reliable source will be changed.

2A00:A040:197:1220:850F:6C26:907C:181B (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The correct place to raise disagreements with current listings is WP:RSN, the notice board for discussions regarding source reliability. Do note that a well-attended discussion was closed little over a month ago, affirming the current listing, and specifically taking up the question of AI's coverage of Israel, so if the above are the extent of your argument against the current listing you are unlikely to make much headway. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Interpress Service

Inter Press Service (IPS) is listed here as generally reliable. This should be on the basis of "two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past" but the two discussions listed are a not particularly conclusive discussion in 2009, and a a brief 2011 mention of this discussion. I don't think it should be listed here, at least not without a new discussion. (For context, we use it close to 2000 times - many non-controversial but some (e.g. relating to Venezuelan politics or BDS) perhaps controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Vox Day

I just came across a noxious site, voxday.net. It was used in this edit to suggest that the death of a 17 year old was caused by the COVID vaccine. The site is written by Vox Day, who I had never heard of before, but has lovely links to Gamergate. It is not used much on Wikipedia (I have removed it from Kimberly Kitching[51]) but it should be deprecated and hopefully added to a spam filter to prevent it ever being cited again on the English Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Irish Daily Mail

The Daily Mail is deprecated, as is "its online version, MailOnline". But we read that "The UK Daily Mail is not to be confused with other publications named Daily Mail", which of course are independent of it. Except when they're not independent of it. I know nothing about the offshoot the Irish Daily Mail other than what I read in the article Irish Daily Mail: an article that suggests to me that the Irish Daily Mail (i) has some scruples that its eastern parent demonstrably lacks, yet (ii) is junk all the same.

I suggest changing "(including its online version, MailOnline)" to whichever is merited: "(including the Irish Daily Mail and MailOnline)" or "(including MailOnline, though not Irish Daily Mail)" -- or of course to something that's intermediate, but that at least starts to clarify its status. -- Hoary (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)