Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Is CBS News reliable?

Would anyone please add CBS News to the list of sources? I want to know if it's reliable or not, and information about its reliability. Ar Colorado (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_403#Any_reason_CBS_News_is_not_listed_in_the_RS/P? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added it. TLA^tlak 08:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Starting WP:RSN-discussions with the purpose to include stuff on WP:RSP

Like at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_431#Daily_Sabah_reliable_sources?. Are we for it or against it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm against it. Waste of time, unless there is an actual controversy, and it's too much like Wikipedia being a reviewer or rater of individual publications, which it shouldn't be. Levivich (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

EthniCelebs

The above mentioned website has been marked as an unreliable source by an editor. Just wanted to know whether the community feels the same or if it can be used as I found no other source to verify Karlie Kloss' ancestry on the web. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Thanks a lot. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Flowpaper.com

I ran across this in a reference. The source seems to be definitely self-published, and flowpaper.com seems like a place where you can self-publish something and make it appear like it's a source for Wikipedia. Wanted to check here first and see if anyone else has the same opinion. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Sportskeeda.com

Is Sportskeeda a reliable source for citing? They do pick up a lot of sports news that doesn't always make the mainstream news. 75.86.0.60 (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Per the RSP list Sportskeeda is considered generally unreliable due to a consensus that there is little or no editorial oversight over the website's content, which is largely user-written. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Faith in our Institutions

There is a problem in this day and age that people have lost faith in public and private institutions. They don't know who to trust. I would hope that Wikipedia aspired to be nonpartisan but this list was sad for me to take a look at. There is a blatant left wing bias. You're perfectly credulous about CNN and MSNBC which don't even employ conservatives. Meanwhile you don't even consider Fox News nor National Review to be legitimate news sources. This pervasive bias trickles down to ALL political hot button articles I've seen. I'd heard conservative friends say that Wikipedia wasn't worth looking at anymore and I didn't believe it. Now I'm thinking twice. 67.150.98.177 (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Loss of faith in our institutions is largely a result of constant misinformation from sources like Fox. And the false statement that CNN does not employ conservatives is one of the kinds of misinformation one finds on Fox. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Baidu Baijiahao and Toutiao

Hi, I've recently started editing Chinese-related articles and noticed a lot of Chinese editors using Baidu Baijiahao or Toutiao urls as cited sources，which are deprecated sources on Chinese Wikipedia as they are aggregator sources of both mainstream and self-published news. Is it possible to add these sources on the list here or at least tag these edits so we can keep track of them? NoCringe (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

GQ

As requested by @Instantwatym, I am opening up a discussion about the inclusion of GQ which I removed yesterday. Also pinging @Horse Eye's Back: since they reverted Instantwatym. The entry was added by @I'm tla back in Feburary citing this 2016 discussion and this one in 2019 and makes the declaration There is strong consensus that GQ, including its international editions, is generally reliable. The discussion in 2016 was about this article published by GQ UK. There were three participants, the filer and two others. One of the participants in the discussion stated This is a bit of a red herring. The disputed source for the Generation Snowflake article is not GQ itself but an opinion piece published by the magazine. The third participant made a general statement about editorials in general, not GQ so I do not think that discussion meets WP:RSPCRITERIA.

The 2019 discussion was well attended so that one does meet the criteria but it was also regarding GQ UK based on the GQ articles discussed. Neither discussion included international editions and note some international editions are published under a license (*Published under license) so under different ownership and editorial oversight. (Will add a notice at RSN about this discussion). S0091 (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify I am opposed to both listing this based on the limited history and to the entry itself which I think goes well beyond what I can see in either discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I support inclusion as a reliable source based on the 2019 discussion. Mutliple editors agreed that the magazine is reliable and made no distinction between between international editions. They voted that GQ overall as a magazine and entity is a reliable source, which by extension includes its international editions. Also irrespective of the 2019 consensus, I personally agree that GQ is a reliable source based on them publishing good quality factual content across different editions. Instantwatym (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

While GQ magazine's fashion coverage may not be subject to comment on its reliability, it's evident that the publication lacks credibility in reporting record sales. This was exemplified when they referenced sales figures from Wikipedia in their December 5, 2023 article, which was added by Instantwatym on August 8, 2023, without providing any sources. TheWikiholic (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The 217 million figure was already in other sources such as The Siasat Daily, Time Out, and Gulf News, before GQ. Months before the Instantwatym's inclusion, 217 million was reported in Tell Tales, which was published months before it said 217 million on Wikipedia. What Instantwatym did was probably WP:CIRCULAR but accurate. TLA^tlak 07:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I copy-pasted the message from a different entry and replaced it with GQ. It's not a strong consensus but there is a consensus.

GQ is an international magazine that has content on basically everything, but best known for its culture and entertainment, profiles, and of course the many series' it produces on YouTube. The latter of which can be helpful with WP:ABOUTSELF. Going through a few, its editions are cited by reliable sources. Thus I'm personally saying generally reliable, also because it has some really compelling profiles on people that some of the more traditional sources might not want to touch, like the sex industry TLA^tlak 07:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment This isn't a discussion about GQ's reliability. That should take place at RSN. This discussion is to determine if it meets WP:RSPCRITERIA which states:

• For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. 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.

Currently, there is only one discussion at RSN that perhaps meets the criteria to include GQ UK. S0091 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Comment I'm tla the editor who added the entry, is now CU blocked. S0091 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with S0091 and Horse Eye's Back: regardless of the reliability of GQ magazine, there's only one discussion in the RSN archives which I can find discussing it (plus this and this, both of which relate to the same opinion piece used in the same article and don't discuss the reliability of GQ as a publisher). This isn't a perennial discussion and it doesn't fit WP:RSPCRITERIA. The perennial sources list is too long already; we shouldn't be including sources which aren't perennial too! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Loading time

This page takes a very long time to load because the size is too big to be loaded. I think this page should be divided into alphabets (A-Z). -GogoLion (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We might start by removing entries which do not fit WP:RSPCRITERIA: there are plenty which I am unconvinced are in fact perennial. At a glance, at least four link only to a single non-RfC discussion:

• biography.com
• ChatGPT and other large language models
• GB News
• USA Today contributors

Nine more link to only two discussions, the most recent of which was before 2015, i.e. more than a decade ago. Is it really useful to keep these listed indefinitely? I suspect if we had a stricter definition of "perennial" we could prune more than just that, but at least some of the current entries simply don't fulfil the existing inclusion criteria for the table! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this page should mention ChatGPT and other large language models. It can do so in the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Categories section, but it should be mentioned. However, this page will keep growing (and not just because of Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Starting_WP:RSN-discussions_with_the_purpose_to_include_stuff_on_WP:RSP-stuff), so we may have to split it in two or something like that for technical reasons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 Implemented. I've moved LLMs (including ChatGPT) to WP:RSP § Large language models, merged USA Today contributors into the USA Today entry, and removed both Biography.com and GB News. — Newslinger talk 01:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Newslinger Thinks to myself "Hm, should I make a WP:RSPSOMETHING shortcut for that..?" Nope! Too late! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Credit goes to JeffSpaceman from last September. — Newslinger talk 00:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Trustworthiness

Why is Al Jazeera English, a news site wholly owned by the Qatari royal family, considered to be a trustworthy news site. It is fair to question the motivations of government owned media in producing their news stories, particularly when that government is a semi-authoritarian monarchy with limited transparency and a poor human rights record. Recommend downgrading the trustworthiness of this entity - otherwise we run the risk of spreading Qatari propaganda masked as "news" HonestEditor51 (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN is the place to discuss whether or not a source is reliable, though if you are going to argue that Al Jazeera is not reliable I suggest you provide more evidence of unreliability than this comment. AJ has been funded by the Qatari royal family since its inception and yet none of the previous discussions have concluded that it is unreliable. It's going to be difficult to persuade people to change the reliability assessment for AJ unless you can show either that something has changed about its reliability, or there is some factor which people have not previously considered (and the fact that it is funded by the Qatari government has previously been considered!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Will go to WP:RSN to view the discussions. With respect to your comment, I would argue that the onus should be on the person trying to claim that AJ IS reliable: an authoritarian government with limited transparency and poor human rights records would not be trusted to run a reliable media organization. Unless that media org can definitively prove that they are independent from the government and have full transparency and independence in their editorial process, the assumption should be that they are run by said government (which per above is inherently untrustworthy). HonestEditor51 (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera has been discussed at least eleven times at RSN already and people have concluded that it is reliable; as you are the one who is advocating to change that the onus is on you to come up with the evidence. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you read any of the previous discussions linked at WP:ALJAZEERA? Did you find an answer there? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reply - no I did not (still learning how Wikipedia works) HonestEditor51 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Update chart at WP:RSP

Could someone please add this 2023 RFC on Venezuelanalysis to the chart? Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I did it myself. I think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

​Thanks, and your changes look good. I made a minor spacing tweak to match the other entries, and everything else was perfect. Please don't hesitate to update any other entries in the future. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It was scary :) I feel like now I can add "can update RSP" to my resume! Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Patch.com

Is it a creditable source? I did not see it on the list. Mikiko609 (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mikiko609 You can check the hits here:[1]. WP:RSN is the place to ask "is this source good for what I want to use it for?" while WP:RSP is a list of sources that have often been discussed before. Context matters. It's cerainly used some:[2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Paywall

Mentioning a preference of using a source without a paywall versus a source with a paywall should be added with a link to the term. Thoughts? Twillisjr (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Although many editors and readers do prefer non-paywalled links, that is not a matter of reliability. To the contrary, paywalled and hardcopy-only sources are often more reliable and, when so, should be preferred. I would not want to say anything that detracts from using the most reliable sources. John M Baker (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with John. The correct place for this is WT:RS, but it won't get anywhere as there isn't even a requirement that sources have to be on the internet at all, much less free on the internet. Zero^talk 07:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

TED Talks (from ted.com or youtube)

A discussion came up on Talk:Katherine Maher about whether TED talks (from ted.com or youtube) are valid RS —it's not listed on RSP. My gut says "no".

Con

1. TedX has no quality standard
2. TED talks are cliche, coastal, rife with business speak & pseudo-intellectual
3. the talks don't distinguish fact from opinion or anecdote. Sources are not cited.

PRO

1. True TED (not Ted X ) do have an implicit editorial bar for content and speakers, but it's not a journalistic BAR IMO
2. Speakers often have respectable pedigrees or are notable

What's your take? Tonymetz 💬 02:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC) }}

TED talks are not edited material and are usable as reliable sources (rather than opinion) only if they qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:SME. But if you want to discuss this further, you should do so at WP:RSN. John M Baker (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Local news

I suggest adding this as a subject under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Categories. Text, based on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2019#Local_sources,_again:

"Local news" is hard to define, use your best judgement. WP:Notability (organizations and companies) has subject-specific guidance at WP:AUD.

Thoughts? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

How to attribute MondoWeiss

WP:RSP on MondoWeiss says: Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. I've consequently added attribution a few times, along the lines of "According to Ira Glunts, writing in MondoWeiss,...." Zero0000 has removed these, arguing as follows: It means that the authors of articles in MW should be attributed for their claims. It doesn't say "stuff in MW should be attributed to MW", it says that statements in MW "should be attributed", which always means that opinions or claims should be attributed to whoever is giving the opinion or making the claim (note the meaning of "attributed" in the link). The only time it implies that MW as a magazine should be attributed for something is when the article at hand is when MW itself is the author (e.g. an editorial). Also, if MW was to be attributed it would have to be like "according to MW", which is not what you have been writing — what you have been writing is not an attribution at all per WP jargon but rather a part of the citation placed in the text against usual practice. If this is right, it means that all the sources on RSP where there's consensus attribution is required, we don't actually have to attribute them in text (unless it's an unsigned editorial), but only their contributors. Is that how this is generally understood? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That first one looks like double attribution, if the source is Ira Glunts, then attribute them. If they are not in themselves notable/reliable for their opinion (undue weight), then go with an attribution to MW instead. Course, I might have all this backwards as well, lol. Certainly, biased statements of opinion need attribution rather than being stated as fact. Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If we mention an opinion in a book published by Princeton University Press and wish to attribute it, we write "according to <author>" not "according to Princeton University Press". Attributing it to PUP would be a false attribution, since it wasn't PUP who gave the opinion. There are cases where it is appropriate to attribute something to a publisher, such as newspaper articles which have no byline, but that does not apply to articles which are the work of a named individual, especially when the author is an expert or notable in discourse on the subject. The place where the article is published should of course be in the citation (the usual way of "attributing" a publisher) and I don't recall any case (including this one!) where there was a consensus to mention the place of publication in the text as well as in the citation. I don't think this is a reliability question, but just a matter of how to attribute something. Zero^talk 08:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The attribution is because the publisher is weaker than other types of sources, so we rely on the author. Attribution doesnt mean "According to John Smith, writing in Mondoweiss", it means "According to John Smith" because we attribute the idea to the person espousing it. nableezy - 08:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's my take:

I feel like different formats have different degrees of publisher responsibility over the content

News articles should get "According to <author>, writing for <newspaper>" unless marked as or implied to be provided by a news agency (in which case that agency should be attributed, e.g. "according to <author> writing for AP News / Reuters / etc." or "according to AP News / Reuters / etc." if no author is specified), an organization/company (in which case that organization should be attributed in the same way; this should be assumed for advertisements), or an individual (in which case only the author's name should be mentioned; this should be assumed for comments, obituaries, opinions shown as alternatives rather than standalone articles, and articles written by anyone who is prominently labeled as an external contributor rather than a staff member). "An article/advertisement/comment/obituary/etc. published in / run by <newspaper>" is true nevertheless.

I'm not sure about magazine articles, so I would lean towards the neutral position of "according to an article by <author> in <magazine>".

For scientific journals, "according to <author> writing for <journal>" is only true if the journal specifically commissioned the authors; if in doubt, use "according to <authors>" or "according to an article by <authors> published in <journal>.

For books, the author is pretty much always in charge, so "according to <author>" is best. "According to an book by <author> published by <publisher>" is okay, whereas "according to <author> writing for <publisher>" and especially "according to <publisher>" are unacceptable without a strong overriding reason.

Whatever you do, don't attribute the content provider (except in the full citation) outside of extremely unusual cases. I've seen this multiple times with the National Library of Medicine, though in classmates' writing that I'm giving feedback on, not on Wikipedia.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

P.S. If there's a statement that the publisher is not responsible for something, it might be best not to mention the publisher when attributing that thing.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor

A discussion of MEMO is currently petering out at RSN. It has been discussed there four previous times - very briefly in 2012, in 2019, in great detail in 2021, and in passing later in 2021. Could anybody summarise these discussions and add to RSP please? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it the case that for an RSP listing, there needs to be an RFC?

Both MEMO and Eye do appear in Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide, the former as Unreliable based on the 2021 discussion (which may change with the current discussion) and the latter as nocon also based on a 2021 discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion: two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. Schazjmd (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, OK, so the current discussion on MEMO would make it two significant discussions, right? Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Middle East Eye

MEE has been discussed five times at RSN: in 2015, in 2018, a second time in 2018, in 2021, and again shortly after that but rapidly abandoned. Can somebody read and summarise these discussions on RSP? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Should sources with only a single discussion be listed here?

I saw that TED talks were just added to the RSP list [3]. Does it make sense to add a source that has only been discussed once? The same is true of a source like Sydney Morning Herald which lists only a single, short RSN discussion [4]. Many treat the RSP list as if it were a gold plated wikipedia assessment on a topic. That may be true in cases where we have had a long, well attended RfC (or RfCs). However, when we have just a single discussion, especially one without a RfC I would suggest we should keep such sources off the list. It made sense to establish the list to handle frequently discussed sources (how many times was Fox News discussed before the list was created). But does it really make sense to add a source that has only a brief RSN discussion? Is it reasonable to start trimming such sources from this list? Springee (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Every entry on this list should meet WP:RSPCRITERIA, which requires a minimum of two significant discussions, or at least one uninterrupted RfC on RSN. I see that there are several entries that do not meet this criteria (as discussed in #Loading time) and I agree that they should be merged into a related entry, moved to the "Categories" subsection, or removed. — Newslinger talk 01:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I've refactored or removed the four entries discussed in #Loading time. On the other hand, the entry for The Sydney Morning Herald does appear to meet WP:RSPCRITERIA with its one RfC and one additional discussion. I don't think this entry should be removed unless WP:RSPCRITERIA were revised to be stricter for all sources. — Newslinger talk 01:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)