Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

MEMRI

Hemiauchenia you closed the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#RfC:_Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute_(MEMRI) as no consensus, would you mind re-reviewing that closure given the amount of socking that occured in the RFC? There are 4 socks of banned editors in that discussion, 3 Icewhiz and one AndresHerutJaim. The now blocked socks listed at the top of the RFC now, and each of those users was already banned when it was held. There was also a non-ec editor who was disqualified from participation as well (Resowithrae) nableezy - 14:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on my grepping skills, which admittedly is out of practice so a review is welcome, absent the four banned sockpuppets, 11 users for options 1 and 2, and 19 for options 3 and 4, with 15 of those for deprecate alone, and each of the four option 3 votes were either also for 4 or on the fence between 3 and 4. To 11 for either 1 or 2. Im not suggesting this should be changed to deprecate so long after it was run, but it certainly should be listed as generally unreliable. nableezy - 16:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I would be okay with the RFC being reclosed, but given that I opened it in the first place I would rather someone else uninvolved do it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Somebody out here willing to look at this? Though to be honest I dont think Hemiauchenia is actually involved, they didnt vote and only opened it on the basis that we had no recent discussion. nableezy - 17:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that re-closing is the right approach here. The RfC was held 3 years ago, the context and information landscape may have evolved since then. A new RfC would allow for the inclusion of updated information and recent developments, ensuring that the decision is based on the current state of affairs rather than outdated discussions. Alaexis_¿question? 20:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course you dont, you want to be able to argue that the RSP entry, not representative of the discussion minus the socks though it is, allows for the usage of a source that had a super majority support deprecation of. Im fine with a new RFC too, but the status quo should reflect the result of the last RFC, without the inclusion of the views of the banned editors that white-anted the RFC. nableezy - 20:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think holding a new RFC would be the best approach here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, I am fine with that. I just also want the status quo to reflect the last RFC that was held as well. Because right now users are using this no consensus to argue anything goes with MEMRI, and that was obviously not "no consensus" minus the Icewhiz+AHJ socks. nableezy - 21:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I've reclosed the discussion, see [1]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, mind updating the RSP entry? nableezy - 21:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Already done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

oops, thank you very much. nableezy - 21:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I don’t think this was appropriate; to put it simply, three years means the discussion is too old to be revisited in this manner - at most the entry at RSP should be removed entirely and a new discussion held. BilledMammal (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have done what has been asked of me. If you think It's necessary to have a new discussion, go and open one yourself. I Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

What I’m asking is that rather than reclosing you reverse the close entirely, because three years means the discussion is too old to be revisited in this manner - this will leave RSP with no entry on MEMRI, which should still address Nableezy’s concerns about the result being used in other discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to. Open a new RFC if you care enough. You can remove the RSP entry if you want to though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, thank you. With that said I am considering appealing this close at AN none the less, both due to the closure of a stale discussion and due to the oddity of a person who opened an RfC also being the person who assessed the consensus of it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There's no reason to take this to AN, appealing the closure (or re-closure) of a 3 year old discussion is just a waste of time. Galobtter (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Normally that is true, but RSP entries are treated as the last word on the reliability of sources in contentious areas. Having one so clearly corrupted by socks of banned users was, to me at least, a Bad Thing™. nableezy - 01:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Not objecting to you asking for a reclose; just to spending a bunch of time at AN. Galobtter (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer it not to be necessary but I think it might be, due to Nableezy reverting the removal from RSP and due to the irregularities with this closure; if it was just the latter I would probably decide against opening an appeal, but listing at RSP has broad and ongoing consequences. BilledMammal (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want to appeal what is about 18-19 deprecate, with repeated examples of outright fabrications offered, to 10 reliable or other considerations apply ending in "between no consensus and generally unreliable" by all means. Id be arguing that deprecate is the correct reading of that consensus though. nableezy - 01:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The person who opened the discussion did not appear to make any comment at all during it. That objection seems wikilawyeresque. Your removal also removed all the links to past discussions, so I reverted that. nableezy - 01:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: You mentioned in this thread that right now users are using this no consensus to argue anything goes with MEMRI would you be able to provide examples of this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Here and here (article+talk). nableezy - 01:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

National File

Earlier this year, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that National File was created as a means of pushing InfoWars content while disguising its origin. Shouldn't it be included/blacklisted per WP:INFOWARS? Isi96 (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It may be worth mentioning there, but on the plus side [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there aren't any citations to it now, but there's always the risk of new citations to it being added. Isi96 (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Huffington Post UK non-political

I was trying to cite the Huffington Post UK on the new shortwave broadcasts by the BBC on a page, but the Wiki system denied me saving the edit. As far as I understand, the Huffington Post is not completely banned! --Esperfulmo (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Esperfulmo:I was able to add it. I did not get a message. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a mystery why I wasn't allowed. --Esperfulmo (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Find a Grave -- perennial source (cemetery listings v. grave listings)

A discussion is was underway at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Find_a_Grave_clarification regarding a proposed clarification of the text about Find a Grave. (Apologies -- I should have opened the discussion here.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC) 16:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a restatement of the Reliable sources noticeboard discussion referenced above. It is restarted here seeking to clarify when Find a Grave is an acceptable source verses when it is an acceptable external link. 16:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

At present the WP:RSP#Find a Grave listing for Find a Grave reads as follows:

The content on Find a Grave is user-generated, and is therefore considered generally unreliable. Links to Find a Grave may sometimes be included in the external links section of articles, when the site offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia. Take care that the Find a Grave page does not itself contain prohibited content, such as copyright violations.

This is only partially correct. To clarify, I recommend the following:

Interment information for individuals on Find a Grave is usually user-generated, and is therefore considered generally unreliable as a reliable source. Information about listed cemeteries and "famous" people is under the editorial control of Find a Grave itself but remains unusable as a reliable source. Accordingly, links to Find a Grave interment listings may sometimes be included in the external links section of articles, when the site offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia. Links to Find a Grave cemetery pages are generally acceptable in article External links sections. In all cases take care that the Find a Grave page does not itself contain prohibited content, such as copyright violations.

[Strike-out – Is this sentence useful, correct, or needed?]

[Italics – added verbage.]

This change distinguishes between the user-generatd burial listings and the website-generated or controlled information. E.g. WP:RSCONTEXT. – S. Rich (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC) 16:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Per the discussion at RSN, no change is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The RSN is concerned with the "reliability of sources in context!" This discussion is about posting FAG as an External link. Little of the RSN discussion was about External link postings. – S. Rich (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad this has arisen. Generally speaking, External Links are not expected to be sources. On other external links we don't delete the links on a reliability issue - we just leave the External Links alone. I bring this up, because Nikkimaria has been removing Find a Grave from external links. Nikkimaria, know that I like you and respect your work, but I find it counter-productive to Wikipedia to remove Find a Grave from the external links section. In fact, you seem to be going through my content articles, making that change. It's happened so much, that I feel like you're screening my articles. Wikipedia, as far as I know, has never asserted that anything under External Links be scrutinized as a reliable source. I wish we could go back to having Find a Grave under External Links. — Maile (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I screen all articles for addition of such links, as the community consensus has been that they are rarely appropriate additions under the external links guideline. The discussion at RSN doesn't suggest that that has changed at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

A few notes:

• RSP should probably just say "See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Find a Grave about using it in ==External links==". That would prevent any (further) unfortunate drift between the two.
• The bit about "In all cases take care that the Find a Grave page does not itself contain prohibited content, such as copyright violations" means that WP:LINKVIO (a legal policy) applies even if you think you otherwise have a good excuse to be linking to a page at that website. It should likely be retained in some form.
• The "generally unreliable as a reliable source" is unnecessary, since WP:ELMAYBE #4 has said (for almost the dawn of time) that ==External links== do not have to be Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Accordingly, I suggest the following brief summary:

The entire website, including information about listed cemeteries and "famous" people, is generally unreliable. For inclusion in an external links section, see WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. Never link to any page that contains copyright violations or other prohibited content.

I'm not sure that we need to provide any more detail than that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is a complete list of all the pages you two have both edited in the last 30 days. It's this page, plus one (1) article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, clarification for you, and why this is so irritating to me. It started in 2021 on article Sarah Selby, which I had rescued. If memory serves me, this was a draft or something which was deleted. I created the article as a new page, but not from the draft. Nikkimaria deleted the Find A Grave under External links. Ever since then, Nikkimaria has been deleting Find A Grave here and there that I've left in External links. — Maile (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Would be best to try and find a site with information beyond what we have. [3]. A problem we had many years ago was the addition of the links after misleading information a copyrighted images were added to the BIOS at FaG..... thus has left a sour taste to many long time editors that remember having to deal with it. This is why this page has the FaG entry and the information to contact them about copyright concerns. Moxy- 23:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Maile66: clarification for you: as I said above, I screen all articles for addition of such links - there has been extensive discussion on them which has resulted in the consensus currently expressed at RSP and at ELPEREN. In the interest of good faith, I'd appreciate it if you'd strike or hat your accusations so we can return to discussing the proposed change to see if that consensus may have changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a way to link to a particular news source listing?

Is there a way to link to a particular news source listing? For example, for The Independent, I was hoping to be able to use Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The independent, but that doesn't seem to work. ReferenceMan (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep; we can add a shortcut, like {{/Shortcut|WP:The Independent}}. I've done that; you can now use WP:The Independent to link to it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Is there anyway to have that automatically done for all the sources? ReferenceMan (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I've simultaneously added WP:INDYUK as one. Shortcuts are added on a need-to-have basis in order to maximize utility without cluttering the Wikipedia namespace. Cheers! Remsense留 05:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

UK Government commented on Metro UK

So obviously Wikipedia has had enough RfCs and discussions on Metro and we, as a community have already decided that Metro is a not reliable source (WP:METRO). I am just adding this here since it occurred today, but the Met Office (UK government) commented on a X post after Metro posted “The Met Office warns the UK will be double-fisted by deadly snow and ice”. The Met office commented, “Needless to say, this isn't a term we'd use to describe the weather.” I ain’t saying we deprecate or do anything else for Metro right now, but I wanted to see if others would be ok if this comment/“discussion” gets added to the list of discussions about Metro UK? More so it isn’t forgotten if a discussion about deprecation ever came up. Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

No, stupid twitter not-even-feuds do not have anything to do with the reliability of newspapers. --JBL (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Concur with JBL, this discussion is a waste of time it's a newspaper WP:HEADLINE which aren't considered for RS reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Medium (website)

I recently ran into a problem when I tried to save some notes in a userspace page of mine. I was notified that a deprecated link was on the page, and only when I deactivated the link to Medium (website)'s website was I allowed to save the page. I didn't even have any intention of ever using the link in an article. What's going on? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The deprecated message doesn't stop you from saving, you just have to press save again. Only blacklisting stops you from saving. I guess it does make sense to have this in userspace, as that space is also used for drafting articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but why get a warning for Medium? It isn't deprecated at all. It should just be used very cautiously. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Medium isn't deprecated, it's only marked as generally unreliable. It's certainly usable under SPS and ABOUTSELF. Do you have an example where this happened? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I just tested the link in my sandbox and there was no warning. I guess that means there must have been another unreliable source on the page I was using, and it wasn't fully deprecated, but I still got warned. Strange. We can test it here: https://medium.com/@franksnepp/hope-hicks-nails-hooker-tapes-and-trump-4ffa449c5f32 While I would not use that source in an article, I found it while doing research and I can document that content using RS. Together with Michael Cohen's testimony, it's easy to document that Cohen and Trump learned of the pee tape rumor (which we know of from the Steele dossier) shortly after Trump left Moscow in early November 2013, after the Miss Universe pageant, and Cohen testified that many people knew of it long before the dossier was even written. It's been a public secret in Russia since late 2013 and a closely guarded one in America, with several named people who knew of it since that time. (I have a list of over 15 people who knew.)

On January 5, 2017, right before Trump took office, Comey and the intel chiefs met with Trump at Trump Tower. Comey then informed him of this salacious dossier allegation, but Trump did not tell Comey that he and a number of others already knew of the rumor and had always known about it. Steele's sources were just telling him about an old rumor. Steele did not invent that story, nor did his sources. That is a common misunderstanding.

So, back to the situation here. Apparently one can be warned about a poor source without being totally blocked from saving the page. I must have misunderstood the warning message and thought I had to remove the offending link before I could save the page, and I just happened to remember that the Medium link was a questionable one. That warning should mention the link, but it doesn't. That's not good. How is one to know? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I am able to reproduce the wording, but not the wikilinks, of the template that appeared:

An automated filter has detected that you are adding a link to a deprecated source, considered generally unreliable after discussion by the community. References to these sources are generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. Please cite a more reliable source instead. If the only source you can find for the claims is one of these deprecated sources then you should not add the content in question. Note: There are limited exceptions to this rule (such as when the source itself is the topic being discussed). If you have checked the policy on Wikipedia:Reliable sources and the deprecated source guidance (or checked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) and verified that your edit is one of the limited exceptions, then you may resubmit it by clicking "Publish changes" again. Please do not do this unless you have first verified that this specific use of the deprecated source has broad support, especially for biographical articles: deprecated sources are liable to be removed on sight and persistent addition can lead to editing restrictions.

I did not notice the words "then you may resubmit it by clicking "Publish changes" again." The template should tell the editor which source is problematic. Where is this template located? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That it doesn't say what source is problematic is annoying. It appears the message comes from MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-deprecated, which has a talk page message asking this exact question back in 2021 that in turn points to phab:T174554 from 2017. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Assessment of BBC non-English content

Hello! After reviewing the archives, I have not found an assessment of the non-English content. Regarding this edit therefore I actually agreed with the edit summary that there is no discussion, which is why we should re-add a clarification that the non-english content is not part of the rating, to prevent any misinterpretation by other language wikis. Unless, we have evidence that the headquarters conduct quality control on the content published in other languages (and that those content are as reliable as the English content)? If so, can someone bring that up? Many thanks,

Tagging Mx. Granger as courtesy. --PeaceNT (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think that the BBC's non-English news and documentary content should be treated differently from its English-language programming? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Things get discussed because there are issues with, or questions over, reliablity. If no discussions take place nothing is added to RSP. Unless you have specific questions about the reliability of a source there's nothing to discuss. Also RSP shows the results of discussions of a source on enwiki, how or what other language wikis do is of no concern here and should be discussed on those wikis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

As said by others, is there any reason to believe the BBC do not apply the same editorial standards? Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

My primary concern is the reputation of BBC in Eastern countries differs from that in English-speaking countries. I have not seen evidence to suggest that the same level of quality control is extended across all languages, so I am curious. This is particularly relevant to English Wikipedia, as foreign language sources are accepted here per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. We just need to ensure that their non-English content is not mistaken for a reliable source, as none of our previous discussions here have suggested that idea. --PeaceNT (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

So, do you have some evidence that an organization as large and multinational as the BBC does not have the same or comparable standards and quality control across languages and regions? That would be the starting point for this discussion. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That no discussion has happened in no way means a source is unreliable, in fact it's the other way round. If no-one has ever thought to question the reliability of a source then it's generally considered reliable. You need to show why the none English BBC content shouldn't be considered reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I would consider them reliable unless shown not to be. FortunateSons (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Apart from suggestions that the Arabic service (now discontinued, along with the Chinese and Hindi service among others, due to cost-cutting) had an anti-Israel bias,[4] the non-English content is generally accepted to be top tier for news and factual reporting. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC).

Page Recommendations

My page "Fergus James" has put up for deletion despite meeting the criteria to be accepted as the person is most definitely notable having several songs with over 1,000,000 streams on Spotify. FFelxii (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Shut down and inaccessible

There are a few sources on this list that have been shut down for a while, with their web sites no longer up. Examiner.com closed in 2016, and 112 Ukraine, LiveLeak, and Apple Daily closed in 2021. Most of these have a note that "website content is no longer accessible unless archived."

Should these, and other shut down and inaccessible sources, be on here at all? They're not really "perennial" anymore. The discussions will still be available elsewhere on Wikipedia if needed. Apocheir (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Assuming one could use the Wayback Machine or other method to see the old content, then yes, these should stay on. Masem (t) 20:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

These are not sources that will to be producing new articles, and their past content is now difficult to access. It is very unlikely that anyone is going to bother discussing their reliability ever again, even if they were the subject of a lot of discussion in the past. It's also not likely that their past content is going to receive any new citations, although some existing citations may linger.

Maybe move these sources into a separate table or list, like under "Categories"? Apocheir (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

When an editor encounters an unfamiliar website in a ref and tries to look it up and it's inaccessible, it's really handy to be able to check here and see that it was discussed in the past. Unless we confirm that there are no refs to those sites in any article, it's more convenient to capture the past discussions here than to make the editor trawl through old archives. Schazjmd (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It's always possible that a source might resume publishing, or someone with access to the archives might publish them elsewhere. In addition, sources with print versions (such as Apple Daily) still exist in print. Even if a source isn't used as a reference anywhere, someone could still attempt to cite it again in the future. If the Daily Mail went out of business tomorrow, the number of attempted additions would fall, but I don't think it would be zero. There's also a section discussing a similar question at WT:DEPS.

The sources are definitely less relevant now, but the validity of the RSP entries hasn't changed. That said, if the numbers start to build up then it could make sense to move them to a dedicated archive page. However, in that case the names of the sources should be kept so that they're still searchable on this page. Sunrise (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I support outdated entries being removed onto on archived subpage so that the main page is less cluttered. And as usual, only entries with some semblance of consensus via RfC should be listed to begin with (except those blacklisted for spam/malware). Another thing: the possibility that in a future case someone will add a rather obscure discontinued source without checking RSP first is kinda a silly reason to let such edge cases perpetually remain and grow in clutter on a P&G page. (The implication would then be that the only way to remove such clutter is an RfC on each discontinued source, which wouldn't happen since it's discontinued, and wouldn't succeed since nothing will have changed about the source.) SamuelRiv (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Apple Daily is e.g. used in 1400 articles. At any point in time in future, someone might look at one of those references and wonder if apple daily is reliable for the content it is cited for, and search for it here. So it is still useful to have sources listed here even if they are shut down, and even if the source will never ever be discussed again at RSN, because it is still useful for people to know if the source is reliable or not. Galobtter (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The list is long, but I'm not sure that archiving is pointful if it would remove only a tiny percentage of entries. Going from 421 entries to 417 will not really make a difference.

Additionally, when a source is still used in (more than a few) articles, it may still be useful to have in this list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Link to Radio Free Asia as reliable source discussion??

This was a very baffling site to see given that it is a well known propaganda outlet. I'm very curious where the archives for this are as I can't find any. I want to see the reasoning behind this. Genabab (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The RfC is linked in the list entry, with the text "2021": Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 333#RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA). Elli (talk | contribs) 19:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

And 4 more links to other discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Genabab, a WP:BIASED source can be an excellent one – so long as you know that it's biased, and therefore treat it appropriately. We have to be more concerned about sources that make up garbage. We can work with state-sponsored media sources. You just handle it the same way you would {{cite press release}} (e.g., "Their viewpoint is", rather than "The universal truth is"). If appropriate, the source might be balanced with others from the opposite viewpoint (e.g., "The US-sponsored Radio Free Asia said...and the Chinese state media said..."). The goal, as E. B. White once put it, is "a well-balanced library, not a well-balanced book". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you want to use it for? Alaexis_¿question? 20:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It's one thing if it's just a biased source, and another when it's a well known propaganda outlet... Genabab (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

All biased sources need the same basic approach. Some of them may be more extreme, but it's still the same basic approach. The state-sponsored media says their government is only in favor of justice and peace, the politician made a campaign promise, the polluting company issued a press release claiming they'd never exploit anyone or anything, the accused criminal denies all guilt... If a relevant player says something, then editors can and should accept that as what that source chose to say. If they are, in the words of the Propaganda article, "selectively presenting facts", then that selection can be countered and balanced with other sources. If one propaganda outlet says "In a recent car race, our patriotic driver came in second place, and our rivals came in next to last", then another outlet can add "Yeah, and there were only two cars in the race, so 'next to last' means 'first place', and 'second place' means 'you lost'." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Nothing. I just wanted to know what the reasoning was Genabab (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for questions about sources in context. I haven't used RFA but I have used its European counterpart (RFE/RL) and sometimes it's useful in spite of its biases. Alaexis_¿question? 08:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Alaexis, we're not at RSN right now. Questions about an RSP listing are fine here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

My bad. Apologies @Genabab! Alaexis_¿question? 21:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Perennial sources

Why is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources such a short incomplete list? I have found many archived discussions on the noticeboard board about non-included sources but they do not make their way into this section. For example, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#LADbible and Joe.ie is an unfinished discussion, but I would like to know what the consensus is here. What status is LADbible? I see many such archived discussions of a similar nature that do not make their way to this page and I wish they did as they get lost in the archives. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This list is meant to include only those sources that are repeatedly the subject of discussion. See this section for more information. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

ethnicelebs.com

Previous discussions have determined that ethnicelebs.com isn't a reliable source.[5][6][7][8] All citations of it in articles have been removed over the years, however even experienced editors continue to add it as a ref.[9] Are the previous discussions sufficient to add it to the WP:RSPS table? Schazjmd (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

checkyourfact.com and the Daily Caller

Can we add a note about "checkyourfact.com" in the The Daily Caller, a deprecated source, section for being a full-profit subsidiary of the latter?[10] I am noticing users beginning to quote checkyourfact.com in discussions, and I believe this should be made more visible to other editors. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

yeah, just adding it as another URL - David Gerard (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Newsbreak.com (confusion about deprecated source/domain name)

There is some confusion about this domain name. I am not an expert on its history, and I'm wondering if it has been sold or repurposed. To start the discussion, I'll share a thread from Talk:Jerry Yang#News Break:

@Valjean: Hi! Saw you reverted my edit re: News Break. I'm pretty confident Newsbreak (magazine) is a different organization; per that article, it was founded in 2001, whereas Yang's News Break was founded in 2015. It looks like Newsbreak, the magazine, used to reside at newsbreak.com.ph (judging by the references in that article), and now publishes at rappler.com/newsbreak. Newsbreak (disambiguation) also distinguishes between the two. Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Also! Noting in this post as above that I've been a COI editor for Yang in the past, although I'm not currently working for him. Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mary. For the purposes of this discussion, your COI is no obstacle. It might even mean you are a subject matter expert! I don't know the history of Newsbreak/News Break, and that is my only interest here. Jerry Yang was not originally an interest of mine. I am trying to fix some links in different places, and any light you can shine on the history of the newsbreak.com domain name will help.

I'm wondering if the domain name was sold or repurposed. That can happen. Currently, it's a deprecated source (not just discouraged, but full deprecation!!) at WP:RSP. Maybe we should go there and discuss this. I suspect we'll get a lot more eyes on the matter and also get in contact with some editors who know a lot more. I'll start a discussion there, and I'll copy this discussion to start it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Here are some resources:

• Internet Archive history for https://www.newsbreak.com
• https://www.newsbreak.com goes to a news aggregator, which is likely the one that is deprecated here. https://www.newsbreak.com/about tells us it's "the nation's leading local news app".
• https://www.newsbreak.com.ph does not go to a Filipino website. It goes to a website that sells dietary supplements.
• Newsbreak (magazine) really needs its links checked. Our article describes a Filipino magazine at Rappler, and it uses lots of links to https://www.newsbreak.com.ph (dietary supplements). I don't see any "magazine" there, and yet... https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/podcasts-videos/ does go to podcasts. I suspect it should only be linked to https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/, the URL for Rappler's "Newsbreak" magazine.
  • (I have now cleaned it up.)
• Jerry Yang was an advisor there:
  • NewsBreak (advisor) (2015–)

What the heck is going on here? We need more eyes on this. Any help will be welcomed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

To add a bit more context – this was part of a discussion about whether to link to Newsbreak (magazine) from Jerry Yang. Yang's News Break is a different organization, so I think the wikilink should be removed. Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed the issues I could find, including a redirect (pointing it to Jerry Yang) and the format of the name, which is NewsBreak, no longer News Break. So, we do not actually have an article about the deprecated news aggregator, just a redirect link. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Lists of spoofed, fake, and non-news sites

We have lists such as List_of_fake_news_websites which may be in our URL blocklists but aren't really visible here; is there somewhere in Wikipedia: namespace that tracks these? Similarly we have pages that track hijacked and fake journals but I don't know if that extends to other hijacked sites. – SJ + 00:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

More an FYI on Vice

Vice to stop publishing on their website, though Refinery29 will remain. We have Vice Media as yellow, but there's implications that the website may vanish and that might affect how we present Vice Media in the table. — Masem (t) 13:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Do return to this once you have reason to question its current rating. No need to have a discussion beforehand. CapnZapp (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Paid, self citation, and unscientific academic journals

Is there a list of academic journals, academic book publishers, academic vanity publications that are not reliable?

they should be included and if consensus found unreliable, added to list of unreliable sources.

1. paper mills
2. self citation journals
3. niche journals with little circulation among a tiny academic research base
4. vanity best of publications
5. vanity publications such as ones where each faculty member in a single college department writes a chapter and every student taking the introductory course in that department is required to buy a copy of the book
6. circular citation journals
7. journals featuring repeated low quality articles such as studies of self reported polls, or articles with a small sample size.
8. journals established to promote the editorial team’s own research
9. journals with a low subscription count
10. defunct journals
11. citations from academic books, not peer reviewed treated as reliable sources.
12. articles based on a sample of internet messages

wikipedia should not be a commercial place to promote an academic persons field of study, the importance of a particular academic person.

For example, citing an encyclopedia of a particular academic field where the encyclopedia is 25 years or older. That is a decaying reference as it ignores all post publication research. Same holds for dictionary of an academic field.

this is particularly true for biomedical and social science fields.

Wikipedia should consider evaluating sources systematically from academia and deemphasize those sources with repeated unscientific articles.

small research fields are prone to self congratulatory publications since no academic researcher puts their career in jeopardy by criticizing other research.

this is a large long term problem with Wikipedia sources where many cited references are based on faulty research or are citing faulty research as a base reference.

Extension to citation of news articles which cite faulty research is needed. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:B985:C3AA:ADBE:5E18 (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

We have script that identifies such things but don't run it robotically because of false positives and false negatives. See User:Headbomb/unreliable, which explains the issue and tells signed-up editors how to have it in operation.

So I would strongly encourage you to register, see Wikipedia:Why create an account?. You may do so anonymously. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is Time Magazine green?

RSP says there is consensus that Time is generally reliable, but I'm not seeing that in any of the discussions cited. The linked discussions all 10+ years or older, the only exception is this 2019 discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 266#Karol Markowicz writing for TIME which, to my reading, finds that a particular source is not reliable but makes no finding about Time in general. I think Time should be removed from RSP altogether, there isn't enough discussion of it to make a pronouncement on general reliability one way or the other. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it a procedural argument or do you you have reasons to think it's not reliable? Alaexis_¿question? 23:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Mostly procedural but I'm not sure of its reliability. I'm more alarmed though that this isn't the first time I've looked up a source on RSP and found the linked discussions don't support the listing and I wonder how we got here. Levivich (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do you assume it is useful to remove a site that once was discussed, Levivich? (Assuming nobody contests its rating, of course. The table clearly says that "generally reliable" is a rating from 2019. I can easily assume this remains the case now in 2024) For your other "alarming" cases, you will need to be more specific - just sweepingly claiming there is some issue without going into detail isn't going to help anyone. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

tl;dr: the reason Time is green is that no editor has found any reason to change that rating. CapnZapp (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: the point is is that the the last time that the reliability of Time (magazine)itself as a discrete source was discussed was in April 2012. Over a decade ago. It is disingenuous for anyone to suggest that the 2019 discussion discussed the magazine at all. It did not. It discussed the reliability of Karol Markowicz as a source. These are clearly not the same things, and I think it's pretty clear Levivich did not say they were.

FTR, I make no comment as to whether it should be green or otherwise. All I know of Time is that, according to Ginsberg,

FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover and Frank Costello syndicate

mouthpiece meeting in Central Park, New York weekends,

reported Time magazine.

All the best! ——Serial 15:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

In this discussion back in 2011 and this one from 2012 it's pretty clear that everyone agrees that Time is generally reliable. Unless there's reason to believe that consensus has changed since then, I'm fairly comfortable saying that wikipedia editors generally consider Time a reliable source. That said, I agree with SN and Levivich that the 2019 discussion doesn't really address whether Time is generally reliable, and the fact that the RSP entry lists the last discussion as 2019 is at best potentially misleading: Time's general reliability has not been discussed since at least 2012, and even then there was no actual discussion of whether it's generally reliable – a bunch of people said that it's obviously generally reliable without much real evidence and nobody disputed it. In general I do think we should be stricter on what's actually listed on RSP: our inclusion criteria currently say two significant discussion or a single request for comment, but I would not consider one or even two discussions to be evidence that the source is a "perennial" topic! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I think you've explained my concerns better than I did. I think in "modern Wikipedia," people think that "green" means we had a "1-4 option reliability RFC" and it came back as a 1. Some green entries are exactly that. Others, like Time, are a couple of decade-old discussions. It shouldn't be listed, IMO, not because of its reliability or unreliability, but because it doesn't meet WP:RSPCRITERIA (which, I agree, should be changed from "two or more" to some higher number, and maybe even bounded by time, like 3+ discussions within 10 years.). Levivich (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Funding Universe

Hi. I have been recently finding Funding Universe as a ref on quite a few corporate pages. I don't think it is that accurate. Take Walkers Crisps for example, on Funding Universe it says Frito-Lay purchased the business, however articles in business magazine UPI and the New York Times from the time definitely reported PepsiCo Inc directly purchasing the business, not its subsidiary. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

this should probably be discussed on WP:RSN which is the board for particular sources - including examples is very good too - David Gerard (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

ESPN.com reliability question

I was wondering if ESPN is considered a reliable source of news for sports news (Like Player trades for example)? ReallyAmazingDude13 (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The most recent discussions I can find (here and here, from November 2020) suggest that ESPN is considered generally reliable. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

yeah, ESPN is generally regarded as a specialist WP:NEWSORG - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It is, but there's an important caveat. When reporting on a trade, if the article says "sources tell" ESPN that it's happening, that means that it hasn't happened yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The caveat Muboshgu mentions isn't anything specific to ESPN; it's a sports journalism thing, not an ESPN thing. ESPN is as reliable as they come for sports reporting. WP:SPORTSTRANS offers more granular guidance on how to treat player trades when editing Wikipedia. Left guide (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes that's correct, I should have been more specific about that. ESPN is as good at sports reporting as any other top notch organization. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Forbes Russian edition

Greetings, all. The Russian online & print edition of Forbes magazine has been purchased by Magomed Musaev, described in various media as a "Kremlin-connected" "oligarch." At the same time, there have been reports about the Russian magazine's loss of editorial independence. Should Wikipedia continue to trust unreservedly the Russian magazine's coverage of Russian and world events? -The Gnome (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• This is an excellent question to raise on WP:RSN. We've tended to just accept the many other editions of Forbes as presumed WP:NEWSORGs up to now, but that might do with some examining - David Gerard (talk) 21:38, 17 March 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)

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)

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)

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)