This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
CNN should be downgraded from a reliable source https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/ TheeFactChecker ( talk) 19:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Urban Dictionary, and other social medias not on spam list? GogoLion ( talk) 01:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
How is this magazine rated https://wsimag.com/ ? Nattes à chat ( talk) 12:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Should Drudge Report be listed? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
"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)
As pointed out in RSN it has beed discussed before. So we should add it here.-- GZWDer ( talk) 13:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Pronews.gr should be excluded from WP. It is not reliable, it is the exact opposite of it.
I think it should be included in the list at #Sources section. (with the advice not to be used, as in Deprecated) Cinadon 36 12:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Hm...I hadn't noticed the requirements for inclusion. WP:RSPCRITERIA Cinadon 36 12:37, 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. Cinadon 36 06:34, 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. Cinadon 36 13:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Since there's unlikely to be more participation there and that the request seems uncontroversial, I'm pinging Alaexis and relaying the discussion here:
Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 05:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
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.
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.
Cinadon
36 12:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering - is CNBC considered a reliable source? Bob ( talk) 11:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
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:
or makes claims:
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)
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)
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:
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)
There is a gowning FakeVerse out there. We should keep out of WP media that do not separate facts from opinion or fiction. Cinadon 36 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is consensus that Media Matters for America is generally reliable. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed.
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)
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)
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)
Is there a consensus on the reliability of this media outlet [1]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infty1000 0110 ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
References
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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.
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)
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 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)
Please add reliability/unreliability review of https://popculture.com/ website to this article please. Thank you! JudgeJudyCourthouse25 ( talk) 03:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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
.)I think MSNBC's reliability should change due to it being controversial. /info/en/?search=MSNBC_controversies Master106 ( talk)
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)
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)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 05:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 05:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
can we use wikihow as a reliable source?
Link : https://www.wikihow.com Religiousmyth ( talk) 16:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
...establishes a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policydoesn'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)
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)
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 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)
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!? Greg Kaye 12:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
CNN should be downgraded from a reliable source https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/ TheeFactChecker ( talk) 19:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Urban Dictionary, and other social medias not on spam list? GogoLion ( talk) 01:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
How is this magazine rated https://wsimag.com/ ? Nattes à chat ( talk) 12:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Should Drudge Report be listed? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
"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)
As pointed out in RSN it has beed discussed before. So we should add it here.-- GZWDer ( talk) 13:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Pronews.gr should be excluded from WP. It is not reliable, it is the exact opposite of it.
I think it should be included in the list at #Sources section. (with the advice not to be used, as in Deprecated) Cinadon 36 12:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Hm...I hadn't noticed the requirements for inclusion. WP:RSPCRITERIA Cinadon 36 12:37, 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. Cinadon 36 06:34, 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. Cinadon 36 13:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Since there's unlikely to be more participation there and that the request seems uncontroversial, I'm pinging Alaexis and relaying the discussion here:
Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 05:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
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.
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.
Cinadon
36 12:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering - is CNBC considered a reliable source? Bob ( talk) 11:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
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:
or makes claims:
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)
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)
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:
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)
There is a gowning FakeVerse out there. We should keep out of WP media that do not separate facts from opinion or fiction. Cinadon 36 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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is consensus that Media Matters for America is generally reliable. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed.
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)
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)
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)
Is there a consensus on the reliability of this media outlet [1]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infty1000 0110 ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
References
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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.
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)
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 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)
Please add reliability/unreliability review of https://popculture.com/ website to this article please. Thank you! JudgeJudyCourthouse25 ( talk) 03:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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
.)I think MSNBC's reliability should change due to it being controversial. /info/en/?search=MSNBC_controversies Master106 ( talk)
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)
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)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 05:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 05:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
can we use wikihow as a reliable source?
Link : https://www.wikihow.com Religiousmyth ( talk) 16:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
...establishes a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policydoesn'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)
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)
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 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)
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!? Greg Kaye 12:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)