Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

MEMRI

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

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

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

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

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information and recent developments, ensuring that the decision is based on the current state of affairs rather than outdated discussions.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National File

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

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

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

Huffington Post UK non-political

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Italics – added verbage.]

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

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

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

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

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

A few notes:

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

Accordingly, I suggest the following brief summary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK Government commented on Metro UK

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

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

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

Medium (website)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessment of BBC non-English content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page Recommendations

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

Shut down and inaccessible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to Radio Free Asia as reliable source discussion??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perennial sources

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

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

ethnicelebs.com

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

checkyourfact.com and the Daily Caller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some resources:

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

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

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

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

References

Lists of spoofed, fake, and non-news sites

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

More an FYI on Vice

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

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

Paid, self citation, and unscientific academic journals

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

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

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

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

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

this is particularly true for biomedical and social science fields.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is Time Magazine green?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover and Frank Costello syndicate

mouthpiece meeting in Central Park, New York weekends,

reported Time magazine.

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

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

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

Funding Universe

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

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

ESPN.com reliability question

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliability of Forbes Russian edition

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

• This is an excellent question to raise on WP:RSN. We've tended to just accept the many other editions of Forbes as presumed WP:NEWSORGs up to now, but that might do with some examining - David Gerard (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

EthniCelebs

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

To discuss the reliability of a source, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). Discussions on the noticeboard will be added to this list. This talk page is for discussing the maintenance of the list itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Flowpaper.com

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

To discuss the reliability of a source, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). Discussions on the noticeboard will be added to this list. This talk page is for discussing the maintenance of the list itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Sportskeeda.com

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

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

Baidu Baijiahao and Toutiao

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

Is CBS News reliable?

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

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

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

GQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.

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

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

Patch.com

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

@Mikiko609 You can check the hits here:[11]. WP:RSN is the place to ask "is this source good for what I want to use it for?" while WP:RSP is a list of sources that have often been discussed before. Context matters. It's cerainly used some:[12] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Paywall

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

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

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

TED Talks (from ted.com or youtube)

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

Con

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

PRO

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

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

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

Local news

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

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

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

Middle East Eye

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

Should sources with only a single discussion be listed here?

I saw that TED talks were just added to the RSP list [13]. Does it make sense to add a source that has only been discussed once? The same is true of a source like Sydney Morning Herald which lists only a single, short RSN discussion [14]. Many treat the RSP list as if it were a gold plated wikipedia assessment on a topic. That may be true in cases where we have had a long, well attended RfC (or RfCs). However, when we have just a single discussion, especially one without a RfC I would suggest we should keep such sources off the list. It made sense to establish the list to handle frequently discussed sources (how many times was Fox News discussed before the list was created). But does it really make sense to add a source that has only a brief RSN discussion? Is it reasonable to start trimming such sources from this list? Springee (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Loading time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update chart at WP:RSP

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

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

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

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

Middle East Monitor

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

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

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

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

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

Updated Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

How to attribute MondoWeiss

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

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

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

But what if the community had decided that Princeton University Press was problematic? Wouldn't that make a difference? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That would just mean we are relying on the author and not on Princeton, and we’d attribute to the author. We attribute to who it is we are saying is reliable. We don’t attribute so as to say hey this source ain’t reliable. If it isn’t reliable it shouldn’t be used, but here the reliability is coming from the author and so that’s who we depend on and that’s who we attribute to. nableezy - 11:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

but doesn't this mean that all of the (80+) entries in RSP where it says we should always attribute, it's redundant unless it's an unsigned editorial? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I take those 80+ entries to mean we attribute to the author, not just accept as fact what is in the source. When the source is an editorial by the editorial board then yes it should attributed to that editorial board. I take "attribute always" to mean that we treat the website as a blog basically, only usable when the author themselves are a usable source. nableezy - 13:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The key thing is that we don't state things as fact where it is unwarranted, which is policy anyway. I think perhaps some of the confusion here is equating "2" with "attribute". It just means "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" so it is more of a case by case thing Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

yes, but for clarification my 80+ (very rough!) figure is entries which say something like "always attribute", some of them green or red, most yellow, rather than all the yellow entries. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Here's my take:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that in an essay anywhere? Maybe write it up if it isn't, looks helpful. Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope, I came up with it as a reply to this discussion. Should I just create a page in the Wikipedia: namespace, put {{essay}} at the top, and copy-paste my comment? Solomon Ucko (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

No idea, never done one. There is Wikipedia:Essays. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree this would be a helpful essay. It'd be good to hear other views too, as it looks like there isn't a clear policy on this. I wonder if it should be raised at a more prominent board, e.g. village pump (not in relation to this specific source, but in general). BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier and Bobfrombrockley: I've written up an essay here: Wikipedia:Who to attribute in-text; anyone can edit it. Feel free to bring this up somewhere else if you'd like more input; please link the new discussion here if you do.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That's great, hopefully people will use/edit it. Going to take a look at the policy pages and see how it fits in with what's there right now (V, MOS, NPOV etc). @Zero0000: Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post

Is there any consensus on The Jerusalem Post? I was reading this article about alleged links between Qatar and recent campus-based Israel protests. There's no indication this is an opinion piece however there is clear bias from the author, for example the inclusion of several rhetorical question towards the end, one of which is Who disseminates propaganda supporting Gazan terror globally through Al Jazeera? This is an accusation piece and not news. UaMaol (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22Jerusalem+Post%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns4=1 for prior discussion on WP:RSN mentioning The Jerusalem Post.

If in doubt, the middle ground is to cite with in-text attribution, e.g. "According to Dr. Yaron Friedman, a researcher at the University of Haifa, ..."

Solomon Ucko (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion this article is uncitable as the author provides absolutely no evidence of a connection between Qatar and "recent campus-based Israel protests". He mentions legitimate arrangements with US universities and then jumps to leading questions regarding the student protests. It's pure conspiracy theory, and EXCEPTIONAL crushes it. The idea that a bunch of students need foreign funding to live in tents for a while is ridiculous on its face. Zero^talk 03:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

TradingEconomics

tradingeconomics is blocked however it is not on this page 48JCL 01:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@48JCL It's probably on the spam blacklist. Isi96 (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Straits Times of Singapore is generally reliable

It's in the same grey zone as Al Jazeera (reliable international, unreliable local). If there is no objection to that being "generally reliable", I will move it to green. Josethewikier (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Changes to this list are made on the basis of discussions at WP:RSN; if you wish to argue for a different rating you should open a thread there, as the past discussions show quite clear consensus with defensible arguments. I would expect that your argument would be most persuasive with reeference to academic sources evaluating Straits Times positively; however, you'll notice that the one such source cited in the 2021 discussion does do so, so you'd already be on the right track based on previously collected sources. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

alright thanks Josethewikier (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Trustworthiness

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only places there appear to have been discussions specifically about Al Jazeera are on archived pages, most recently Al Jazeera reliability. WP:RSN mentioned above doesn't lead specifically to discussion about AJ and WP:ALJAZEERA redirects to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources whose Talk page is this page. Since additions cannot be made to archived pages where can discussion be continued. Mcljlm (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It's considered reliable because it has professional independent journalists and is recognized as reliable by other reliable sources. It differs from Western media by providing greater coverage of Arab stories, which bothers Fox News commentators. TFD (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Closed RfC for Tasnim

This closed RfC on Tasnim News Agency should probably be added to WP:RSPSOURCES by an uninvolved editor. Thanks. - Amigao (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Faith in our Institutions

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

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

I think the biggest issue there is today is that "facts" are not always objective as the used to be, facts are often times subjective depending on the consumers viewpoint. Same with misinformation. On both sides of the political spectrum, you will find the information is deemed factual based on bias. Take for instance Joe Biden's fitness for office. CNN and MSNBC will play clips of him acting strong and clear headed, where as Fox News will usually highlight the times he does not seem all that sharp. Which is true? Probably both! Sometimes he is really strong and sound minded and other times he struggles to put sentences together. In this case, giving a strong rating for the reliability of CNN and a warning of misinformation for Fox News would indeed show left wing bias when both are omitting portions of the story. On the other side of things, Fox News repeating Trumps claim that the economy was better under his presidency and CNN claiming the opposite, what is fact is based on who you are and where you live. For the middle class blue collar worker, the economy was better under Trump because consumer goods were cheaper. However, for the the upper middle class white collar workers, they are probably fine with the current economy because the stock market is steadily rising. Blanket claiming that Fox News propagates misinformation and CNN does not is not a fair analysis and indicates bias in the selecting of reliable sources because both pick and choose which "facts" to promote. I had this argument in 2020. I was obviously overwhelmingly defeated so I doubt anything will change but Wikipedia does indeed, have a left wing bias when it comes to its source ratings whether the majority of editors will admit it or not. If it was centrist, both Fox News and CNN would have the same rating. BlackBird1008 (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Well said. The Media Very Rarely Lies, but it chooses which stories to run and which facts to present.

Wikipedia relies on institutions like newspapers and academia for it's info. The perceived and actual failures of our institutions is bound to harm Wikipedia's credibility, no real way around that. Between the public infighting and ideological schisms within places like the New York Times and NPR, or the replication crisis throwing whole scientific fields into doubt. Meanwhile, everyone seems to get their information substacks, podcasts, twitter and other social media, etc. Wikipedians included. Heck, below this thread right now is effectively an active virtual battleground in an ongoing actual war (Hi guys!)

That said, Wikipedia is still considered one of the most reliable places overall by many! Even on current events. This article on the Cass Review for instance looks fine to me, despite it being about as heated as a topic can get. Or, I've heard top OSINT personalities consider Wikipedia one of the best places for coverage of Russia/Ukraine. There's still tons of fine people doing honest work at top institutions, Wikipedia among them. ParanoidAltoid (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Cartoon Brew

Could someone add Cartoon Brew to the list? I can't do it because trying to edit the page just slows down my device. — 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Found out that editing this page on Factotum works anyways: I'm going to do it myself. — 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

The listing for Rotten Tomatoes says: "There is consensus that Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for biographical information, as it is user-generated content along with a lack of oversight." Checking several of the linked discussions and the RfC, I see a consensus that Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for biographical information, I see a consensus that RT sometimes lacks editorial oversight, but I fail to see a consensus that their content is user-generated. In fact, several editors specifically pointed out that it's not user-generated. As their FAQ says, RT allows users to submit corrections via email, but ultimately it will be their staff who updates it. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 22:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is not a reliable source and lack of oversight is a pretty apt statement. As a recent example, the Dabney Coleman entry at RT lists his role in Exiled: A Law & Order Movie as "Kevin Stolper", but the name is actually "Dennis Stolper" and reliable sources confirm that. What other sources have "Kevin Stolper"? IMDB. Here's the Exiled: A Law & Order Movie entry at IMDB and the Dabney Coleman entry at IMDB. The incorrect name has also been happily copied by an IP editor here, copied into the Exiled: A Law & Order Movie article at Fandom, copied into the Dabney Coleman entry at IMFDB, TV Tropes, and many other sites. It doesn't matter if their staff is updating user-provided information if they fail to verify it. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It sure does, in my opinion. We don't call other sources user generated when they, for example, write articles based on Reddit threads. If Rotten Tomatoes is cutting corners by mindlessly copying IMDB, it's on their staff, not on users. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 12:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The main issue is that the site is unreliable, not how we phrase it. I'm more concerned that the phrasing of WP:ROTTENTOMATOES may lead some people to believe the proscription is limited to BLP articles when it's Rotten Tomatoes that lacks reliability throughout their database. I think it would be fair to state that it's "sourced from user-generated content" and I would agree to revise the sentence you quoted to say There is consensus that Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for biographical information, cast and crew data, and other film and television data, as it is sourced from user-generated content with a lack of oversight and verification. That's assuming there's consensus to clarify the sentence. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep, much better wording IMO. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 14:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree this is better wording. Just wanted to support a consensus here. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker: Thanks. I posted a proposal to change it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Proposed change to Rotten Tomatoes on RSP. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Should CNN be broken into CNN, CNN Politics, and CNN talk shows the same way Fox News is?

I don't think there is any question that CNN is a reliable source for news, however, I think the same considerations should be made for their political coverage and talk shows as was done for Fox News. Each section should be debated as a separate source on the Reliable Source Noticeboard and each have their own rating. I think this should go for all cable new sources that cover politics and have opinion talk shows. In my opinion, this would be a move to combat the notion that Wikipedia presents left wing bias in their reliable sources by allowing open debate separate from the the news portion of the source. This would also allow future debate to change the reliability of only a portion as time goes on. BlackBird1008 (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I really see little comparison between Fox and CNN. I've asked when Fox news shows are on a few times and no one has provided an answer. It's nearly all opinion these days and the opinions appear coordinated. CNN has news throughout most of the day and invites conservatives daily while showing live feeds of news. CNN is not perfect. But they make an attempt at balanced reporting and criticism. Certainly talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces which I just copied from the current rating. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Daytime shows like America's Newsroom from 6:00am-8:00am and Fox Reports from 10:00am- 12:00pm are the most objective news shows. Even the other shows like Your World with Niel Cavito are more news than opinion. In fact he will fact check guest on the spot if they say something blatantly untrue. Once you get into prime time, then the opinion comes out, just like CNN. Erin Burnett and Laura Ingram go head to head at 4pm. Anderson Cooper and Jesse Waters go head to head at 5pm. The rest of the night is talk opinion shows on both CNN and FOX. I listen to both everyday on XM radio. Both have about the same amount of opinion throughout the day and provide the news from different perspectives. Most of the opinion on both networks comes from the guest that are on the shows. Most of the negative opinions of Fox News come from people who never watch it. Same goes with the negative opinions of CNN. BlackBird1008 (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Erin Burnett and Laura Ingraham in the same sentence.:) The Dominion lawsuit transcripts (which include Ingraham) make it clear why Fox paid nearly $800 million to avert a trial. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I cant stand Laura Ingram for a multitude of reasons including her bludgeoning of the Dominion stuff, but Erin Burnett is not an objective newscaster. If she was, she would carry Trump's press conferences. Like him or not, he is a newsworthy figure in this country and what he says is news. The comparison between the two was opinion for opinion, not who is better or worse. The intent of this topic is to separate the news from the opinion of CNN just like Fox News, if you look, Fox News, the news portion is under the generally reliable category. I think it would benefit the community to have CNN politics and opinion split just like Fox is. When it comes to opinion shows you are going to like the person that says things you agree with and dislike the person who doesn't, it's human nature. BlackBird1008 (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's human nature, guess I'm not human. CNN covers Trump's "press conferences" all day to the point it is horribly boring as he just keeps saying the same thing over and over and over and it's nearly all lies: All these women are liars, bad judge, I'm not allowed to talk, Biden trial-Biden trial-Biden trial, not a single legal scholar believes this trial should be held, not one. As for Erin's show, she mostly asks questions while trying to stay awake. I don't know her opinions. Anyhow, our current text for CNN states: talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Update as you mentioned Jesse Waters. Just saw a clip of him yelling that Trump was just fined for talking. He could say the Loch Ness monster is real and boom, a thousand dollar fine. When has Erin Burnett or Anderson Cooper done anything like this? It ain't news or opinion. It's outright lies. There is no comparison. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I heard both of them push the claim that Trump wanted to be a Dictator and that he said there would be a bloodbath if he didn’t win. Taken in correct the correct context it’s not a story. Just like Waters, you can selectively take facts and make it in to a story. Waters may be more dramatic but it’s the same concept. None of this comparison really matters. The question was, why is it not split like Fox or why can’t we combine Fox and have the same note? BlackBird1008 (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It's usually helpful to link the specific pieces you're referring to so that they can be evaluated as more than ruminations. Remsense诉 02:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion and comparison has nothing to do with the original question. Out of all the cable news networks, Fox is the only one split into three. To err on the side of neutrality, would it not be best to open up the other cable news political and opinion wings to debate? BlackBird1008 (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion and comparison has nothing to do with the original question.

What? Then why did you mention it? I would think it is relevant.

Moreover, like other editors have said, this approach is backwards and wrongheaded in general. Broadly, WP:OTHERCONTENT is not itself a reason for anything—I understand I'm linking an essay commenting on our content policies, while here we are instead discussing how best to judge sources internally, but I trust that the analogy is clear and uncontroversial. To analogize another content policy in order to illustrate a philosophical point—neutral point of view is not "no point of view". If a source acts unreliably, we treat it as unreliable. On what grounds does this notion of "fairness" you're imagining get to emerge and involve itself in what is otherwise more or less an entirely empirical process? It can only be based on egregious assumptions about how sources work or what it means for sources to be reliable. Remsense诉 05:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Short answer: No, because no one is trying to use CNN's opinion pieces as fact, like many are trying to use Fox news's opinion pieces as fact. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s not entirely true, there was quite a bit of it during the 2020 election cycle. A lot of colorful conversations on the talk pages. CNN opinion citations vs Fox opinion citations. Not sure about this election, haven’t been paying attention to the pages. BlackBird1008 (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• In my opinion, this would be a move to combat the notion that Wikipedia presents left wing bias in their reliable sources. that is not a valid reason to do any of this. What we would need, is evidence that CNN is being misused as a source in the same manner that some have tried to use Fox.

Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s not a valid reason to have discussion? I’m not questioning the reliability of the source more the lack of constancy in how the sources are broken out. I can and will if need be, find CNN opinion pieces being presented as fact, although I do not think it is necessary for the question I presented (just to note, both CNN and Fox present a lot of their opinion pieces as “analysis” even though they clearly fall into the opinion bucket based on content). Per the rules of the talk page, this falls under discussion of the list itself which would make it a valid topic. BlackBird1008 (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Constancy can lead to an equivalence of false balance reducing the value of RSP. Fox is a special case given its history and how it has been used here. There are other listed sources that are special cases in other manners. RSP is an editor guide on how to best use individual sources in Wikipedia, not an encyclopedia article on sources. The entries are tailored to the sources and their history. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The other factor is, has anyone found any CNN opinion pieces (including their talking heads non-news shows) to be distorting and manufacturing the truth in the way FOX has come under fire for? Yes, we should not be using opinion pieces as fact (but attributions to opinion pieces are fine), but the reason we absolutely disallow them with FOX is that they speak falsehoods and lies in their opinions which don't even have a place here on WP. Masem (t) 12:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I actually wish there was a more robust critique of not only the media-outlet but also filtered down to the journalist/editors in question too. In scenarios where journalists use pen names then by all means hold the media outlet accountable. Because their editor's rooms have the power to change news or reject news too. But must media outlets give their journalists wide berth to print anything and as such an "anti-"(whatever piece) maynot actually be the official opinoin of that mediahouse or body. They may just be allowing the entity/editor/Op-Ed/writer/syndicate/author their free-speech rights. Something that is more and more rare today with "cancel" culture. Whereby it is basically you have offended me: so you should by banned from saying anything more publically. Ideally if Wikipedia could do critical article(s) on why the news outlet is giving questionable news etc. that would be even more substantive towards removing bias further from Wikipedia. Esp. if other papers quote why other's journalism is lacking with proof. As they used to say always "speak the truth- and shame the devil". CaribDigita (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Last night, Jesse Watters claimed "professional activists" are infiltrating the college protests, "awash in Soros money, anarchists, antifa, sinister faculty and foreign influence." Meanwhile, last night, Erin Burnett questioned Eric Adams about his allegations of outside agitators at Columbia. The comparison between Erin Burnett and Fox opinion hosts is laughable. The lack of Wikipedia diffs showing any problem with how CNN sources are used on this platform is also telling. We do not treat CNN and Fox the same because they are not the same. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Soros turned me into a newt. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A newt? I hope you got better. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That user was previously insisting that WP:NEWSMAX be considered a reliable source for broadcasting "an alternative perspective to the MSM" (read: debunked fantasies of election fraud in the 2020 US elections), so it seems like WP:CIR is an issue. Isi96 (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? This user argued that Newsmax was reliable? I think we can stop wasting time discussing the reliability of CNN now and get deeper into that CIR discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say CNN was not a reliable source nor did I argue Fox should be a reliable source. I have my own opinions of both and they probably are opposite of what you think they are. You also can judge my competence however you want to, I couldn't care less. I asked a simple question and everyone has the right to agree or disagree. BlackBird1008 (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You've suggested that parts of CNN aren't reliable, without producing any evidence in terms of external content or Wiki diffs of CNN content being misused. You're allowed to have your own opinions, but you don't have the right to waste our time. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

i don't understand how I wasted your time, you didn't have to engage in this at all but I will end it here for you. Have a great rest of your day! BlackBird1008 (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You are correct! However some context is required, I posted that in response to other users (not me) attempting to add context to the election article that was evolving. Nothing had been debunked as this was November 12th 2020. I asked for a reconsideration due to its increase in viewership as "the other side" of the evolving story. Obviously they blew all their credibility shortly after that hence, I have never argued that again. At the time users were getting belittled for even mentioning something that differed from what the MSM was reporting. BlackBird1008 (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Which is exactly why we use sources with proven records of reliability, and why we pay little attention to wild conspiracy theories and accusations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and Ill be the first to say, I wouldn't have started that conversation in hindsight. I'll leave the discussion here as I'm not going to change any minds on this topic. Have a great rest of your day! BlackBird1008 (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

CNN has been knowned to have it's share of bias. Look at its actions in the 2016 election where Donna Brazille gave Hillary Clinton CNN debate questions in advance of the debate that other candidates didn't get. CaribDigita (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• I honestly support the idea of splitting CNN up like we have split Fox News up. In terms of factual reporting, CNN is reliable, but they should be split up and discussion for political coverage. Heck, there are actual [academic studies conducted between the two organizations: ""What happens when a group of Fox News viewers watch CNN for a month?". So yeah, we should split CNN up like we do for Fox News and then have respective discussions for CNN and CNN politics. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Per WP:NEWSORG, opinion pieces are not reliable. Furthermore, talk shows cannot be reliable sources for facts because there's no fact-checking and it's very easy for even the most informed and fair hosts or guests to slip up on facts. So I do not expect editors to use conversations on talk shows as rs. There is therefore no reason to provide additional guidance.

  I don't see the relevance of Fox News Channel. The section on talk shows clarifies they can be used as rs for opinions expressed. But there's no need for clarification on rs cable news. No one questions whether or not opinions expressed on CNN talk shows reflect what the guests actually said. TFD (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Then there is no need for clarification on Fox News, as it is also a rs cable news channel. Same rules should apply to both organizations, as both are basically each other, just for opposing political parties, as explained by the various studies between Fox/CNN. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I want to congratulate everyone who has made an effort to express a viewpoint in this discussion. I feel very strongly about this subject and it is obvious I am not the only one. That is a good thing. The only way to keep this project truly alive is to remain critical of one another. Apathy is the opposite of love. Thank you. Scanf (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned with this outcome. The political bias of CNN and the Guardian is well known and documented. As a centrist and swing-voter myself I treat them all the same, and feel that (news excluding politics and science) applies just as much to left-wing sources like CNN and the Guardian as much as right-wing sources like Fox. Ref https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jan/5/cnn-viewers-watching-less-often-thanks-liberalleft/ Ref https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2014/10/21/section-1-media-sources-distinct-favorites-emerge-on-the-left-and-right/ Ref https://adfontesmedia.com/the-guardian-bias-and-reliability/ Both in terms of what is covered and how. When it comes to their political interpretation they are far nicer to their fellow lefties. Scanf (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

lefties? Using descriptors like that messes up your argument. I have CNN on now. In the last half hour they have had four Republicans on decrying yesterday's verdict. They have Republicans on from morning to night. In contrast, Fox shows called for an investigation to see if Soros was involved, said that activists infiltrated the jury, called it a kangaroo court, criticized the judge, prosecutor, and jurors, promised to “vanquish the evil forces that are destroying this republic”, said the trial was run by far-left tyrants. My point is that you cannot compare CNN and Fox. Bias exists everywhere. But we should not use Fox as a model of how we handle CNN. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

"Using descriptors like that messes up your argument". Yup that's how they sound when you call them out too. If you notice, I labelled myself as well, and I am very sensitive to either side trying to normalize their view and marginalize the other instead of just being honest. Lefties and righties are a thing, I didn't intend any disrespect. Sorry should I have said birth-giving-person instead lol?? As a swing voter I am very sensitive to bias, and I urge for some compromise. What you say about your TV experience in now way invalidates the evidence I presented, and there is heaps more where that came from. #politicalcorrectnessgonemad Scanf (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources can be biased; see WP:BIASED.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Which is precisely why we have (news excluding politics and science) label right? Take COVID vaccine for example, both sides make valid arguments for and against. This scientific question has become sadly political and CNN is no angel here either. I'm not saying they were right or wrong as that is still an open question, and I am just using this as an example why CNN (and the Guardian) all fall into the same box as Fox, known for ideological bias so questionable when comes to science and politics. They are the same. Scanf (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Fox claimed conspiracy theories related to Covid vaccines. CNN reported on what the NIH and CDC said. Not the same. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You need to be careful here. Lies, damn lies and statistics. Fox presented an opposing opinion and were able to line up their own scientists to present counter-arguments, not just "conspiracy theory". You are doing it again, normalizing one side and marginalizing the opposing viewpoint. IMHO this kind of bias always works both ways. https://www.foxnews.com/health/largest-ever-covid-vaccine-study-links-shot-small-increase-heart-brain-conditions Scanf (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort. I'm not talking about a viewpoint in the case of CNN. They reported the news. That's their job, whether or not it turns out to be true. (Turns out it was.) Fox heavily pushed anti-vaccine rhetoric. Your link is an example. All medicines have possible side effects, including Aspirin, even drinking too much water.

BTW, CNN has had three more Republicans on since early this morning. JD Vance is on now. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If things are changing at CNN then good, but if they are politically biased it needs to be noted as such so that Wikipedia itself doesn't become biased. BTW this also applies to The Guardian. What we need to be careful of is one political side controlling the narrative otherwise it's all compromised. Scanf (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

All sources are biased to a degree. And it is noted. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The Trump 2020 campaign spokesman is now on CNN. Basically mirroring Trump's view of the trial, unconstitutional, etc, and added that all 12 jurors hated Trump, then launched into a weird stream of lies about the border and Biden's health. Something about walking in circles and having to be led around because he can't find doors or gates. I may change my mind to add a warning that CNN is right-wing.:) O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• I see no reason to break these out separately, as others have pointed out, CNN Talk shows are covered by the general take for any type of news-driven opinion show, while there's no sign yet that CNN or its political side is unreliable. They do have a bias but bias does not immediately disqualify any source, its when that bias interferes with journalism integrity like with the Daily Mail or Fox News. I would add that CNN, like Newsweek, tends to play into clickbait headlines, but as headlines are not part of being a reliable source that's just a caution to read the entire article before adding info to WP. --Masem (t) 16:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  We just agree to disagree, then. Like I said before, this is my understanding of (except politics), similar to AJ down below, they are usually great (especially reporting news not concerning them directly) but I noticed an unfortunate leaning when covering regional topics that concern them. Sometimes The Guardian sounds as bad as Fox in my ears when it come to their coverage of US Politics. Scanf (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  The Guardian has a clear slant against the right (I don't know if I would call them left as they tend to fall in line with other UK papers on such topics), but we anticipate that editors can sift through opinion versus fact in such cases. If the Guardian wrote "Donald Trump, the prolific liar, was found guilty on 34 counts of felon.", I'd expect a reasonable editor to know that the "liar" part is opinion while the rest of that is truth. This is necessary across the board for all mainstraeam news sources, even the NYTimes. — Masem (t) 17:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Radio Free Asia is not a valid source

It's literally a propaganda arm of the US government. 23.28.148.2 (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed at some length in the 2021 RfC. That discussion concluded that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use. If you have read that discussion and think that there is reason to believe that the situation has changed, or relevant evidence which was not considered at the time, then I would suggest starting a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yet another thread about Al-Jazeera

A lot of contention around the accuracy or lack thereof of the data coming from Gaza Health Ministry and in turn reported by Al Jazeera. Not to mention everything else that Al Jazeera reports is given credibility because what they say is reported on by the BBC, New York Times, etc

This article says it all - https://www.memri.org/reports/al-jazeera-journalists-day-hamas-commanders-night

I wouldn't think there's a single article about the Israel-Hamas War since October 7 that doesn't have a reference from Al Jazeera so what do we do about it now? Given the fact that Hamas, Al Jazeera and the Gaza Health Ministry are basically hand in hand, nothing they say can be taken on face value.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-deaths-women-children-360c6aabc03421c718d4a8452cec2c67

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-deaths-women-children-e258a4c14641978a00dfb957ce348957 MaskedSinger (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Since this is about the reliability of the source rather than the maintenance of WP:RSP, you will want to bring this up on the reliable sources noticeboard rather than here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Would also be worth looking at the entry for MEMRI ... nableezy - 20:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware, but WP:RSN is still the right place to discuss sources. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Should I post this there? @Daniel Quinlan MaskedSinger (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Should you? Probably not. I personally would not without a reliable source. Read WP:MEMRI. It's up to you, though. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see. Still think when it comes to the reporting on Israel, Al Jazeera is conflicted.

This says the same thing - https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-786392 MaskedSinger (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

What does it say? @Nableezy MaskedSinger (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Mubasher

Question (maybe a quick one), is Al Jazeera Mubasher grouped into WP:ALJAZEERA? If yes, that answered the question and discussion. If no, what is the reliability of it?

It was brought up on Talk:Al-Sardi school attack, and someone used WP:ALJAZEERA for its reliability. The RSP note seems to only talk about Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic, so I am unaware if Al Jazeera Mubasher is counted under that same RSP note or not. Wanting to copy the user who mentioned the source here as well: The Great Mule of Eupatoria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 10:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Per #Discussion review (Al Jazeera), most of the previous discussions listed in the Al Jazeera entry focused on Al Jazeera English, although there was some limited discussion of Al Jazeera Arabic. There was no discussion that focused specifically on Al Jazeera Mubasher.

In general, sub-outlets (e.g. Al Jazeera Mubasher) of a listed media outlet (e.g. Al Jazeera) adopt the listed outlet's entry until there is consensus to treat the sub-outlet differently, after which the sub-outlet would have a special note in the listed outlet's entry or be split into a separate entry. At this point, I would treat Al Jazeera Mubasher (an Arabic language channel) similarly to Al Jazeera Arabic.

If you are still unsure about the reliability of the specific article, a new noticeboard discussion is always an option. — Newslinger talk 09:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Noticeboard proposal to halt editing and mark this page as historical

An editor has proposed halting all editing on this page and marking this page as historical. If you would like to read or comment on this proposal, please see WP:RSN § WP:RSP and news articles that report what it says. — Newslinger talk 17:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Great analysis by of ADL status update by one of our own

@WWB Nails it Again... And does us a big favor of laying out "reality" to the press.

LINK: https://www.thewikipedian.net/p/anti-defamation-league-reliable-sources

Did Wikipedia "ban" the Anti-Defamation League? The truth is more complicated

Contrary to news reports, Wikipedia's decision doesn't group with ADL with the National Enquirer—it's closer to HuffPost and Rolling Stone, sources useful for some topics, but not for others

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation weighs in (or clears the air) on ADL update

https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2024/06/26/wikimedia-foundation-statement-volunteer-processes-reliable-sources/ Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Discogs as a source for images of albums/music CDS and ONLY those

Not an issue for Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Referred elsewhere

 – WP:RSN would bw where this chould be discussed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Discogs is currently listed as an unreliable source on the list of perennial sources because it is a user-generated source. I'm not here to dispute that. However, Discogs is also a source for images of music CD covers/booklets or. I think it should be an acceptable source for those and only those.

Here is my reasoning: while the scans could be manipulated, I do not believe there is any issue with such manipulation at Discogs. Furthermore, other sources that have scans of e.g. books are generally considered to be acceptable as far as I know e.g. I have not seen anyone proposing that using a book in the public domain that is hosted on the Internet Archive is unacceptable, even though anyone can upload there. Lastly, just like with content summaries of books, track lists in Wikipedia articles frequently don't cite any sources, as someone simply copying the track listing from the album booklet is considered appropriate. I find it absurd that using a scan from Discogs would be worse than using no source at all and relying on editors to copy information to Wikipedia accurately, especially for less common albums not owned by a lot of editors.

I think Discogs should be considered to be an acceptable source for such scan and, I can't stress this enough, only and exclusively those. Not for any of the user-generated content. Input is welcome. Cortador (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Unhide links copied here leading to discussions with headings containing URLs

Please replace all instances of <!-- ([^.]+\.)--><!--([^.]+) --> with \1\2 . According to WP:EDITFILTER, only administrators can modify filters. I ran into the edit filter for "LTA 1307" which is appropriate for normal articles, but this page's subject is special. Linking to Wikipedia discussions should be out of the scope of an edit filter meant for spam and abuse.

This finishes implementing the technical move of information from Wikipedia:Deprecated sources § Currently deprecated sources. Doing this edit does not implement the user-facing merge under discussion. That is separate from the trend I see that consensus is probably leaning towards deduplicating the information, no matter if the final display on the other page is technically implemented using whatever kind of transclusion or not at all. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 03:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is Al-Jazeera green?

There have been 12 discussions but no RfC. The last one has just been archived without reaching any conclusion and the previous one was "closed" with the closing editor noting that "No consensus is going to come from this thread." It seems that it should stay as "no consensus" until a proper RfC is conducted. Alaexis_¿question? 21:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

What news has it published that is un-reliable? And was the piece you're refering to by an editor of the paper? Or an independent contbutor Op-ed piece which is just aired in the paper under free speech? CaribDigita (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a procedural question. The discussions about the reliability should take place at WP:RSN. Alaexis_¿question? 05:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest you request a formal closure of that discussion (has that not already been requested? I kinda assumed that would be a done deal). The volume and depth of past discussions regarding Al Jazeera deserve thorough accounting on this page (without looking, I would guess it's among, if not the, most discussed source listed). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I didn't think about it since it wasn't an RfC. I suppose I'd need to unarchive it first somehow? Alaexis_¿question? 05:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I had misremembered it as being an RfC. In that case there’s no basis for changing it since it we’d need an RfC to potentially supersede past RfCs. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, we have never had an RFC on Al Jazeera. BilledMammal (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Color me surprised twice over then. Given the length and frequency of the discussions, that seems overdue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

On a purely procedural basis, the previous discussion which was closed as "no consensus is going to come from this thread" was a proposal to change the reliability listed from generally reliable to something else. In general when a discussion proposing a change comes to no consensus we don't change the status quo, so that seems fine to me. The most recent discussion is super long and I haven't read it thoroughly, so I have no opinion on whether that shows that consensus has changed – if it has then of course we should update the RSP listing. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

RSP works slightly differently - if there is a "no consensus" result, that is what we list, even if there was previous a consensus for. BilledMammal (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it? Do you have another example of that? When the framing of the RfC is (as in the case of the Al Jazeera discussion) "should we change X to Y" it seems perverse for "there is no consensus to change X to Y" to result in us making the change! It seems to me that the Al Jazeera discussion is distinct from the "How reliable is X" RfC format where "there is no consensus on how reliable X is" is a completely valid outcome. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Does it? Doesn't it depend on context? Like of a general RfC result in a no-consensus then the new consensus is no consensus... But if a specific proposal to change the status quo is no consensus then nothing changes in regards to the consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The Fox News RfC seems to be that; it was a specific proposal to change the consensus ("Should we downgrade Fox News to "generally unreliable" for politics starting in November 2020?"), and one of the results from it was that there was "no consensus" on its general reliability, resulting in it being downgraded. That seems reasonable; if there isn't a consensus against downgrading it then there also isn't a consensus for maintaining its current rating, regardless of whether the proposal was the standard four option RfC or a specific proposal.

Other cases where sources were downgraded to "no consensus" on the basis of a "no consensus" close include the Daily Dot. BilledMammal (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The Fox News RfC in 2020 was closed as The result of this RFC is that there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News. The Al Jazeera discussion was closed as No consensus is going to come from this thread. Though they both use the phrase "no consensus" the meaning of those two sentences is substantially different.

(As for the Daily Dot RfC, the format of that RfC was "how reliable is the Daily Dot?", which I don't think is entirely analogous for the reasons I gave above. At any rate, though the closer found no consensus as to whether the source is generally reliable, they did find consensus that the source should be used with attribution in cases where the publication is known to be biased or for when it is the source of a contentious claim of fact. This is very different from the Al-Jazeera thread which was collapsed as unproductive!)

At any rate, the time to propose changing the Al Jazeera RSP listing on the basis of the previous discussion was when it was closed; it's been six months and we've had another discussion in the intervening period! If people want to make a change to the Al Jazeera listing which is going to stick, the most effective way of doing that is going to be to hold an actual RfC now, not to argue about how we should have reacted to a discussion six months ago being hatted as unproductive. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC would be needed to definitely settle this. Alaexis_¿question? 20:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on how you're interpreting No consensus is going to come from this thread? I took it to mean no consensus on Al Jazeer'a reliability, since that was the main topic of discussion. XDanielx (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to make a voting system on Wikipedia. As in X amount of persons (of long term Wikipedians) regard institution as "credible" or "non-credible" type thing? I think it should be an on going thing. The one thing I fault Fox fox is leading statements which have no factual basis. "The American public.... are/aren't" "The American people.... are/aren't" is opinion often masquarading as fact. But you know what CNN sometimes does it too not as blatantly. But I think there should be a ranking criteria also for journalists i.e. Alex Jones etc. After all it all comes down to a free speech issue. CaribDigita (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I worry about a binary... There are so many sources for which IMO the answer isn't credible or non-credible its well it depends on the context (for example Bassmaster magazine is an extremely credible source for how many people a fishing lure company employs or who won a bass fishing tournament but has no credibility when it comes to 8th century Persian dynastic feuds). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Newslinger: who wrote the Al-Jazeera entry.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, I'm still in a bit of shock seeing how lots of sources were classified in the late 2010s and then it became almost impossible to change anything because it's the status quo. In this case it was added as generally reliable based on the interpretation of a single editor (with all due respect to u:Newslinger). Other sources became deprecated based on a few "garbage source" !votes with no real arguments.

  Of course, one could say that the fact that the status of AJ hasn't changed since means that it's indeed generally reliable. I don't think that this is the case, as the discussions in the newer threads at RSN show. Alaexis_¿question? 20:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  What "other sources" are you talking about? If you want to make an equivalent comparison, at least provide some tangible examples instead of saying things like "other sources being unfairly deprecated by biased editors". Not your quote, but it gives me the impression you're complaining about an otherwise exhaustively discussed topic and the consensus it led to. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 21:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Let's focus on AJ. I don't want to derail the discussion. Happy to give examples some other time. Alaexis_¿question? 19:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this. There seems to be a definite status-quo entrenched by senior editors who don't want to budge on their fifteen-year-old opinions ;) Scanf (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Normally no consensus results in keeping the status quo, but this wasn't "there was no consensus to change Al Jazeera to no consensus", this was "there was no consensus about the reliability of Al Jazeera". At least that was my interpretation of the last discussion and its close. We also have to be careful in drawing any comparisons to procedures in other areas - e.g. an AfD outcome is binary, an article must exist or not, so a status quo default makes sense there (what else would we do?). WP:RSP isn't like that - there's an option which explicitly captures a lack of consensus. If we're in agreement that there isn't consensus on Al Jazeera's reliability, it seems very clear that WP:MREL is the most appropriate status. XDanielx (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

There will always be a lack of consensus on a source which reports facts which are inconvenient for some editors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if this accusation of editorial bias had merit, the state of consensus (or lack thereof) is what it is, there's no process for overruling a (lack of) consensus that we disagree with. XDanielx (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion review (Al Jazeera)

@Vice regent: Here is my review of the discussions listed in the Al Jazeera entry:

Review of the 12 noticeboard discussions listed in the Al Jazeera entry

al Jazeera video (2007) This discussion was about the video "Rigged Markets" (archive of original link), an episode of the Al Jazeera English program People & Power, cited in the Naked short selling article. The discussion was brief and involved 3 editors. 1 editor considered Al Jazeera generally reliable, and 1 editor considered the English edition of Al Jazeera generally reliable. 1 editor described Al Jazeera as "a propaganda outlet run by a Persian Guilf [sic] government". Since this discussion was brief and had low participation, it deserves low weight. Aljazeera.com (2009) At the time of discussion, aljazeera.com was the domain of Al Jazeera Magazine, which was is unrelated to Al Jazeera; until it the domain was acquired by Al Jazeera Media Network in 2011, after which Al Jazeera took possession of the domain. Since Al Jazeera Magazine is a defunct publication with different content than Al Jazeera, this discussion should be excluded from the evaluation of Al Jazeera's reliability. A note informing editors of Al Jazeera Magazine's past ownership of aljazeera.com should be added to the entry description. Al Jazeera (2009) This discussion was about the Al Jazeera English article "US 'likely behind' Chavez coup", cited in the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt article. The discussion involved 8 editors. 6 editors considered Al Jazeera reliable or generally reliable. Among them, 2 editors considered Al Jazeera biased for Qatari politics or Middle Eastern topics. 1 editor described Al Jazeera as "pro-Mukawama", which appears to refer to muqawama, the Arabic word for "resistance". The editor considered Al Jazeera unreliable for Venezuelan politics. In this discussion, there was consensus that the Al Jazeera article is reliable. Is the Aljazeera Live News Blog a Reliable Source? (2011) This discussion was about the Al Jazeera English live blog "Libya Live Blog - March 18", cited in the Libyan civil war (2011) article. The discussion involved 6 editors. 5 editors considered Al Jazeera as reliable as other news organizations. Among them, 4 editors recommended caution in using live blogs in general, as they primarily consist of breaking news. 1 editor questioned the site's disclaimer, "Al Jazeera is not responsible for content derived from external sites." 2 other editors from the above group remarked that the disclaimer was a routine warning referring to links to and embedded images from third-party sources. In this discussion, there was consensus that Al Jazeera is to be treated as a standard news organization, with the standard caveats for news blogs and breaking news. A quote in aljazeera in regards to two statements (2012) This disussion is about the Al Jazeera English article "Iraq outrage over US killing video", cited in the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike article. The discussion involved 6 editors. 4 editors considered Al Jazeera reliable or generally reliable. Among them, 1 editor opined that Al Jazeera may "have a point of view" expressed in this article. 1 editor objected to the use of content from the article for reasons unrelated to Al Jazeera's reliability. In this discussion, there was consensus that the Al Jazeera article is reliable. Aljazeera regarding Syria Civil War RS (2012) This discussion was about Al Jazeera's general reliability with respect to the Syrian civil war article. The discussion involved 7 editors. 3 editors considered Al Jazeera English generally reliable in this topic area, and another 2 editors considered Al Jazeera English acceptable or "nominally reliable". 5 editors considered Al Jazeera Arabic biased for topics related to the Qatari government, including the Syrian Civil War. 3 editors also considered Al Jazeera English biased for the same topics. In this discussion, there was consensus that Al Jazeera is a usable source, but with caveats. There was consensus that Al Jazeera Arabic is a biased or opinionated source with respect to politics related to the Qatari government. There was no consensus on whether Al Jazeera English is biased or opinionated. AlJazeera.com is now with Al Jazeera but probably beware when (2013) With only 1 editor participating, this discussion does not meet WP:RSPCRITERIA and should be delisted. Al Jazeera piece a reliable source? (2014) This discussion is about a YouTube video of an Al Jazeera English People & Power episode cited in the Dorje Shugden controversy article. The discussion involved 8 editors. 6 editors considered Al Jazeera reliable or generally reliable. 1 editor described the video as a "hit piece" and considered it unreliable. Other editors advised this editor to find and cite reliable sources that refute the Al Jazeera video. In this discussion, there was strong consensus that Al Jazeera is generally reliable. Though not mentioned in the discussion, it is important to note that the video was uploaded by YouTube user "tashidelek17", who appears unaffiliated with Al Jazeera. Thus, the YouTube video is a copyright violation and should not be linked on Wikipedia per WP:COPYLINK. This consideration is unrelated to reliability; the episode itself can be cited directly with a legitimate link or without a link. Arizona Border Recon (2018) This discussion is about the Al Jazeera America article "Desert Hawks: Paramilitary veterans group stakes out US-Mexico borderlands", cited in the Arizona Border Recon article. The discussion was lengthly and involved 9 editors. 3 editors considered Al Jazeera usable for the intended usage, and 2 other editors considered the content supported by the source to be an appropriate addition to the Wikipedia article. 1 editor raised concerns regarding Al Jazeera being "government owned in [a country] where there is no freedom of press", citing Qatar's ranking in the World Press Freedom Index. Another editor contended that Al Jazeera was biased in favor of the Qatari government, comparing it to Voice of America (RSP entry). In this discussion, there was consensus that the Al Jazeera English America piece is a reliable source for the proposed use. Al Jazeera might have published a false claim (2020) This discussion was about the Al Jazeera English article "'Birds have landed': French-made Rafale fighter jets reach India". The discussion involved 11 editors, excluding Hippeus (talk · contribs), a confirmed sockpuppet of a previously blocked account. 2 editors considered the claim in the Al Jazeera article to be a minor error, 2 editors were unsure whether it was an error, and 1 editor remarked that the claim was previously true at some point. 1 editor raised concerns regarding Al Jazeera with respect to Al Jazeera's state funding/ownership and legal disputes, and Qatar's low press freedom, comparing Al Jazeera to RT (RSP entry). 3 editors counterargued that Al Jazeera's state funding does not automatically make it unreliable despite being a source of bias, and compared Al Jazeera to CNN (RSP entry), BBC (RSP entry), and ABC News (RSP entry); 2 of these editors explicitly considered Al Jazeera generally reliable. In this discussion, there was consensus that the claim in the linked Al Jazeera English article and the raised concerns do not impact Al Jazeera's "generally reliable" classification. Al Jazeera - 2023 (2023) This discussion is about Al Jazeera's general reliability, with a focus on its coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The discussion starter proposed to change Al Jazeera's "generally reliable" designation to "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply". The discussion was extremely long and involved 55 editors, excluding USNavelObservatory (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet of a previously blocked account. 25 editors considered Al Jazeera generally reliable with no qualifications. 5 editors considered Al Jazeera generally reliable for most topics, and marginally reliable for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. 3 editors considered Al Jazeera generally reliable for most topics, and generally unreliable for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. 2 editors considered Al Jazeera marginally reliable with no qualifications. 1 editor considered Al Jazeera marginally reliable for most topics, and generally unreliable for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. 9 editors considered Al Jazeera generally unreliable with no qualifications. 4 editors did not opine on Al Jazeera's general reliability for most topics, but considered Al Jazeera generally unreliable for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Some editors believed that Al Jazeera is biased on topics related to the Qatari government and the Arab–Israeli conflict. This assertion of bias was generally uncontested. Several editors believed that the discussion should have been a request for comment. Several editors advised splitting the Al Jazeera entry to distinguish between Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic. A couple of editors cautioned against using Al Jazeera's live updates or breaking news in general. Editors who disputed Al Jazeera's reliability cited issues with its reporting on the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion and other topics for which it has a conflict of interest, its state funding, it being banned or restricted from multiple countries, and Qatar's lack of press freedom. Some editors who considered Al Jazeera unreliable compared it to RT (RSP entry). Editors who affirmed Al Jazeera's reliability contended that the cited inaccuracies did not impact the outlet's general reputation, or believed that the reports were either accurate or unconfirmed (rather than incorrect). These editors did not believe that Al Jazeera's bias in select topic areas negatively impacts its reliability in all topic areas. In this discussion, there was consensus that Al Jazeera is generally reliable for most topics. There was consensus that Al Jazeera is generally usable (either generally reliable or marginally reliable) and biased on topics related to the Qatari government or the Arab-Israeli conflict. The discussion was closed by ActivelyDisinterested in Special:Diff/1186411587 with the closing summary "No consensus is going to come from this thread, and editors seem unable to restrict their comments to details of the source and not other editors." and the edit summary "enough". I interpret the closing summary and the edit summary to mean that that the closure was intended to halt the discussion because there was no consensus to implement the discussion starter's proposal (reclassifying Al Jazeera as "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" on the list), and not that Al Jazeera should be reclassified as "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" on the list. @ActivelyDisinterested: Would you like to comment on your closure? As a recent discussion with high participation, this discussion deserves high weight. Al Jazeera reliability (2024) This discussion was about Al Jazeera's reporting on false rape allegations during the Al-Shifa Hospital siege. Al Jazeera removed the video from their website, but retained their live blog entry "Israel forces raped, killed women during raid on al-Shifa, witness says". The discussion was extremely long and involved 34 editors. 19 editors expressed a positive sentiment about Al Jazeera or explicitly considered Al Jazeera generally reliable. 3 editors explicitly supported designating Al Jazeera as generally reliable for most topics, and marginally reliable for the Arab–Israeli conflict. 9 editors expressed a negative sentiment about Al Jazeera or explicitly considered Al Jazeera generally unreliable. Editors who viewed Al Jazeera negatively criticized the outlet for not publishing a formal retraction through its own website and for retaining the live blog entry. These editors expressed concern over Al Jazeera's instances of publishing inaccurate information, its state funding or ownership, it being banned or restricted in multiple countries, and Qatar's lack of press freedom. Several editors compared Al Jazeera to RT (RSP entry). Editors who viewed Al Jazeera positively countered that the outlet's former representative disclaimed the disputed story on social media. These editors did not believe the cited examples were sufficient to affect the general reliability of Al Jazeera, and criticized the reliability of some of the articles that were used as examples. Some editors consider Al Jazeera biased for topics related to the Qatari government or the Arab–Israeli conflict, with 1 editor describing the outlet as a "soft power tool" for Qatar. This sentiment is generally unopposed, but most editors in the discussion did not consider this bias to impact Al Jazeera's general reliability. Several editors compared Al Jazeera to BBC (RSP entry). Several editors noted a distinction between Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic. In this discussion, there was consensus that Al Jazeera should retain its "generally reliable" designation for most topics. There was weaker consensus that Al Jazeera should retain its "generally reliable" designation for topics related to the Qatari government or the Arab-Israeli conflict. As a recent discussion with high participation, this discussion deserves high weight.

Based on this review, I believe there is consensus to retain Al Jazeera's "generally reliable" designation. I recommend the following changes:

• Note in the entry description that aljazeera.com was operated by the then-unaffiliated unaffiliated and now-defunct Al Jazeera Magazine until it the domain was acquired by Al Jazeera Media Network in 2011.
• Note in the entry description that some editors consider Al Jazeera biased on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest.
• Note in the entry description that Al Jazeera's live blogs should be treated with caution, per WP:NEWSBLOG.
• Explicitly link Al Jazeera Arabic in the description instead of referring to "Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting".

Since this review was time- and effort-intensive, I strongly urge editors to convert the next RSN discussion on Al Jazeera's general reliability into a formal request for comment, which would ease the burden of evaluating discussions in the future. The RfC should explicitly ask editors to separately evaluate:

• Al Jazeera English, Al Jazeera Arabic, and other Al Jazeera channels
• Al Jazeera's coverage of general topics, the Arab–Israeli conflict, and topics related to the Qatari government

Any feedback or corrections on the above review are welcome. — Newslinger talk 02:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Edited: clarifications on aljazeera.com and Al Jazeera English articles; minor copyediting. 09:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC))

@Newslinger, thanks for the comprehensive review of all discussions going back to 2007. I appreciate your time and efforts and I'm sure others do as well. I agree with all your changes. One question I have is: "Note in the entry description that aljazeera.com was operated by the then-unaffiliated Al Jazeera Magazine until it was acquired by Al Jazeera Media Network in 2011." What is the practical purpose for writing this in the entry? Is it that Al Jazeera's reporting until 2011 should be evaluated differently? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

​No problem. The aljazeera.com technical note would inform editors that any links to the aljazeera.com domain that were cited or archived before Al Jazeera's 2011 acquisition of the domain are links to Al Jazeera Magazine content, and not Al Jazeera content. (According to the Wayback Machine, Al Jazeera took over aljazeera.com at some point between 27 February 2011 and 19 March 2011.) The "generally reliable" status and other details of Al Jazeera's list entry would not apply to aljazeera.com links that were cited or archived prior to the domain takeover. Instead, Al Jazeera Magazine content would be treated like any other source without a list entry.

For comparison, the Daily Mail entry includes the sentence "The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliated Charleston Daily Mail, and reference links to that publication are still present" to clarify that dailymail.com links previously pointed to a different publication.

I've amended the discussion review to state that Al Jazeera Media Network (AJMN) only acquired the aljazeera.com domain, and not Al Jazeera Magazine, since I am unable to find evidence that the now-defunct Al Jazeera Magazine was acquired by AJMN. This means that Al Jazeera Magazine can also be described as "unaffiliated" with Al Jazeera. — Newslinger talk 09:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Got it. I would suggest "Note that the domain name "aljazeera.com" only started hosting Al Jazeera English content starting 2011; links to aljazeera.com prior to 2011 refer to Al Jazeera Magazine, which is different from Al Jazeera English". Do you know the domain name Al Jazeera English was hosted on prior to 2011? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English was on the subdomain english.aljazeera.net from some point in 2003 to 10 November 2011. It looks like blogs.aljazeera.net was also used for Al Jazeera English news blogs from some point in 2009 to June 2012. The entry already lists aljazeera.net as one of the domains listed in the "Uses" column.

Thanks for the suggested wording. I've incorporated it into #Proposal 1 (Al Jazeera) below. — Newslinger talk 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Newslinger. To clarify on point 11, you're interpretation that there was no consensus for the proposal is correct (rather than there being no consensus on the reliability of the source). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Workshop (Al Jazeera)

Proposal 1 (Al Jazeera)

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
Al Jazeera WP:ALJAZEERA 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11	2024	Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-funded news organization that is considered generally reliable. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English to be more reliable than Al Jazeera Arabic. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly Al Jazeera Arabic, is a partisan source on the Arab–Israeli conflict and on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest. Al Jazeera's live blogs should be treated with caution, per the policy on news blogs. Note that the domain name "aljazeera.com" only started hosting Al Jazeera English content in 2011; links to aljazeera.com prior to 2011 pointed to the unaffiliated Al Jazeera Magazine.	1   2

In addition to my suggested changes in #Discussion review (Al Jazeera), the above proposal includes the following modifications:

• Removes the Al Jazeera English alias from the "Source" column, since it is a language-variant channel that is easily identified by name
• Removes the Aljazeera.com alias from the "Source" column, since the domain is already listed in the "Uses" column
• Updates last discussion year to 2024
• Changes "state-owned" to "state-funded" for consistency with the Al Jazeera Media Network article, which describes Al Jazeera as "funded in part by the government of Qatar" and categorizes it under Category:Publicly funded broadcasters
• Adds Vice regent's suggested phrasing for "aljazeera.com", but with the word "unaffiliated" to match the language in the Daily Mail entry

Feedback and alternative proposals are welcome. If you have a substantially different alternative proposal, please create a new subsection below.

@Alaexis, CaribDigita, Rosguill, BilledMammal, Caeciliusinhorto-public, Horse Eye's Back, Vice regent, XDanielx, Sameboat, Scanf, and Objective3000: Pinging all editors who have commented in this discussion.

— Newslinger talk 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

"State funded" isn't entirely accurate; it downplays the level of control that reliable sources say that Qatar has over the organization. Perhaps "state sponsored"? BilledMammal (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

But the control isn't really state control... Its family control... Its just that the same family controls the outlet and the state. Similar situation to the Mediaset assets when Burlesconi was in power with the added wrinkle of a hereditary aristocracy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

For extra context, I think The Guardian summarizes it well: The Al Jazeera Media Network, which is funded by the Qatari royal family, insists it has editorial independence. But the network is widely seen by foreign governments as a soft-power tool for the Gulf monarchy. See also the Department of Justice's letter saying Despite assertions of editorial independence and freedom of expression, Al Jazeera Media Network and its affiliates are controlled and funded by the Government of Qatar.

Al Jazeera denies these claims and maintains that it has editorial independence, but it seems like this is widely viewed with suspicion given the royal family's role in creating in the network, and just given that Qatar is an absolute monarchy with explicit legal restrictions on freedom of speech and press. For example, Penal Code 136 imposes a penalty of life imprisonment for certain "propaganda".

I think "state funded" is fine if we separately elaborate a bit about concerns of monarchical control. The "conflict of interest" text hints at these concerns, but perhaps another sentence would be good to elaborate. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The Qatari royal family is essentially the government of Qatar. The AJMN article says it is "a private-media conglomerate ... funded in part by the government of Qatar". "Publicly-funded" isn't right either, given that Category:Publicly funded broadcasters says, "Articles in this category relate to public broadcasters that receive funding from the public, either directly or through their government" and this in the wikilinked page: "Public broadcasters receive funding from diverse sources including license fees, individual contributions, public financing, and commercial financing, and avoid political interference or commercial influence." I recommend the phrase "state sponsored" as suggested by BilledMammal --FeralOink (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support Newslinger's proposal. Just want to add that this workshop should be for evaluating previous consensus, not forming new consensus. If a new consensus is needed, it should be done via RfC at WP:RSN.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good to me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support - and thanks to Newslinger for digging through these discussions to summarize them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Generally support - it's is a very well-researched summary of consensus, and a clear improvement. As mentioned above, it might be good to elaborate slightly about concerns of potential state control, but that's relatively minor and could always be left to a followup discussion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note - there's now an ongoing discussion on RS/N. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support This all seems reasonable and logical. Chetsford (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support in general, I am not that clear about Al Jazeera's live blogs should be treated with caution, per the policy on news blogs, this seems like a change in the definition of newsblogs, which I have always assumed meant blogs hosted by newsorgs, like here. I assume this stricture should also be the case for all the big newsorgs, most of whom now do liveblogging and where afaik, there have been no complaints about those to date. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support with caveats - Al Jazeera English is usually a high-quality news and investigative reporting source for current and historical events, excluding content about the USA or Israel-Palestine, e.g. it was my favorite source for news in the Donbas, especially for women's issues. Perhaps qualify about not using for Israel-Palestine news? Secondly, regarding "funded in part by the government of Qatar": Where does the other part of the funding come from, and is it more than, say 5% of total funding? "State sponsored" seems accurate, see my reply to XDanielx above for details.--FeralOink (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Post-implementation (Al Jazeera)

Thank you all for the feedback. Per the above consensus, I have implemented proposal 1 as written, and with the active noticeboard discussion added to the "List" column. (Since the noticeboard discussion is still in progress, it has not yet been evaluated.) The changes are at Special:Diff/1230365377.

Regarding potential elaboration on the "state-funded" phrasing, further discussion on Al Jazeera's relationship with the Qatari government would be better suited for the discussion on the noticeboard. Arguments in noticeboard discussions are taken into account for future versions of this list entry, whereas comments on this talk page are limited to interpretations of previous noticeboard discussions.

The current noticeboard discussion appears to be evolving into a full RfC. When this happens, I urge the RfC starter to ask responding editors to evaluate the aspects of Al Jazeera that I mentioned in the #Discussion review (Al Jazeera) section, and to list the RfC as a centralized discussion. — Newslinger talk 08:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Duplication at Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Currently_deprecated_sources

The table at Wikipedia:Deprecated sources § Currently deprecated sources seems to duplicate portions of the table here at § Sources. There is a risk of the content going out of sync. At the very minimum, it would be better to have some sort of template to excerpt rows from the bigger table.

I think the table in on this page should be preferred. It includes all the information in the other table. It also has incoming shortcut links. I propose removing the section on the other article and redirecting its shortcuts here after checking all information is accounted for. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that duplication is a perennial annoyance. Mind you, merging that into this will make this page even longer - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I synced most of the remaining information into this page. For the Uses column, I just assumed it was already merged. Any increase in visible page length is barely noticeable because most of the information was already on this page. This is what remains to be done:

• Minor formatting proofreading
• Reaching consensus on whether we should keep the transclusion to display the table on the other page
• Decide whether we should readd the dedicated columns for {{rll}}, {{efd}}, and {{sbll}}

174.92.25.207 (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Issues I see is the dmy dates for RfC's conflicting with the year format and the list of discussions should start on a new line instead of after the abuse filter. I understand the reason for merging duplicate content, it's a good effort. CNC (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@174.92.25.207 Looks a lot better now, thanks. CNC (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like WP:TASNIMNEWSAGENCY is missing from WP:DEPSOURCES. - Amigao (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done @174.92.25.207 did you cross reference the lists, or are there potentially more DEPs missing? Tasnim was added by myself very recently, but no idea if there are other additions missing as well. CNC (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:GLOBALTIMES is also missing. - Amigao (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done have you by any chance cross-referenced others? CNC (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry that I missed WP:GLOBALTIMES. I went over each row of WP:DEPS, CTRL+F'ed the name on WP:RSP, and added the onlyinclude tag, but I missed one. I might double-check the rest later while I figure out how to make the styling consistent.

WP:TASNIMNEWSAGENCY was not in the original https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources&oldid=1231902085 that I based my work off of. To maintain integrity during the merge, I used CTRL+F which wouldn't have made me add it. Perhaps someone with Lua experience could tell us if the onlyinclude and WP:RSPSTATUS could be synced automatically. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good to now be working with a single list and to worry less about future version control issues. - Amigao (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@174.92.25.207 There is an issue with the table currently from Yahoo! row which is breaking all table templates. It showed up when you finished making changes on row ZDNet (two below). [15] If I had to guess there is a threshold in template transclusion going on, hence the error has moved up two rows since adding two new entries. I don't want to revert to a stable reversion prior to the changes you made, as I think they are beneficial and necessary, but otherwise needs must if it can't be fixed asap. CNC (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Wikipedia:Post-expand_include_size. So that's where the error showed up. I could replace {{efn}} with manual syntax. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

A revert won't fix this and this might not be related to my edits. A previous revision, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&diff=prev&oldid=1232139584 currently appears broken with bare "Template:Sbll"s at the bottom of the table. At the time of its writing, https://web.archive.org/web/20240702142217/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources , the table appeared fine. All of that was after my last edit.

Yesterday or the day before, I saw "Template:Editnotice load" and other stuff go from working to broken while clicking edit. I initially thought it was caused by my editing, but it suddenly started working later, and that must have been due to some template edited elsewhere. Even the revision before my first edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&oldid=1231862941 , has "Template:Broken ref". I am having a hard time tracking others' template changes down, I will try to trim some stuff from {{sbll}}, WP:RSPSTATUS, etc. as a hotfix. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done I edited the templates and cut this page's WP:PEIS in half and it is now 1,159,805/2,097,152 bytes 174.92.25.207 (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Amazon

I know it shouldn't be used for user reviews that are self-published, but can it be used for merchandise-related items? If so, then it should be tagged as a partially reliable or situational source. Kazama16 (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:RSN

 – 174.92.25.207 (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Times of Israel

i think this source is unreliable source. Any thoughts? Gsgdd (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:RSN. This is the talk page about the list of perennial sources itself, not the noticeboard for discussing sources' reliability. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Researchgate

Should we mark it as no consensus? like we have to see if an article has been peer reviewed or not. I wouldn’t say its exactly unreliable or reliable. xq 00:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

RG is diffusion platform and inherits the reliability of wherever the paper comes from. Paper from an OMICS journal, the source is unreliable. Host a paper from a Wiley-Blackwell journal, the source is (probably) reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Headbomb but am additionally negative because Researchgate is notorious for spamming. See the following.

• ResearchGate spam listing on Scientific Spam website;
• According to this Nature article full text, section Tactical Breakdown: "Some of the apparent profiles on the site are not owned by real people, but are created automatically – and incompletely – by scraping details of people's affiliations, publication records and PDFs."
• In WP's own article, criticisms section: "...emailing unsolicited invitations to the coauthors of its users. These emails were written as if they were personally sent by the user, but were instead sent automatically unless the user opted out... "

Please consider this before concluding No Consensus, which shouldn't be acted on by editors as an implicit "Okay to use"... but often is.--FeralOink (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That comes with it being a social network and is already considered. That's why we say check what the paper actually is. If it's published in Journal of Foo, it inherits the reliability of the Journal of Foo. If it's a random document, it's got the reliability of a random document. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point, thank you! One more thing please? ResearchGate has a major problem with unauthorized uploading. Elsevier and American Chem Society sued for copyright infringement resulting in 200,000 article takedowns by ResearchGate. A German court (Researchgate is a German company) ruled against ResearchGate. I don't know if it will be extended EU-wide. Is this relevant for our purposes, of sourcing Wikipedia articles? If an article a source gets removed, that's a dead url in our Wiki article, but is that the extent of it for us? If so, it doesn't seem like a problem.--FeralOink (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)