Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources that relates to this list. Please feel free to participate if you are interested. — Newslinger talk 08:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added some mockups of the proposed warning templates at WT:RSN § Template workshop. — Newslinger talk 11:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

Helllpppp Is byu.edu a soruce? https://realtytimes.com/?

Just now I and MrX disagreed on whether a source should be included on this list. MrX pointed to "discussed criteria", which seems to refer to /Archive 1#Perennial sources, where he said at least two discussions at WP:RSN, or at least one WP:RSN discussion and multiple talk page discussions about the source. Fair enough, this may apply as long as no other editors object to it.

My view is that there is no harm in including sources which are less discussed. This list is helpful for editors, as evidenced by its page views and Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Most discussions on RSN are not formally closed, and it is helpful (especially for less experienced editors) if discussions are summarized here. It's better to point an inexperienced editor to an RSP entry, than to point her to a jargon-laden RSN discussion that she may not understand easily. And no, a source does not have to be the subject of a discussion for it to be part of the discussion - as long as an editor makes an observation of a source, that should be enough. My general rule of thumb is that to be included, a source should have a) at least one discussion where the source is the main subject of the discussion; b) an editor asserting the reliability of the source, as long as the discussion is of a relevant subject matter. In fact when this list was initially created by MrX (see Special:Permalink/852528296 for the last revision before another editor has contributed), it included the Daily Wire, Infowars, Mediaite, and Media Research Center, each of which only had one linked discussion. Thus it's pretty clear that a useful summary can be composed from a single discussion.

If that means the word "perennial" should be dropped from the page title, so be it. We are here to help editors and readers understand usage of our sources, not to enforce a particular format to suit something as trivial as a page title. feminist (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed /Archive 1#"Perennial sources" vs. sources with one discussion link – fair enough. Though my view hasn't changed: if describing a source with only one discussion as "perennial" is problematic, then this page's title should be changed, not the other way round. I quote MrX from that discussion: Best practice would be to link a couple, or a few, of the best of these discussions, but even one good discussion is better than leaving it off the list altogether. feminist (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The harm that comes from adding minor sources that have only been discussed by four people six years ago is that index will be come so large and filled with trivial entires that it will be nearly useless. We already have editors complaining all over the project about how difficult it is to use this resource on mobile devices. Not only that, but we can't even make a reasonable conclusion about the reliability of a source that only four people cared to comment about. It is impractical, and inconsistent with the purpose of this resource, to list sources that have not been perennially discussed. In some cases, sources have been vigorously discussed at venues other than WP:RSN, and I think those discussions should count toward perenniality.- MrX 🖋 17:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Point taken regarding the concern that this list would become too lengthy and difficult to manage. This issue needs to be solved, and there are many possible solutions, such as dividing sources by category, or using tags to filter out sources (not sure if this can be implemented using wikicode right now). Although I don't really see how it's impractical to summarize the opinions of four editors, if only they cared. It means that as of right now the source is considered (by people who care) to be generally reliable or unreliable, and it stays that way until another discussion is started. Isn't the purpose of this page to summarize discussions on the reliability of sources? That has nothing to do with how many discussions exist, all that is relevant is that there is enough discussion to reach a result. feminist (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

In my observation, most disputes about source reliability are handled at the article talk page level. I don't see that there is a need for a more extensive list that includes any source that has been discussed, even superficially, at WP:RSN. If there is, then perhaps it would be in the form of a simple indexed listing that includes links to every single discussion in the WP:RSN archive. I don't believe that the format of WP:RSP would be sustainable for that purpose, but perhaps some other form on a separate page would work.- MrX 🖋 18:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A separate page would be a terrible idea, as it means needing to maintain 2 pages. A possible solution would be to create subpages for each source and transclude them onto two separate pages, but that sounds even more complicated. In the meantime, I've never found any difficulty with looking up any source (Ctrl+F, or Find on page on mobile devices).

I'd like other editors to provide input to this discussion here. feminist (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I've always supported a minimum requirement of 2 significant discussions or 1 RfC at WP:RSN (see "Listing requirements"). Although I follow this rule, I generally don't try to enforce it on other editors (unless I disagree with the reliability assessment). This is because I consider writing RSP entries very similar to closing discussions: anyone has the ability to challenge a closure, and the editor who performed the closure is responsible for defending it.

For example, in the WorldNetDaily RfC, my "generally unreliable" assessment was challenged by another editor, and I had to explain how I determined the consensus of the discussions in the source's entry (RSP entry). The editor also questioned how the list of discussions was compiled. Fortunately, the WorldNetDaily entry followed strict rules:

This is an exhaustive list of every discussion on WP:RSN (and its archives) where the section header included the term "WorldNetDaily", "World Net Daily", or "WND". It was compiled from the search results of the "Search this noticeboard & archives" box at the top of this page, and no discussions that matched the query were excluded from the list.

If I had been more inclusive, the "generally unreliable" classification would have been harder to defend, since it would have been vulnerable to accusations of cherrypicking. I'm not going to pressure other editors to follow these rules, but I believe that stricter inclusion requirements make more robust entries.

I noticed several other things:

1. This list uses the terms "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable" because it makes generalizations about sources. In contrast, WP:RSN's instructions tell editors to inquire about the use of sources in specific situations. From my experience, the context of WP:RSN discussions affect editors' perceptions of the sources discussed (even if they describe them in general terms), and because of this, I don't think it's appropriate to construct an RSP entry from just one discussion. (The only exception would be an RfC about the general reliability of a source, provided that it's scoped to all articles.)
2. Precise inclusion criteria would make RSP entries more reproducible. Every editor uses their own judgment for whether a discussion should be included in an entry, which means that there is some variance in the methodology used for different entries. However, since the same set of classifications ("generally reliable", etc.) is used in the "Status" column of each entry, the list implies that the methodology is the same for each entry. As a result, I believe the list would be more trustworthy if we make the inclusion criteria more precise.
3. While I appreciate the hard work that goes into constructing entries like the Reuters one, which had 64 listed discussions, I don't think it's fair to extrapolate the reliability of a source from passing mentions in RSN discussions. This is because editors who disagree with the opinion expressed in the mention are less likely to dispute it when it's not centrally relevant to the discussion, even if the opinion is about the general reliability of a source. Discussions with the name of the source in the section's title are the best ones to list, because editors who visit the noticeboard can clearly see that the source is being examined even if they have no special interest in the context of the discussion.

It would be good to draft a set of inclusion criteria and to include it in the page. The lack of precise criteria is a barrier to other editors who are interested in contributing here. If we can't form a consensus here on what to include, then it would be prudent to start an RfC, since this list has an outsized impact on the rest of Wikipedia.​​ — Newslinger talk 11:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

After thinking this through (and looking at the most recent addition to this list), I think I agree: there is a need to prevent the inclusion of minor, trivial entries. I agree with the general direction of adding a clear criteria for inclusion to this page to guide editors to contribute to this list. feminist (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Moving towards a set criteria

Taking into account the suggestions from MrX and Newslinger above, I propose that for a source to be listed, it should have either:

1. Two or more significant discussions at WP:RSN,
2. One significant discussion at RSN, plus significant discussion elsewhere, or
3. an RfC discussion at RSN that was formally closed.

Any defined criteria should be displayed prominently on WP:RSP to encourage editors to contribute to this page. feminist (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

​I support this proposal, as it addresses all of my concerns. — Newslinger talk 16:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a good baseline. I would like to see a bit more clarity around the word "significant discussion" based on number of participants. Something like discussions involving at least (8, 10, 12, n) editors.- MrX 🖋 20:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I've thought of this as well. IMO "significant discussion" should require, at a minimum, that the source is the subject of a discussion, or that the source is otherwise substantially discussed (so for example, this should count as a significant discussion for The Hill). I don't think basing this on the number of participants is necessarily helpful. As long as a discussion has the name of the source in the section's title, it doesn't matter even if it has few participants, because it is already highly visible on RSN. It can be that other editors agree with the response to the discussion starter, but don't see the need to add their own comment.

I'd note that both WP:VG/RS and WP:ALBUM/SOURCE have a higher number of sources listed than WP:RSP, so I am not convinced that there is a pressing need to remove sources from this list. But having a set criteria is useful. feminist (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"Significant" is a difficult word to define. (Case in point: we still have a vague description for "significant coverage".) While I believe that discussions should have a minimum number of participants to be considered significant, I don't think it should be nearly as high as 8 editors. Some sources are uncontroversially unreliable (e.g. self-published sources that use mostly user-generated content), and it doesn't take much discussion to establish that they should be avoided. For some of these uncontroversial cases, editors don't bother to participate in the discussion since they have nothing to add, and the little that has been said is enough to classify the source as unreliable. A minimum of 2-3 editors is enough to ensure that the discussion is not just a single editor's opinion that escaped notice, but beyond that, I'm not really sure how to define "significant". (I also think it's appropriate to waive this minimum for WP:RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading.) — Newslinger talk 06:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that 8 is too high. I'd support 2 editors (including the discussion starter) for discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and 3 editors for other discussions (including non-RSP discussions). feminist (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I support this. The language is precise, and it should also explicitly state that the discussion needs to mention the source's reliability/unreliability. — Newslinger talk 10:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think 2-3 is way too low. Maybe 6? I do agree that the source should be the topic of discussion, and probably in the section header, but I'm not sure that should be a hard rule.- MrX 🖋 13:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd probably phrase it as something like "Editors generally expect at least 2 editors for discussions ... and at least 3 editors for other discussions ..." feminist (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Would you consider some of these discussions significant?

• 3 editors: "Bild", "Popcorn Time", "Geni.com", "genealogy site - FindMyPast"
• 4 editors: "UNHCR and PEW Research Center", "Orangecounty.com", "TVTropes", "Media Matters", "About The Next Web"
• 5 editors: "Is The Nation a reliable source?", "Enquiry concerning the RT Network"

Note that there are several other metrics we can use, including character length, number of comments, and whether the discussion was formally closed. — Newslinger talk 09:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

That sounds complicated. feminist (talk) 08:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It certainly is. I would prefer not to use these other metrics, and just decide on a cutoff based on the number of editors. — Newslinger talk 09:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I really don't consider any of those discussion significant. But, if there were a significant discussion, let's say involving 12 people, then perhaps these less significant discussions could establish the source as perennially discussed.- MrX 🖋 14:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible change to the classification of Fox News

In light of the recently archived RSN discussion on Fox News, do you think the classification of Fox News (RSP entry) or Fox News talk shows (RSP entry) should be changed?

Currently, Fox News is labeled as generally reliable because its one and only uninterrupted RfC (from 2010) concluded, "Consensus is that while Fox may not always be reliable it is a Reliable Source", which can be argued to mean either "generally reliable" or "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply". The generally reliable classification was previously disputed at 'Fox News changed to "no consensus"', and was resolved when Fox News talk shows were split into their own entry.

Since the recent RSN discussion isn't an RfC, it can't overturn the result of the 2010 RfC. However, it can change the way the RfC is interpreted, since the RfC's closing statement was ambiguous. What are your thoughts? — Newslinger talk 04:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I participated at that discussion, so I may personally be biased, but my reading of that discussion is that there is a consensus that Fox News news articles are generally reliable while Fox News talk shows are opinions. This means the current classifications should be maintained. feminist (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree completely. If half the community thinks Fox News is a rag and half the community thinks it's a reliable source, that's statis, not a consensus that it's a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You must not be reading the same discussion. "Half the community thinks Fox News is a rag" is blatantly false. And let's not forget that no source is reliable for everything. You have voiced your opinion in the last dispute (where you edit warred on the entry, no less), the consensus was against your classification, and I don't see anything in the newest discussion to mandate a change. That's enough. feminist (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's try to summarize the opinions of editors in the recent Fox News discussion, shall we? In that discussion,

• 18 editors considered Fox News to be reliable in general: Masem, A Quest For Knowledge, Collect, Nblund, SemiHypercube, Deli nk, The Four Deuces, Gnome de plume, Blueboar, Edgeweyes, MONGO, PackMecEng, Otr500, Jayron32, TimBuck2, Levivich, PCock, Feminist
• 7 editors considered Fox News to be unreliable in general: the IP editor who started the discussion, Simonm223, Snooganssnoogans, Slatersteven, JzG, BullRangifer, FOARP
• 8 editors made no comment on the general reliability of Fox News: Objective3000, Dimadick, MastCell, Anachronist, Softlavender, DIYeditor, DBigXray, Excelse

Persuasive arguments have been made on both sides, but the majority of editors in the discussion agree that Fox News news reporting is generally reliable. This affirms the consensus reached in previous discussions. Now that Fox News and Fox News talk shows are in separate entries, editors are unlikely to be confused. feminist (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I am curious, what about political news reporting from 2016, should certain aspects like the political correspondent news not be used as deemed unreliable? Govvy (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The RSP entry already specifies Editors are advised to exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics, and to properly attribute statements of opinion. That should be enough. feminist (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail / The Sun

Can I asked, what about historical publications of the Daily Mail before 1981? The early years when it was considered reliable. Why are people not considering to supply the years for a source? Also asking about the Sun newspaper. Surely it's more about contentious material, why would you red-bar a newspaper which is one of the best reporters for Sports in the UK? Govvy (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Some editors consider the Daily Mail to be OK for articles from its early years, but when citing early Daily Mail articles most editors won't be supplying a dailymail.co.uk link, so the spam filter won't pick up these references. The Sun is generally regarded reliable for sports. feminist (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Feminist made the adjustments here. — Newslinger talk 11:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

k, thank you. Govvy (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a question about the Daily Mail and The Sun - can they still be used for things like reception sections for television shows, episodes or characters? Surely as television reviews are opinions, then it doesn't matter what the source is? Thanks. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 22:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That could lead to random websites being used as sources. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh I didn't mean that things like blogs should be allowed for that, just news sites, which is what I always use for reviews, but I don't see why The Sun and the Daily Mail can't continue to be used for that. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 22:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I know you didn't mean that, but if we allow these for reviews then I can imagine people trying to justify using blogs and saying that we allow the Daily Mail and The Sun as sources for review. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Mail's opinions and critical reviews of media weren't thoroughly discussed in either of its RfCs, and neither of the closing statements carved out these opinions and reviews as an exception to the consensus of general unreliability. Perhaps this is worth discussing at the neutral point of view noticeboard as a question of due weight, since the Daily Mail is authoritative for its writers' own opinions. The same applies to The Sun. — Newslinger talk 06:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Fox News

Fox News' news programs and talk shows are produced by two different departments,[1][2] which are more or less at odds.[3] I've made an edit to reflect that, and clarify which program belongs where. François Robere (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi François Robere, and thanks for contributing to the list. I have two suggestions, and I'd like to know what you think of them:

1. "Fox News news" sounds a bit awkward, and MOS:TMRULES recommends against duplicating words in trademarks (e.g. "Apple Watch watch") for this reason. Personally, I prefer the old "Fox News" label since it includes everything except for the talk shows, which means that foxnews.com would clearly be in its scope.
2. I don't think names of reporters are due in the summary, since we don't include these names in any other entry in the list (with the exception of Claas Relotius for a notable and unusual reason). The names of some of the prominent talk shows are mentioned because their channel affiliation is not readily apparent to people who are unfamiliar with Fox News, and because they help readers search for the list entry (through their browser or Wikipedia app). However, names of reporters are almost always presented with the name of their news organization, and readers are unlikely to search these names in the list (because other entries don't include them).

Do you mind if I change "Fox News news" back to "Fox News", and remove the names of the reporters?​ — Newslinger talk 10:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome.

1. Yeah, I know. The problem I have with it is that I'm not sure the network as a whole is reliable - that is, I don't trust the organization as a whole - It seems to be biased on an organizational level, and the talk shows are the public face of that bias (with a whole lot of "air time") rather than an exception to the rule. If it were up to me we'd reverse the definitions: Instead of marking Fox News as reliable and the talk shows as an exception, we'd mark Fox News as "unreliable" and the news shows as an exception; that (I believe) would still reflect the consensus, as well as align with public and scholarly discussions of the network. Adding "news" was a means of conveying that distinction without changing the consensus summaries, but we may be able to make that change anyway.
2. We can mention the shows instead if that's preferable (eg. America's Newsroom, Shepard Smith Reporting, Special Report with Bret Baier and The Story with Martha MacCallum). As an aside, the notion of reliability here is more tightly coupled with individuals than with shows (ie Hannity doesn't turn into the epitome of superb reporting when he's not on "Hannity", and Wallace doesn't turn into Hannity when he is).

What do you think? François Robere (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This is good. François Robere (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

​My main concern here is that the 2010 RfC was scoped to the entirety of Fox News, and not just List of programs broadcast by Fox News, which is what the "Fox News (news)" entry has been changed to link to. The portion of Fox News that's most relevant to Wikipedia editors is its online content at foxnews.com, since that's what articles cite in nearly all cases. We split the talk shows from the main entry because editors specifically objected to Fox & Friends, Hannity, and Tucker Carlson Tonight in the noticeboard discussions. However, I don't see any justification for removing foxnews.com from the scope of the entry. I'm not familiar with the internal structure of Fox News, but the only source you cited that explicitly mentions "department" is a non-neutral article from The Daily Beast (RSP entry) that was not brought up in past noticeboard discussions, and none of the three articles linked in your first comment mention foxnews.com. — Newslinger talk 00:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm following the page for the time being, so no need to ping. :-)

Fox News's internal structure is no secret.[4]

The problem is their website is a separate entity - it contains content from both departments, as well as publishing its own. Which does the RfC refer to? François Robere (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The RfC (link) refers to all of Fox News, and the closing summary (near the bottom of the discussion) refers to the "News organizations" guideline. This list originally had just one entry (see Special:Permalink/870582051#Fox News), which was sufficient, since opinions (including talk shows) from generally reliable sources are handled with WP:RSOPINION. However, there was a dispute at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 1 § Fox News changed to "no consensus" over whether Fox News should be considered "generally reliable" or "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply", and the compromise was to split Fox News talk shows into a separate entry. In my opinion, this split is unnecessary and doesn't improve the list, but it was done to defuse tensions.

It's extremely uncommon for editors to cite episodes of America's Newsroom or Hannity in Wikipedia articles. Most editors refer to this list to determine whether it's appropriate to cite a page from foxnews.com, and drawing these other boundary lines distract from this main use case. If there's doubt over whether Fox News (including foxnews.com) is generally reliable, then the solution is to start a new RfC at WP:RSN to clarify the consensus. As the only applicable Fox News RfC is from 2010, a new RfC may be warranted, although the starter may want to wait a bit since the most recent discussion (which was unfortunately not made an RfC) is less than a month old. Until a new RfC updates the consensus, this list does need an entry covering foxnews.com, and the consensus in previous discussions is that foxnews.com is generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 10:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the most recent discussion. My own interest in this piqued by a retracted RfC from about a year ago.

Will this do for the time being? François Robere (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better. I've made two more adjustments:

1. Since Foxnews.com redirects to Fox News § Online, I've changed the link for "Fox News" (news and website) back to Fox News instead of List of programs broadcast by Fox News.
2. I've removed the <small> tags from "(news and website)" and "(talk shows)", since we currently use regular font sizes for disambiguation, as in "Daily Star (United Kingdom)", and small text for aliases.

If this is acceptable to you, then the entries will hopefully be stable until the next RfC. — Newslinger talk 12:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It certainly is. Thank you. François Robere (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It could be I don't understand the technical jargon here. I've spent about six hours checking it out. I'm pretty sure I don't have the lingo to make concise suggestions, I hope my general words can communicate. Fox's article itself seems to suggest my and the general public's consensus, that while Fox News is very popular, it's also unreliable, —quoting:

"Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations and conservative causes while slandering the Democratic Party and spreading harmful propaganda intended to negatively affect its members' electoral performances.[8][9][10][11] Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall.[12][13]...."

That's not mere; "biased-but-factual." Everybody except the right wing knows that; (such as; https://www.projectcensored.org/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/ ), even the lede section of the Fox News article raises questions. What am I missing? I notice the Fox sections are also structurally different from the others, and wonder if this isn't the result of cherry picking for reliability, to defuse tensions. Or are Wiki's judgments based on Fox's great popularity, (which presumably must extend to some Wiki editors,) or some such? (IE, mostly subjective, IE; reliable = popular = consensus?)

Whatever. I'm mostly concerned that this site is based on consensus, while recognizing that other criteria can be more difficult. I have two main problems with reliable = consensus: 1) Educated, good Germans enthusiastically elected Hitler (as "Truth").   2) I think of Wikipedia as kind of a "regulator" of "Truth," often against vested liars. And I believe in economic theory, including Nobel Prize winning regulatory capture, which explains why the regulators will always end up being captured by those they regulate, the vested liars. Government regulatory agencies have defenses against that, even if often ineffective. I worry that in this time where everybody's expensive security is being hacked, hacked, hacked, by professional sneaks and industrial spies, Wikipedia does not even recognize the extremely high cash value of its articles, in this case to both 1) politics, and 2) industry. (It's just simple economics.)

Also I think the Trump situation has significantly altered the related reality since the last completed RfC, I agree, we need another, and I think inconclusive findings should be avoided here. (And weasel words too.)

Some other important reasons are beautifully argued by this super-user: User:BullRangifer/Reliable_sources,_Trump,_and_his_editors_here

One of his points is; sometimes everything is not just a matter of (popular) opinion, sometimes Truth exists, and sometimes we can objectively find it. I find that to do that in politics or news, one must choose "scientific," or testable (falsifiable) claims and topics only. (‘Karl Popper proposed the principle of falsifiability - if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific; if it is not falsifiable, then it is not science.’ — oxforddictionaries.com)

Six Questions? —   "Trump is reliable."   Is that true, false or opinion? And what of a reporter that asserts that? And "Climate change is significantly affected by human activity?" And the reporters that deny that? How many anti-science (preposterous) reporters does it take for a news organization to be ranked as unreliable? Is everything just a matter of opinion?

It seems like Dan Rather was fired for one blunder. Are those journalistic values gone forever? I hope somebody finds these suggestions helpful. I admit, it implies opening a can of worms, but I think it's not impossible and is worthy of the effort. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:8C24:7242:7F56:12CA (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources with a currently active RfC and no previous discussions

Should we include sources with a currently active RfC and no previous discussions in the list? For example:

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
TASS (ITAR-TASS, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union)		2019	2019	There is an active request for comment on the reliability of TASS on the reliable sources noticeboard. Prior to this RfC, there was no significant discussion on the reliability of TASS.	1

— Newslinger talk 13:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest no. In general we're already on a bit of shaky ground including sources only discussed once, though obviously an RfC is different than mere comment. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it could be useful for people looking to find out more about a source. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

No, per previous discussions on this page about the purpose of the list which is to index perennial discussions about sources. - MrX 🖋 12:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

OK but do not provide a status, so as to avoid influencing the RfC outcome. If the RfC was closed after 30 days but without significant participation, the entry should be removed from this list. feminist (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Alexa rank?

I'm not sure when the "Alexa rank" column was added, but I would like to hear some justification for including it. Website traffic does not correlate to source reliability, as far as I know.- MrX 🖋 12:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Website traffic shows how many people are visiting a website, and thus a rough correlation of how often the source is cited/considered on Wikipedia. Personally I think it's useful. feminist (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Toss it. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Ronz. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Feminist: We already have a uses column which tells us how often a source is used on Wikipedia. Alexa-measured web traffic has no relationship to source reliability, or Wikipedia usage. In what way do you think it's useful in determining if a source is reliable? - MrX 🖋 22:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The Alexa rank shows potential use. The Uses column shows actual use. For example, although there are now very few actual uses of Breitbart, we may have more editors trying to cite it because of its high profile. It also shows how much a new RSN discussion on a source may potentially benefit editors in the future. feminist (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

But we're not going to start using sources simply because they receive a lot of web traffic. I don't even understand what your point is in your second sentence. I agree with the others that this new column should be removed.- MrX 🖋 02:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Jc86035 who added the Alexa rankings. feminist (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Feminist and MrX: I suppose it's relevant because it's a fairly good indicator of importance among people in general, and it might be helpful for some people – particularly new editors and non-editors – to use to compare popularity against reliability. (The ranks should also correlate fairly well with Wikipedia usage after separating the sources into groups based on reliability status.) On the other hand, it's not very useful for actually citing sources. Jc86035 (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The longer we wait to remove it, the more difficult it will be. Or are we still discussing it?

@Ronz: Since there is no consensus for including this column, it should be removed. I will venture to do it later, unless someone does it first.- MrX 🖋 18:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the Alexa rank column was useful because it showed article maintainers an indicator of how often editors attempt to cite a source. While the "Uses" column shows citations of sources that are currently present, it doesn't show citations that were removed by another editor, blocked by the spam blacklist, or discouraged through an edit filter. Having said that, including the Alexa rank column here would increase the maintenance workload, and the column is more useful for list maintainers than article writers. Perhaps the data would be useful on a separate page such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Alexa ranks or a user page. — Newslinger talk 12:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I agree that it would be easier to maintain the data in a separate table, although I would probably have periodically used sed to replace all of the data at once if the column were kept (actually collecting the data was easily the quickest and least painful part of constructing the data column). On the other hand, it would have made it more time-consuming to add new rows. Jc86035 (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

​Maybe a user script would be the most efficient way to handle this? I would also recommend automating the Alexa rank updates, but I assume that Alexa guards against web scraping in some way because this isn't already done for the ranks in articles using {{Infobox website}}. — Newslinger talk 13:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

​ How would a user script work? If it would directly pull data from Alexa there might be privacy concerns, I'm guessing, and some ad blockers automatically block data.alexa.com. I'd also prefer a separate table to a user script, since some websites' various domains vary wildly in popularity, and it's difficult to have a sortable table when the entities to be sorted aren't consistently formatted.

Alexa's website does guard against scraping, but after some unnecessarily painful and time-consuming experimentation, if the rate is slow enough in several ways then there usually aren't any issues. (I, personally and without authorization or persuasion from anyone in particular, archived the Alexa website to the Internet Archive from last February until the start of January.) Jc86035 (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

​Definitely not directly, since that would violate the same-origin policy in web browsers. But, a user script could keep another table on another page in sync with the entries at WP:RSP to make it easier to maintain. I'm still not sure how you populated the Alexa ranks in the first place. Was it from the archives you made, or was it done manually? — Newslinger talk 03:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I took the URLs on the page, prepended "https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo", and downloaded them sequentially all at once using wget through xargs (I also saved the graphs without downloading them). I extracted the ranks and played around with the markup in BBEdit and then used the visual editor to add a new table column. Jc86035 (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

That's very interesting. I've replied on your talk page. — Newslinger talk 11:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

SPLC

IP Address has been blocked. The purpose of this page is to document existing consensus, which is formed elsewhere, such as at WP:RSN.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) is improperly listed as reliable, as they just lost a $3m defamation lawsuit after falsely accusing someone of being racist / hate group. There are another 60 lawsuits pending against SPLC for defamation and 200 in consideration, all for defamation. The court in this expressly case ruled that SPLC's designations of "hate group" status is an assertion of fact, NOT an opinion, and they were guilty of falsely describing someone. See https://pjmedia.com/trending/about-60-organizations-are-considering-a-lawsuit-against-the-splc-following-3m-nawaz-settlement/ and https://pjmedia.com/trending/update-on-the-60-separate-defamation-lawsuits-against-the-splc-under-consideration/ At a minimum, this MUST be NC as you literally have a US court rejecting the notion that they are reliable. User:Greyfell is committing vandalism by removing references to this close lawsuit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk • contribs) February 22, 2019, 02:29 (UTC) In addition to edit warring, you are confused about the purpose of this page. This isn't the place to discuss sources, this is a summary of past discussions, mostly at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. These are "perennial" sources because this comes up a lot, and in the case of SPLC, it comes up a lot. This is why the entry links to over a dozen past discussions, where all of these issues have already been raised multiple times. Because this has already been discussed many times, there is very little purpose in bringing it up again at WP:RSN, but if, after reviewing those past discussions, you truly believe this is a new perspective, by all means raise this again on that page. Grayfell (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Reliability of sources on Wikipedia is not determined by court cases. It's determined by consensus on Wikipedia, including the consensus established in our core policies WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CON, WP:NPOV, and WP:DS. Also, please don't accuse editors of vandalism until you have read and understand WP:NOTVANDALISM.- MrX 🖋 02:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC) You have several facts wrong. For starters, the SPLC did not lose a lawsuit; rather, Maajid Nawaz threatened to sue, which led the SPLC to conduct an internal investigation and review, resulting in an apology, retraction and monetary settlement. No source is perfect. When a source publicly acknowledges an error and retracts the offending material, that's actually a signal that the source is reliable, because it's an indication that the source has review systems in place and is willing to acknowledge its mistakes, rather than simply ignore them or cover them up. Furthermore, that (assuming arguendo) "60 lawsuits are pending against SPLC for defamation and 200 in consideration" is utterly meaningless and without substance. Anyone can hire a lawyer and file papers to sue. What matters is the outcome of those suits in the legal system, and per the reliable sources, the only suit at this point which appears to have been considered, has been dismissed for failure to state a claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC) The outcome is that the SPLC paid out $3m for defamation, they're not reliable. You CANNOT label this as consensus as US courts have expressly rejected your position — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Are you interested in reading what multiple people are taking the time to try and communicate? That's how consensus works. The courts did not make such a ruling. Per the sources you cite, this was a settlement. Not a ruling, but a settlement (litigation). One pundit speculates: "It's possible the court could say, 'No matter how much you say this is an opinion, it's a statement of fact.'" It's possible. Anything's possible. The courts haven't made this ruling yet and none of this matters anyway, because that's not the purpose of this page or of this listing. Grayfell (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC that's not how settlements work. The court absolutely made that ruling. They expressly held SPLC's designations of racism / hate groups (which is what they primarily do) is NOT an opinion. It is an assertion of fact subject to defamation laws. The fact that a court opinion exists rejecting your position shows this MUST at least be NC. For perspective, there are 200 demand letters out and multiple lawsuits already filed for the defamation labeling the Covington kids as racist. Washington Post and NY Times are both included, and the suit against WaPo is a slam dunk. There is no reasonable dispute as for liability. It's just damages, and because there were terrorist bomb threats, the lawsuit is seeking $250m in damages. Defamation matters. You cannot falsely label someone racist or a hate group. That is not an opinion. It is an assertion of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Which court made that ruling? Grayfell (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC) This not the place to discuss this matter. --Ronz (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC) which court? this one: https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018/06/20/southern-poverty-law-center-pays-3-4m-to-resolve-defamation-case/?slreturn=20190121221850 are you saying law.com is biased and factually incorrect? @Ronz this absolutely is where to discuss this. This page asserts that SPLC is reliable and their statements are opinions. There is a court opinion with a $3m judgment that says otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Again, that article notes the existence of a settlement, not a court decision or opinion. That you do not understand the difference between the two is your problem, not ours. Further, you will need to open a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to gain consensus for your proposed changes to our treatment of the SPLC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC) If there were a court and a specific judge who issued a ruling, many reliable sources would mention this. They don't, and even PJ Media knows not to lie about a court ruling. I would be thrilled if this were collapsed, but for now it's nominally better than edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC) There is reliable sources, including the SPLC themselves: https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/06/18/splc-statement-regarding-maajid-nawaz-and-quilliam-foundation It's even mentioned on the wikipedia page for SPLC with sources like https://www.newsweek.com/splc-nawaz-million-apologizes-981879. You cannot seriously contend that SPLC has consensus of being accurate. They literally paid out over $3m for being so inaccurate that they harmed someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC) As some of the other editors have mentioned, this is not the correct place to introduce arguments about the reliability of a source, since comments on this page are not the ones that are being evaluated. You need to take your arguments to the reliable sources noticeboard, where there is a currently active discussion that you can participate in. Comments in that discussion will be taken into account for this list. — Newslinger talk 08:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC) Then we're going to need some admin interference here... literally no one has countered the defamation lawsuit issue. They literally have a court ruling with a multi-million dollar payout that they are not reliable. Moreover, this page is saying there is consensus. All I posted was that there was no consensus with a court case disputing your ridiculous position, and you vandalizers keep removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC) Yes, I agree. Lets get an admin involved. So do you realize that an admin blocked you, and also a different admin decline to unblock you? Perhaps this is evidence that you don't understand Wikipedia as well as you think you do, in which case you should slow down and read what everyone's trying to tell you over and over. Grayfell (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC) I have labeled this as NO CONSENSUS and you keep vandalizing the page to falsely claim there is consensus. SPLC just paid out over $3m for being factually unreliable, and I've cited numerous sources. You have cited nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC) The ip has been blocked. Hat away. --Ronz (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC) @4.34.50.170: Instead of forcefully changing the content in this list against consensus, it would be in your best interest to add a request for comment (RfC) to the currently active SPLC discussion. The result of the RfC would definitively settle how the SPLC should be classified here. — Newslinger talk 09:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC) The IP has been blocked for edit warring. Again. Grayfell (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I'm not sure that the statement "on far-right politics" is accurate. Does it mean the SPLC is not generally reliable for other topics? feminist (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be removed because in this context that is exactly how it would be interpreted, and such an interpretation is incorrect. From what I'm seeing in past discussions, SPLC focuses on the far-right and has been repeatedly questioned as a reliable source for their coverage of the far-right.

I've removed it. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Boomsbeat.com

I loaded up a citation which was boomsbeat.com and the website kept trying to upload GmlujqCrx0s.swf and JtBuV7ccOZ0.swf I have blackedlisted the website on my router. I was wondering if we should blacklist the use of it or not. Govvy (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this is not the place to do it. I believe this would be the correct place: WP:SBL#Proposed additions - MrX 🖋 18:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

rate "Zero Hedge"

Zero Hedge (per its wp article) "its editorial has been labelled by some as being associated with the "alt-right", as well as being anti-establishment, conspiratorial, and showing a pro-Russian-bias." and "a 24-hour cheerleader for Hezbollah, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, and Trump" as well as political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft." Zero Hedge has the MO of a Soviet agitprop operation, that it reliably peddles Russian propaganda.

It is on Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list.

It is list under "Bad: Unreliable sources" on User:BullRangifer/Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here calling it "Russian disinformation".

See propaganda in the Russian Federation

The site's pseudonym author is "Tyler Durden", a character who is violently mentally unstable.

What is the Reliability rating of this site? X1\ (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not the proper page for such discussions. Try WP:RSN --Ronz (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz: okay, I'll copy this to there. X1\ (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Consensus on Mediaite?

Mediaite reports on what people are saying in the media. I find it to be a reliable source for quotes combined with video clips that support those quotes in context. Its basic modus operandi is "he said this, she said that, here's a video clip, see for yourself." Its reportage appears balanced with no evident partisan bias I can detect.

Granted, their headlines are sometimes kinda clickbaity ("Fox’s Wallace and CNN’s Tapper Both Call Trump-Kim Meeting a ‘Failed Summit’ to Bolton’s Face") and their prose is sometimes "breezy" (The New York Times it ain't) but it is a useful source for "nuggets" of quotes/videos that are not readily found elsewhere (with an exception being Twitter, which some editors frown upon, regardless of who made the tweet).

The site carries a smattering of opinion pieces, which are clearly identified as such in both the article body and in its URL so they can be challenged accordingly if used by an editor.

I suggest Mediaite be given a "green" rating here, with a qualification similar to that for The Hill (newspaper): The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources.

What do others think? soibangla (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)