Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by K.Q.1997 (talk | contribs) at 23:24, 19 April 2021 (→‎Question about reliable sources and liberal bias). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Battery University listing

I have boldly removed the listing for this source on RSP. I'm seeing no evidence that this is anything anyone's trying to consistently use, is doesn't seem to have ever had a formal RFC (just a couple discussions on a single article talk page), and it hasn't been discussed in years. The very first sentence of WP:RSP says This is a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed, and that does not seem to apply to Battery University at the time of this writing at all. Hog Farm Talk 06:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of untruths that have led to an "unreliable" rating

As political commentary from Mother Jones, People, Buzzfeed News, Slate & The Daily Beast is permitted as "reliable" on wikipedia --- but political commentary from Fox News, National Review, Forbes, & Newsweek are considered "unreliable" - is there a repository of the articles that led to the unreliable designation?

If an article is deemed "unreliable" and a citation against an organization, couldn't we dissect the article/s in question for where they made errors in fact? TuffStuffMcG (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On "the articles that led to the unreliable designation". On the WP:RSP page you can find links to the discussions that lead to the current rating. For example, if you check the Fox News entry, you have links to 20+ such discussions, 2009 and onwards. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Individual errors on specific articles aren't usually the reason a source is depreciated (though discussions will often focus on them because they're something concrete); the question of whether a source is generally unreliable is established by looking at their long-term output, hence the "generally." You can find the detailed discussions that led to the classification of any particular source linked on WP:RSP. Also note that many of the sources you named are not strictly classified the way you said they are - eg. Forbes contributor pieces are considered unreliable, since they lack fact-checking and accuracy, but other things on Forbes are generally WP:RS. Likewise it's important to note that Buzzfeed News is a separate organization from Buzzfeed, with much higher editorial standards. --Aquillion (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for pointing me in the right direction, much appreciatedTuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post have its rating downgraded like Fox News

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Washington Post have its rating downgraded like Fox News
 – — Newslinger talk 03:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New York Daily News

I find it a bit odd that the New York Daily News is classified as "no consensus", but the text next to it says "Most editors consider the content of New York Daily News articles to be generally reliable". The entry for HuffPost indicates its headlines are sometimes clickbait, yet it is classified as generally reliable? Heartfox (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The headlines being clickbait doesn't have much impact if the full body of the article is still reliable. —El Millo (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah that's my point if they're not a problem for HuffPost why are they for the Daily News? Heartfox (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe change it, and the see if stands or you get reverted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox, yes there are a few odd ratings like that on here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating the classification, Heartfox. I've checked the discussions, and removed the first one from 2009 in Special:Diff/1014821921, since it does not meet the inclusion criteria with only one qualifying participant who commented on the source's reliability. I believe the New York Daily News was previously classified as "no consensus" because the entry was created before WP:HEADLINES became a guideline. Now that headlines are no longer considered reliable for any source, criticism directed toward the New York Daily News's headlines is less relevant to the reliability of the source on Wikipedia. Based on the listed discussions, the source is very close to the boundary between "generally reliable" and "no consensus". If any editor disagrees with this reclassification, I recommend starting a new discussion on the noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 08:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was more a criticism that this page does not really correspond 100% with outcomes of the noticeboard discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before the WP:HEADLINES guideline was in effect, the reliability of a source's headlines was given greater consideration when evaluating the reliability of a source. Now that WP:HEADLINES considers all headlines unreliable in general, whether a particular source's headlines are considered unreliable plays a lesser role in determining the reliability of the source. That was what I meant when I said, "Now that headlines are no longer considered reliable for any source, criticism directed toward the New York Daily News's headlines is less relevant to the reliability of the source on Wikipedia". — Newslinger talk 05:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about reliable sources and liberal bias

See also: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources § Question about reliable sources and liberal bias

I have read Wikipedia articles on a regular basis (usually daily) for several years now. What I've noticed is that the large majority of reliable sources are liberal/left-leaning news media outlets. This is a fact based on simple analysis (not opinion). Why are so few right-leaning/conservative news outlets considered reliable? I could be wrong on this but I believe WSJ is literally the only right-leaning outlet considered "generally reliable" (i.e. the green check) according to perennial sources page, while there are at least 15 or 20 liberal/left-leaning sources. How can Wikipedia be considered a neutral and balanced encyclopedia when this is the case? K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K.Q.1997, well, in short, we view these "liberal" sources as more reliable than "conservative" sources because they are more reliable. For a recent example, consider how the sources handled Trump's allegations of voter fraud. The truth is that this election had no systemic voter fraud, but many "conservative" sources pushed the lie that there was voter fraud to the level that it stole the election from Trump. Also, keep in mind that WP:NPOV does not mean "neutrality" in quite the way you may be used to. NPOV means we reflect reliable sources honestly, including if they point out something that would seem to lean more to one side or another. We don't push for WP:FALSEBALANCE, because that is a POV problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any political bias, it is for liberal democracy, otherwise unspecified. We are indeed biased for mainstream science (WP:GOODBIAS), for the mainstream academia (WP:ABIAS), for mainstream Bible scholarship, religion studies and against fundamentalism (WP:NOBIGOTS). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
K.Q.1997, I’d really like to use sources deemed “conservative,” but in recent years it has become increasingly difficult to find any that haven’t abandoned reality in favor of relentless lying for political expediency. I’m old enough to remember when this wasn’t the case. I encourage others to identify conservative sources that haven’t joined a cult. soibangla (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage others to identify conservative sources that haven’t joined a cult. I can think of a few, but someone should point out to OP that they're seeing a selection bias. Grandpallama (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSP concerns itself with frequently challenged and frequently discussed sources; conservative sources that are perfectly fine don't show up here because people aren't challenging them. There is a misunderstanding that WSJ is literally the only right-leaning outlet considered "generally reliable" (i.e. the green check) according to perennial sources page in that RSP isn't all-inclusive; the many problematic right-leaning sources listed here as unreliable are here because they have been discussed as such. WSJ is also definitely not the only right-leaning source on the RSP list, by the way. Grandpallama (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Why are so few right-leaning/conservative news outlets considered reliable?" maybe it's because they too eagerly embrace "alternative facts." Acousmana 20:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking back and noticed none of the above editors answered my original question about the bias found throughout Wikipedia on American political articles. Instead people brought up stuff about how Trump is a liar (which I agree with) and how conservative media are all in a cult and embrace alternative facts. This makes me thinks the issue could be the editors themselves who have a partisan bias and are able to skew Wikipedia in one direction. What are the credentials of people who edit Wikipedia articles? Also to be fair I don't follow politics of other countries but as a person who identifies as a centrist on most issues/liberal on social issues like abortion & LGBT rights, the bias in favor of one side is pretty obvious. K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, if I had the right to vote in the past US presidential elections, I would not have bothered to vote. After it was clear that Biden won the elections, I even wrote on Quora that Trump was a good president because he did not start a war. After the riots in the Capitol, I despise Trump. So, I think the amount of bad press about Trumpism is objectively justified, and conservatives who chose him to be their leader were simply unwise. See The End of White Christian America: A Conversation with E. J. Dionne and Robert P. Jones on YouTube why the GOP is out of luck in the next presidential elections, demographically. So, the supremacy of White Christians over US culture and political life is gradually coming to an end. And that's why previously disenfranchised voices (social groups) are becoming mainstream. Society is changing, culture is changing and the press mirrors that change. That explains the abundance of "liberal" views over "conservative" views. IMHO, conservative is supposed to mean classical liberal, not radical Christian right. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, a few points
  1. If you accept Trump is a liar, and if (broadly speaking) every single "Conservative" source in America repeated his lies to the extent that they are being sued for them, then why would you expect to see them treated as reliable sources?
  2. Most Conservative sources in the US are nakedly allied to the GOP. In the last 5 years they have been broadly aligned with Trump. In the last 12 months almost entirely in lock-step with Trump on every single matter. Being in mind point 1, what makes you think that the sources own partisan bias makes them reliable in terms of fact checking, correct errors etc?
  3. Most Conservative sources in the US run news / opinion as largely and broadly the same thing, while there are innumerable other sources that do not. If there are better sources to be used for observable facts then why would we use Conservative sources that (per #1 and #2) muddy the waters or are in many cases indivisible entities?
  4. When people speak of Conservative news media they are, invariably, referring to a very narrow niche group (Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Washington Examiner, Breitbart, NY Post for example). The issue is that there is actually a ton of Conservative news coverage out there that is otherwise smothered (WSJ for instance) and / or criticised for being "left leaning" or anti-Trump because it holds centrist positions that 15 to 20 years ago were very much the core of the GOP base. Those tend to be traditional historic media that predate the abolition of the FCC fairness doctrine but that still adhere to its standards for editorial oversight. In contrast most popular Conservative media today was founded after the doctrine was struck down purposely to exploit the absence of required balance.
  5. To show our "bias" isn't selective, you can look at other analysers or [1] to see what they think about the reliability and accuracy of sources. Koncorde (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Again the response is to avoid answering questions that I'm asking and distract with unrelated stuff. K.Q.1997 (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


You got good, policy-based answers. Please don't ignore them. --Hipal (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Checking back and noticed none of the above editors answered my original question about the bias found throughout Wikipedia on American political articles. Sure they did. Not liking the answer you received =/= not receiving an answer. I, for one, pointed out that you fundamentally misunderstood WP:RSP. Grandpallama (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to what other people have said, one thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia seeks a worldwide perspective. On the whole this means that the perspectives of individual nationalist parties and organizations (while they do get reflected to an extent) are generally going to be less WP:DUE here than people within countries where they are strong might expect - eg. if you look at only the right-wing media bubble in the US, you might come away with the perspective that climate change is controversial; but from a worldwide perspective this is not true. That poses a particular problem for reliability in nations where a nationalist party is strong (eg. the US), because they tend to create mouthpieces intended to reinforce their doctrine, often - as in that example - to the point of outright disregarding the facts. And that dissonance can result in editors who think that those sources are more reliable than they actually are, which is what gets a source perennial discussions, an eventual RFC, and a spot on this list. --Aquillion (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Looking at the adfontesmedia website posted above I see NY Post skews right and CNN skews left so why is NY Post considered unreliable (not even yellow triangle no consensus) and CNN is? They are both equally partisan news outlets so both should be reliable/unreliable. But only one is which sort of proves the point that Wikipedia is a partisan website as far as American politics-related articles. A good example of how clearly biased mainstream media is in favor of one political party is the Hunter Biden laptop issue - it was censored last October in the media because Democrat partisans lied and claimed it was possibly "Russian disinformation" however Biden gave an interview earlier this month and admitted the laptop definitely could have been his (in other words it was his laptop).
  • "Most Conservative sources in the US run news/opinion as largely and broadly the same thing" so you believe that liberal/left-wing sources in the U.S. don't run news/opinion as largely and broadly the same thing despite massive evidence to the contrary? K.Q.1997 (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


.

Daily Record

What is the agreed status of Scottish tabloid the Daily Record? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant discussion on the Daily Record that meets the inclusion criteria is "Scotland and the Daily Record" (2017), which means that the Daily Record has not yet been discussed enough to be listed here. It might be worthwhile to start a new discussion on the noticeboard. ​— Newslinger talk 16:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the link to searches for uses of sources be changed to only list article-space usage?

Currently the RSP links for sources (in the far-right column) are to a general search for every usage; this isn't so useful for cleanup, since it isn't that necessary to worry about an unreliable or depreciated source being used on talk. For an example of the problem, compare searches for the depreciated The Daily Caller in article space (5 uses, all for very straightforward ABOUTSELF stuff) vs. the currently-linked search for all uses (over 1000 hits, ~995 of which are almost totally meaningless). --Aquillion (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Should be articlespace only. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good suggestion. Working on it now. — Newslinger talk 04:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillion: Wait, I'm not seeing the same links as you. For me, the first link for the The Daily Caller (RSP entry) is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/insource:%22dailycaller.com%22 – which goes to a search of the article namespace only. I can't find anything in the {{Domain uses}} template that would cause all of the other namespaces to be included in the search. Are you using a web browser on a desktop/laptop computer? — Newslinger talk 04:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Web browser on desktop, yes. And the link you posted, for me, redirects to the link I posted. Did you change your default search options with the "remember selection for future searches" checkbox? --Aquillion (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After testing the link on several different web browsers on both the desktop and mobile Wikipedia sites, I'm not able to reproduce what you're seeing on my end. I don't think I've ever used that setting. Could you please try opening the list in private browsing mode, and then clicking on the link again? — Newslinger talk 06:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. It is possible that at some point in the past I saved my default to search everywhere and forgot. --Aquillion (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense, too. If you ever find any other issues with the templates or links, please do point them out. — Newslinger talk 06:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_258#RfC:_The_Daily_Caller

the 5th numbered link (put in plain text above) isn't even related to vice news.

would someone be able to fix it?

additionally #7 links to a renamed that was named: "Vice_and_Dazed" in the link, but on the page this section does not exist, nor is vice talked about in any section as its main topic. was this deleted or hidden from the page?

198.0.126.141 (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done in Special:Diff/1018008322. Hi there, and thank you for these suggestions. I've removed the former discussion #5 from the entry because it does not meet the inclusion criteria (which requires three editors commenting on the reliability of the source, in discussions that do not include the source's name in the section heading). While three editors mentioned "Vice" in the discussion, only two commented on the accuracy of one of Vice News's headlines, and only one of these two expressed an opinion on Vice News's reliability. The current discussion #6 has been archived, and I've updated the link accordingly. — Newslinger talk 20:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blabbermouth.net

Blabbermouth has come up a fair bit: Here, Here, Here, here, here, Here-ish, and that's just the results from the noticeboard, who knows how much else is out there. Can it be added? I'd try to myself but that's a lotta lotta history to try and interpret for consensus. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Six discussions exceeds the inclusion criteria by a fair amount, so it looks fine to include. Music-oriented sources are also listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources (WP:A/S), which has an entry on Blabbermouth.net that might be helpful. — Newslinger talk 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Like I said, I'm asking if it can be added. Like I said, I'd do it myself but it's a lot of dense conversations to try and boil down to a sentence or two. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't Rebel News appear on the list?

rebelnews.com HTTPS links HTTP links

Moved from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Why doesn't Rebel News appear on the list?
 – — Newslinger talk 02:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources

I see there have already been past discussions.--Cripplemac (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weakly support. Like other sources missing from RSP, it's probably just because there hasn't been enough community discussion for it to meet the inclusion critera. Except for this discussion, I can't find that many instances of it being misused. Common sense usually prevails.
There was one seemingly significant discussion of Rebel News on the noticeboard here in October 2020, and another here in November 2020 which mentioned it in passing. There appears to be a weak consensus that it is a questionable source, but not that it necessarily needs to be listed as a perennial source. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 02:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cripplemac, I've moved this discussion from the reliable sources noticeboard to the talk page of the perennial sources list because it primarily concerns the content in the list. There have been two prior discussions of Rebel News on the noticeboard:
However, the second discussion was criticized for discussing the general reliability of too many sources at the same time, and did not generate substantial discussion on the reliability of Rebel News. Coupled with the fact that Rebel News barely squeaks past the inclusion criteria, it's a borderline case and there are valid arguments for both inclusion and exclusion. — Newslinger talk 03:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key word here is “Perennial”. The point of this list is to record the consensus on sources that we have discussed repeatedly (ad-nauseam in many cases) usually with the same results. I don’t think we have discussed Rebel News nearly enough times for it to be included on this list. If you wish to discuss it now, I would suggest you do so on the RSN board (make sure to give examples of where and how it is being currently used... context matters). Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably because it doesn't come up often enough. I checked, there are only two uses outside Rebel News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (help! - typo?) 22:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious about that myself. Generally how many times does a source need to be cited on WP to be included on the perennial list? Or is there another means to determine inclusion? - wolf 20:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&oldid=1018802248"