Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You got good, policy-based answers. Please don't ignore them. --Hipal (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

I would suggest you look again at Adfontes. You will see next to the icons things like "TV" and "Web" for the same news provider. So MSNBC is distinctly in the same bracket as NYP for its TV content (which is news, opinion, and analysis). However MSNBC web, like most left print that is considered reliable is, is in the upper section. You will see there are other reliable sources up there on the right, including the WSJ, but whether they align with the GOP is another issue.

As for whether liberal / left wing sources run news / opinion. In short: old media, no. They generally delineate their web stories from their editorialising. There are of course huge chunks of left wing new media that is waaaaaay more along the lines of NYP and others (DailyBeast etc) where you can have your left wing ego massaged if you like. The Conservative old media is actually similarly delineated, they just aren't as numerable or as popular as those most frequently cited by people trying to push a POV. Most of the popular Conservative media falls firmly into the analysis / opinion spectrum way more firmly and regularly. Koncorde (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

There are definitely a bunch of junk sources on the left, but (with a few already-depreciated exceptions) they're not very successful, rarely get cited in the first place and therefore rarely make it to WP:RSN or WP:RSP. I think the underlying reason dates back to at least the 80s anti-academia push from the American right in Tenured Radicals and the like - since at least then there has been a steady drumbeat on the right telling people that pretty much the entire intellectual landscape of America is tainted and untrustworthy. As a result, while most people on the left trust a wide variety of sources, Americans on the right trust only a comparatively tiny conservative bubble. That has a number of knock-on effects that show up in our WP:RSN discussions. Fringe-y or unreliable conservative outlets have a captive audience (people who have been repeatedly told not to trust anything else), which ensures that they get attention regardless of quality and results in them getting cited here when they shouldn't be, getting them to RSN and eventually RSP. Making matters worse is that recently, with many online right-wing outlets fighting for this audience and no competition from more mainstream sources, the litmus tests necessary to be considered a "conservative" outlet in the bubble have gotten more extreme over time, sometimes to the point of being incompatible with being a WP:RS - flatly counterfactual takes on climate change, COVID-19, the 2020 election, etc. You can see how Fox was forced to swerve in response to a challenge on the right from Newsmax, say. Successful outlets on the left have to compete with more mainstream sources like the AP and the New York Times, and have to at least make what they say academically defensible or they'll lose much of their audience. The conservative bubble means that conservative outlets face no such pressure - their pressures are instead the fear of losing their viewers to Newsmax or even Alex Jones or someone similarly utterly disconnected from reality, which forces them to sometimes take positions that are completely intellectually indefensible. --Aquillion (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Many people on this website seem to genuinely believe (I'm going to assume most are acting in good faith) there is not significant bias in corporate mainstream media (MSM) like NYT, WaPo, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. But how do you then explain the way media covers Democrats vs. Republicans? Again, just to be clear I'm not a conservative or a Republican but when I watch/read mainstream news it seems blatantly biased and agenda-driven (almost like MSM and Democrats work hand in glove). Evidence of this would be several now-debunked stories reported in corporate media like the Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy theory and the more recently debunked Russian bounty program story. Another example would be how MSM covered up and censored the Hunter Biden laptop story in October 2020 claiming it might be "Russian disinformation". Last month Hunter Biden gave an interview and admitted the laptop could have been his (in other words it was his laptop). Honest journalists like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi (there are a few others but those are two "big" names) have exposed a lot of this. People on this website should be aware that media in United States is not like mainstream media in Europe or Canada or Australia, it is controlled by a corporate elite that have zero interest in getting accurate information to the American people. K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC) *pinging users: Aquillion,Acousmana,Muboshgu,Koncorde

When one party likes to make up lies about an election being stolen, why would we expect the media to treat them 100% equally? Everybody has their biases. Our corporate media is biased towards corporate interests. What is clear here though is the nature of your bias. Trump/Russia is not a "debunked" story, the Hunter Biden laptop story remains a fabrication, and Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi are highly questionable sources. There's nothing more to gain from this discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Everything you just said is false. K.Q.1997 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Why doesn't Rebel News appear on the list?

rebelnews.com  

Moved from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Why doesn't Rebel News appear on the list?

 – — Newslinger talk 02:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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:

• Rebel News (2020)
• CounterPunch, Other98, and People's Democracy [by CPI(M)] on Left, and The Daily Wire, Blaze Media and Rebel News on the Right (2020)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

The inclusion criteria (WP:RSPCRITERIA) count the number of significant discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard. We don't use the number of article citations to determine inclusion, since there are uncontroversial sources with plenty of citations – e.g. high-quality academic journals – as well as highly controversial sources with few citations – e.g. WorldNetDaily (RSP entry).​ — Newslinger talk 05:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support We might as well include it as unreliable or depreciated if someone is asking, I can't see consensus being anything else or changing—blindlynx (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Per all of the above comments, this page is NOT a comprehensive list of all sources. The absence of a source from this list means nothing about whether it is reliable or not; there are LOTS of potential sources, both reliable and unreliable, that aren't listed here, and probably never should be. The only reason this list exists is to avoid having to relitigate every discussion ad nauseum once we've reached a firm conclusion about the reliability of a source. If a source is unreliable, remove it from articles. You don't need permission from this list, or really anyone, to make Wikipedia better. If someone disagrees, have a discussion about it, and come to a consensus. If that fails, bring in outside help. However, as a first step, just fix the problem yourself: if this source is unreliable, take it out of articles. If no one objects, then you were probably right. If someone objects, work it out. --Jayron32 18:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Coda Media

Moved from User talk:Newslinger § Coda Media RSP

 – — Newslinger talk 04:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Newslinger. Thanks for adding Coda Media to RSP. I noticed in the summary box you labeled Coda as a biased source for intentional politics since it received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy. I re-looked at the RfC and it seemed that only one editor in their !Vote deemed that Coda was biased due to their funding from the National Endowment for Democracy. The RfC closer didn't reflect this concern in their closing summary. Do you think the bias aspect should still remain in the RSP summary? Let me know what you think. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, I've moved this discussion about the entry for  Coda Media (RSP entry) from my user talk page to here so that other editors can participate. In the Coda Story RfC, two editors (Thucydides411 and Aquillion) noted the funding from National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and asserted that Coda Media is not neutral for various topics in international politics that involve US interests. No editors in the RfC contested this potential bias. The description I used for the Coda Media entry is based on the entry for  Bellingcat (RSP entry), another NED-funded publication, although I scoped the area of potential bias to "international politics related to the US". You're right that the RfC closing statement did not mention the NED funding, but entries on this list are not strictly limited to the contents of the closing statements (especially when they are brief), and this list tends to indicate sources' conflicts of interest when editors do the same in noticeboard discussions. Would you prefer that the Coda Media entry's mention of international politics be shortened or revised in some way? — Newslinger talk 04:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I didn't notice that Thucydides411 made note of the funding too in their reply to another editor. I don't really see how just receiving a grant from NED inherently makes a source biased (and neither editor really provided evidence that Coda is biased off that grant). The Bellingcat RfC had a much more substantial debate over the potential bias of the source. However, if you think Coda's potential bias in international politics is a good reflection of community consensus, then perhaps we could revise the summary to read: ...few editors consider Coda Media a biased source for international politics related to the US, as it has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

​Thanks for suggesting this. Your wording looks like an improvement over the current wording, so I've implemented it in Special:Diff/1020444180. I feel that some mention of this is warranted, since a substantial portion of the discussion focused on Coda Media's usability for a claim related to international politics (on Talk:Uyghur genocide). If anyone else has an opinion on this, please feel free to share it. — Newslinger talk 03:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Newslinger, thanks for being reasonable about this. :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I personally think that we should try to more closely reflect the close; the closer did not seem to even mention it. If we believe the bias deserves a mention, we should be clear in stating that there is not a majority view and that the allegations of bias do not reflect consensus. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10, what do you think of my proposed wording? We changed it from "some editors Coda Media a biased source..." to "A few editors Coda Media a biased source...". We also added " though not to the extent that it affects reliability" at the end. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It seemed to be more the case that the editors who opposed its reliability believed it was unreliable due to its supposed bias affecting reliability, with at least one editor calling the source unacceptable. This was not the consensus view—the consensus was that the source is GREL—but I don’t think that those who consider it a biased source all agree with the “though not to the extent that it affects reliability” portion. Out of the editors that stated that there was bias, they didn’t really offer any concrete examples of how the work showed a biased presentation of facts; they just kinda pointed at NED funding and said that was sufficient to justify that the source is biased. There are plenty of generally reliable sources that receive NED funding (including the fact-checker Poynter), so I think that we might be giving too much weight to the minority in the description by including it as “a few editors.” This, combined with the fact closer didn’t feel compelled to mention it in the close (unlike that of the Bellingcat RfC), leads me towards omitting the bias accusations altogether from the entry on WP:RSP. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

You make a good point about Poynter which owns both  Politifact (RSP entry) and the  International Fact-Checking Network (RSP entry). I made the exact same argument as you: neither editor provided evidence that Coda is biased, they just stated the fact that Coda once received a grant from NED. One can make a similar argument that  NPR (RSP entry) is a biased source in relation to the US government. A source can potentially have hundreds of COIs, so I'm not exactly sure when it's appropriate to list out a source's potential COIs and when it is not. Maybe Newslinger has the answer; they have a lot more experience with RSP. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m not aware of any scandals over NED funding effecting editorial independence or anything like that, did I miss something? I also don’t see anyone making a distinction about reliability of domestic vs international reporting or political vs non-political reporting, the concerns raised by the two editors seem to be about bias across the board and that concern wasn’t even mentioned by the closer so I’m not sure exactly how we arrived at "A few editors consider Coda Media a biased source for international politics related to the US, as it has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.” I would also note that both of those editors do seem to think that its biased to the extent that it effects reliability so the very last part confuses me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Shortcut for The Hindu

Hi Roller26, while I appreciate that you added shortcuts to three Indian sources last October in Special:Diff/982792641, the WP:HINDU shortcut was originally used by WikiProject Hinduism, which still appears to be using that shortcut on its project page. Since that WikiProject has been using the shortcut since 2006, I've retargeted WP:HINDU back to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism and created a new shortcut, WP:THEHINDU, which redirects to the entry for  The Hindu (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 07:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Roller26 (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

National Review

Although there has never been an RfC for the  National Review (RSP entry), based off the last six major discussions at RSN, there seems to be consensus that NR is generally reliable (with caveats, of course). Here's a quick summary of the previous discussions:

• Discussion 1: There seems to be consensus that NR is reliable.
• Discussion 2: A short discussion, but there does seem to be consensus that NR is reliable (with attribution in this case)
• Discussion 3: This was the hardest discussion to decipher. My reading of the discussion is that there was no consensus regarding a specific NR opinion article.
• Discussion 4: There seems to be consensus that a NR opinion article is reliable
• Discussion 5: There is consensus that NR is a biased source. The specific NR opinion article would need attribution, if it were to be used at all in this case.
• Discussion 6: I don't believe this was an official RfC, but there seems to be consensus that the print version of NR is reliable. The online-only version of NR is not as reliable.

I would like others to weigh in, but the way I see it is that NR is 1) generally reliable, 2) biased, 3) opinions/editorials always need to conform to appropriate guidelines (and make sure they conform to BLP standards), and 4) (based off the last discussion) the online-only version is not as reliable as the print version. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This analysis looks mostly good. The most recent discussion seemed to have some points regarding the difference in quality between online-only and magazine, though it looks like one of the editors who acknowledged the difference even were split on whether the online-only portions of outlet’s publications were “usable” but lower quality or “likely be unreliable” a-la WP:FORBESCON. We may want to shape the final part around that; it looks like the online-only content doesn’t have a consensus, but the magazine news content has a consensus for general reliability. It might be worthwhile to have a bit more community discussion on the online-only side, seeing as the most recent discussion only had about two editors seem to comment on the issue directly. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry—what do you mean when you say that the National Review is "reliable"? It's a journal of partisan opinion. Are you suggesting that it's reliable as a source for facts? Or simply that opinions expressed in the National Review may be appropriate, in some instances, if properly attributed as partisan opinion? As to the discussions, they seem to have minimal participation and the most recent appears to be about 3 years old, so if it's important to resolve this issue then I'd strongly suggest a properly-advertised, well-attended RfC addressing the question. MastCell ^Talk 19:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable mostly for opinions. Pretty much the same as  The Nation (RSP entry) is reliable for left-wing opinions. In fact, The Nation has a pretty decent RSP summary, so I would like to mimic that for NR's summary. There seems to be enough participation over the years in order to classify NR as generally reliable. I'm usually not a fan of starting RfCs unless I have a question about how a particular article is used in context. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. Looking at the entry for The Nation, discussions about that source are both more recent and much more heavily-attended than any of the linked discussions about the National Review, so there doesn't seem to be a comparable level of community support demonstrated for these two sources. I don't see "enough participation over the years" for the National Review—in fact, I don't see any participation in the last 3 years, and only very limited participation before that. I don't think that's enough to justify an RSP line announcing an active community consensus. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding WP:RSPCRITERIA & WP:RSPIMPROVE. I thought it's acceptable for RSP to derive a community consensus once there has been either 1) two or more significant discussions on RSN or 2) an RfC on RSN. That pretty much explains why sources like  Ars Technica (RSP entry) or the  Cato Institute (RSP entry) are on the list despite the fact that they haven't been discussed in many years (and the discussions garnered few participants). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes there is no harm in using discussion from years ago, but we must keep in mind things can change. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure things can change. Editors might even vote to deprecate NR if someone opened an RfC right now. I'm only saying that based on prior discussions, NR seems to be misclassified. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussions regarding overall reliability of National Review have been sparse. We should do an RFC to cement a change. Sources' reliability can change. starship.paint (exalt) 10:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that there is a change, or that we should waste people's time by doing an RfC. Just that over time things can change. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think an RfC would be a waste of time. National Review is a pretty prominent partisan opinion source, and the most recent discussion was ~3 years ago, during which time the conservative media landscape has changed substantially. I really don't see the downside to formally assessing current community consensus with better participation and representation than in previous discussions. As time permits, I can format an RfC, or if one of you would prefer to set it up that would be fine too. MastCell ^Talk 20:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with you setting up the RfC if you have time. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I would be a little cautious starting an RfC right now. Editors are getting a little agitated over the number of RfCs that are being opened up at RSN. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

NewsGuard

Shall we consider NewsGuard's credibility and trustworthiness approvals as a benchmark in selecting future WP:RSP portal links? Inviting interested editors for a discussion. Thank you! -Hatchens (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Why should we do that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I found this [2] interesting, but that's from 2019. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång for sharing that link. Also, I found this one that proves your concern. When I first encountered this concept of NewsGuard, I liked it... so I thought why not put this as a topic for a discussion at WP:RSP. - Hatchens (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Newsguard looks interesting and can hopefully be useful somehow. But the good/bad classification has limits to it's usefullness, it can't be repeated enough that what is a good ref is often contextual. Thanks for the article, that was interesting too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, we are actually in the "stuck-in-a-limbo" phase when it comes to an entity like NewsGuard. Now, I believe... except for WP:RSP, there is no such place on the web that discusses the authenticity of a news portal's standards. And, many of the sources need to be revisited (from time to time) so that AfC reviewers like us always have an updated ready reckoner. - Hatchens (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Climate-data.org reliable or not?

Hello i want to know whether https://en.climate-data.org/info/sources/ is deemed reliable or not. If not, which sources can i use for latest climate data of cities, particulary in Ethiopia.

Thank you Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dawit S Gondaria, the data source for climate-data.org is European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. So, the site is nothing but a data aggregator. It's would be better if ECMWF counted as reliable in the first place. - Hatchens (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Hatchens thanks for clearifying. Unfortunately, i have no acces to ECMWF to verify the data on climate-data.org. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Dawit S Gondaria, then I guess... we should avoid data aggregators. But, please do take an opinion from others. - Hatchens (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hatchens opinions from others are most welcome, especially pointers/direction to a good reliable source for African/Ethiopian city climates is also very appreciated. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Cyberscoop

Afternoon all. Anyone have any experience with the reliability of Cyberscoop (and related sites). It appears to have some notable journos such as Jeff Stone formerly of the WSJ for instance? Little information on their site unfortunately. Koncorde (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)