Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
![]() | Discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard To discuss the reliability of a source, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). Discussions on the noticeboard will be added to this list. This talk page is for discussing the maintenance of the list itself, and arguments posted here will not be taken into consideration. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page. |
|
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Index
|
||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Cartoon image near lead
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Comics_About_Reliable_Sources_English_1.svg/220px-Comics_About_Reliable_Sources_English_1.svg.png)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Margaret_Hamilton.gif/220px-Margaret_Hamilton.gif)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png/220px-Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Dewey_Defeats_Truman.jpg/220px-Dewey_Defeats_Truman.jpg)
I removed the cartoon image near the lead. I think this image is sarcastic and distracting to the point of this article, and takes up a lot of space, especially when you read the page from a phone. Per WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
, so I have removed the image for now. I think it might be better positioned in the beginning of the "Legend", but personally I do not think it is beneficial to the article, even if it has been on this page for 5 years as mentioned by another editor. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's distracting for the point of this project-page, and since it's not an article, there aren't really any rules apart from consensus. Until I see an alternative I like better, I'm at keep it there. Previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/Archive_6#reliable_sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's a great example of the dangers of poor sources. American Apple Orchards PAC aka O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't particularly care for the image either and would be fine with its removal. Some1 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's not all serious, we're allowed a little bit of humour. Keep or replace with the xkcd. Anarchyte (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- This xkcd image is far better than the current image. I would support that as a replacement if outright removal of the current cartoon does not reach consensus. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- The image is perfect as is and illustrates clearly that not all sources are equal. Margaret Hamilton next to a stack of code illustrates nothing, and the XKCD one illustrates that sources are needed, not that reliable sources are needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- But she has surely assembled the good sources! ;) That said, you make sense to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Headbomb that neither of the proposed alternatives are better. I don't have any particular attachment to the current image so if someone can come up with a better alternative I wouldn't mind changing it, but neither of these are. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think no image is the best. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I like having an image, so long as it's material to the text. The use of an image, especially one as pertinent as this one, sets up the content in a helpful way.
- The four-panel cartoon is is the only image identified that is material to the text it accompanies: it shows the use of sources, but also that not all sources are reliable. That's the page's entire point.
- The Hamilton photo is a great photo, for Margaret Hamilton (software engineer); not so much for this page. It says nothing at all about sources or their quality (except perhaps a pun about source code, which would be too arcane for a large number of non-programming Wikipedia editors who are the target audience for this page). The XKCD cartoon is is about the need for sourcing, and would be fine for WP:Reliable sources or WP:Citation needed; but it makes no point about the reliability of sourcing, so does not carry the point here. So far, the four-panel cartoon is the only one identified that is apt for this page. TJRC (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support removal of the cartoon. Ridicule is not part of the scientific method. The kind of mockery that the cartoon engages in is not helpful in discouraging pseudoscience: [1]. James500 (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- RSP isn't very much about fighting pseudoscience, is it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's very much about fighting it, though it's not its exclusive mission (that would be fighting bad information in general, of which pseudoscience is part of). But this page is also not about changing minds. I couldn't care less about the feelings of WP:LUNATICS offended that no one is taking seriously their claims that water has memory, or that CNN is controlled by reptilians.
- What it's about is explaining and documenting that not all sources are equal. And the cartoon explains that very succinctly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- The cartoon does exactly what @James500says it does which is antithetical to the headline, "The key to fighting pseudoscience isn’t mockery—it’s empathy". The cartoon could not be more mocking if it tried. Thankfully, we are free to remove it in the absence of evident consensus for the image being retained. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- "The key to fighting pseudoscience isn’t mockery—it’s empathy" That's one opinion, and it certainly isn't universal. Moreover the point of the cartoon is to illustrate that not all sources are equal, and that if you bring a non-reliable source, people will ignore it, and rightfully so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- The cartoon does not explain "that not all sources are equal". The cartoon does not say that any sources are reliable. The cartoon does not explain which sources are unreliable, or what they are unreliable for, or why they are unreliable. The cartoon does not say whether there is any difference between being unreliable and being less reliable, and does not admit that uncertainty sometimes exists. The cartoon does not explain that a source may be reliable for some things even though it is unreliable for others. The hypothetical source described in the cartoon bears no resemblence to most of the sources listed at RSP. There are no ancient books that claim that apples cause cancer. RSP should not include jokes about the World Elephant or (even if only by implication) the World Turtle. I do not think that showing that cartoon to someone who "brings" an unreliable source is going to help to convince them or anyone else it is unreliable. I think it is more likely to cause offence and prolong disputes. And individuals who cannot be reasoned with need to be blocked, not insulted with a cartoon. James500 (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- "The key to fighting pseudoscience isn’t mockery—it’s empathy" That's one opinion, and it certainly isn't universal. Moreover the point of the cartoon is to illustrate that not all sources are equal, and that if you bring a non-reliable source, people will ignore it, and rightfully so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- The cartoon does exactly what @James500says it does which is antithetical to the headline, "The key to fighting pseudoscience isn’t mockery—it’s empathy". The cartoon could not be more mocking if it tried. Thankfully, we are free to remove it in the absence of evident consensus for the image being retained. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is a good illustration for WP:AGEMATTERS. For an article about perennialy unreliable sources, not so much. Would it be a COPYVIO to use the front page of this article from The Sun (UK, Murdoch stable, now there's a surprise): Freddie Starr ate my hamster. Fair use? It is the archetypal example regularly cited in UK commentary, though there are more egregious examples. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea, but would fail the strict demands of WP:NFCC/WP:NFCI. Got anything good pre-1929? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I found a sort-of-alternative which I added, but IMO it doesn't really fit. This is more an example of "Even generally reliable sources sometimes get it wrong." I wonder if they published a redaction? JMF's example is a much better fit, arguably even fake news per "The man behind the hamster story was the British publicist, Max Clifford, at that time Starr's agent, who concocted the story as a practical joke." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced it's really illustrating WP:AGEMATTERS. Yes, the books is described as ancient, but "apples cause cancer" isn't a previously-respectable but outdated theory.
- As for a non-free image: per WP:NFCC#9, non-free images are only permitted in articlespace. Suggesting non-free images here is an absolute non-starter. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Quote from book: "Put ye sliced apples on a beach, and behold, crabs shall appear!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I do not see how WP:AGEMATTERS really applies here as well. Also, it looks like some people want the image removed, some don't really care, others want a new image, but there is no consensus to keep the existing image. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see strong support for keeping it from:
- Objective3000 "American Apple Orchards PAC aka O3000, Ret"
- Headbomb
- TJRC
- And weak support from:
- Gråbergs Gråa Sång
- Anarchyte
- Caeciliusinhorto-public
- Solomon Ucko (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- No consensus to change = no change. Basic wikipedianism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see strong support for keeping it from:
- Not a bad idea, but would fail the strict demands of WP:NFCC/WP:NFCI. Got anything good pre-1929? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- RSP isn't very much about fighting pseudoscience, is it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support removal and inclusion of second alternative. It's supposed to be a witty cartoon, but really isn't that funny or relevant to the source list that intends to be a more formal summary of source reliability. The cartoon in question would be better suited for WP:RS or WP:FRINGE rather than this list of perennial sources, specifically the latter. The second alternative (Margaret Hamilton) is a lot more relevant, as it indirectly represents the concept of "stacking" source discussions from an enormous archive, which is very much reflective of this project page and purpose. Will have a search on commons and see if I can find any more alternatives. CNC (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support removal. As the kids say, the current image is pretty cringe. I'm not sure having an
allegedlyfunny image in the lede contributes anything. Apocheir (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Why is Al-Jazeera green?
There have been 12 discussions but no RfC. The last one has just been archived without reaching any conclusion and the previous one was "closed" with the closing editor noting that "No consensus is going to come from this thread." It seems that it should stay as "no consensus" until a proper RfC is conducted. Alaexis¿question? 21:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- What news has it published that is un-reliable? And was the piece you're refering to by an editor of the paper? Or an independent contbutor Op-ed piece which is just aired in the paper under free speech? CaribDigita (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is a procedural question. The discussions about the reliability should take place at WP:RSN. Alaexis¿question? 05:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest you request a formal closure of that discussion (has that not already been requested? I kinda assumed that would be a done deal). The volume and depth of past discussions regarding Al Jazeera deserve thorough accounting on this page (without looking, I would guess it's among, if not the, most discussed source listed). signed, Rosguill talk 21:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer. I didn't think about it since it wasn't an RfC. I suppose I'd need to unarchive it first somehow? Alaexis¿question? 05:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I had misremembered it as being an RfC. In that case there’s no basis for changing it since it we’d need an RfC to potentially supersede past RfCs. signed, Rosguill talk 13:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I know, we have never had an RFC on Al Jazeera. BilledMammal (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Color me surprised twice over then. Given the length and frequency of the discussions, that seems overdue. signed, Rosguill talk 14:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I know, we have never had an RFC on Al Jazeera. BilledMammal (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I had misremembered it as being an RfC. In that case there’s no basis for changing it since it we’d need an RfC to potentially supersede past RfCs. signed, Rosguill talk 13:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer. I didn't think about it since it wasn't an RfC. I suppose I'd need to unarchive it first somehow? Alaexis¿question? 05:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- On a purely procedural basis, the previous discussion which was closed as "no consensus is going to come from this thread" was a proposal to change the reliability listed from generally reliable to something else. In general when a discussion proposing a change comes to no consensus we don't change the status quo, so that seems fine to me. The most recent discussion is super long and I haven't read it thoroughly, so I have no opinion on whether that shows that consensus has changed – if it has then of course we should update the RSP listing. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- RSP works slightly differently - if there is a "no consensus" result, that is what we list, even if there was previous a consensus for. BilledMammal (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is it? Do you have another example of that? When the framing of the RfC is (as in the case of the Al Jazeera discussion) "should we change X to Y" it seems perverse for "there is no consensus to change X to Y" to result in us making the change! It seems to me that the Al Jazeera discussion is distinct from the "How reliable is X" RfC format where "there is no consensus on how reliable X is" is a completely valid outcome. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Does it? Doesn't it depend on context? Like of a general RfC result in a no-consensus then the new consensus is no consensus... But if a specific proposal to change the status quo is no consensus then nothing changes in regards to the consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'd agree with that. VR (Please ping on reply) 05:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Fox News RfC seems to be that; it was a specific proposal to change the consensus ("Should we downgrade Fox News to "generally unreliable" for politics starting in November 2020?"), and one of the results from it was that there was "no consensus" on its general reliability, resulting in it being downgraded. That seems reasonable; if there isn't a consensus against downgrading it then there also isn't a consensus for maintaining its current rating, regardless of whether the proposal was the standard four option RfC or a specific proposal.
- Other cases where sources were downgraded to "no consensus" on the basis of a "no consensus" close include the Daily Dot. BilledMammal (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Fox News RfC in 2020 was closed as
The result of this RFC is that there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News
. The Al Jazeera discussion was closed asNo consensus is going to come from this thread
. Though they both use the phrase "no consensus" the meaning of those two sentences is substantially different. - (As for the Daily Dot RfC, the format of that RfC was "how reliable is the Daily Dot?", which I don't think is entirely analogous for the reasons I gave above. At any rate, though the closer found no consensus
as to whether the source is generally reliable
, they did find consensusthat the source should be used with attribution in cases where the publication is known to be biased or for when it is the source of a contentious claim of fact
. This is very different from the Al-Jazeera thread which was collapsed as unproductive!) - At any rate, the time to propose changing the Al Jazeera RSP listing on the basis of the previous discussion was when it was closed; it's been six months and we've had another discussion in the intervening period! If people want to make a change to the Al Jazeera listing which is going to stick, the most effective way of doing that is going to be to hold an actual RfC now, not to argue about how we should have reacted to a discussion six months ago being hatted as unproductive. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that an RfC would be needed to definitely settle this. Alaexis¿question? 20:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not quite clear on how you're interpreting
No consensus is going to come from this thread
? I took it to mean no consensus on Al Jazeer'a reliability, since that was the main topic of discussion. XDanielx (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Fox News RfC in 2020 was closed as
- Is there a way to make a voting system on Wikipedia. As in X amount of persons (of long term Wikipedians) regard institution as "credible" or "non-credible" type thing? I think it should be an on going thing. The one thing I fault Fox fox is leading statements which have no factual basis. "The American public.... are/aren't" "The American people.... are/aren't" is opinion often masquarading as fact. But you know what CNN sometimes does it too not as blatantly. But I think there should be a ranking criteria also for journalists i.e. Alex Jones etc. After all it all comes down to a free speech issue. CaribDigita (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I worry about a binary... There are so many sources for which IMO the answer isn't credible or non-credible its well it depends on the context (for example Bassmaster magazine is an extremely credible source for how many people a fishing lure company employs or who won a bass fishing tournament but has no credibility when it comes to 8th century Persian dynastic feuds). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- RSP works slightly differently - if there is a "no consensus" result, that is what we list, even if there was previous a consensus for. BilledMammal (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Newslinger: who wrote the Al-Jazeera entry.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'm still in a bit of shock seeing how lots of sources were classified in the late 2010s and then it became almost impossible to change anything because it's the status quo. In this case it was added as generally reliable based on the interpretation of a single editor (with all due respect to u:Newslinger). Other sources became deprecated based on a few "garbage source" !votes with no real arguments.
- Of course, one could say that the fact that the status of AJ hasn't changed since means that it's indeed generally reliable. I don't think that this is the case, as the discussions in the newer threads at RSN show. Alaexis¿question? 20:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- What "other sources" are you talking about? If you want to make an equivalent comparison, at least provide some tangible examples instead of saying things like "other sources being unfairly deprecated by biased editors". Not your quote, but it gives me the impression you're complaining about an otherwise exhaustively discussed topic and the consensus it led to. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 21:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Let's focus on AJ. I don't want to derail the discussion. Happy to give examples some other time. Alaexis¿question? 19:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with this. There seems to be a definite status-quo entrenched by senior editors who don't want to budge on their fifteen-year-old opinions ;) Scanf (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- What "other sources" are you talking about? If you want to make an equivalent comparison, at least provide some tangible examples instead of saying things like "other sources being unfairly deprecated by biased editors". Not your quote, but it gives me the impression you're complaining about an otherwise exhaustively discussed topic and the consensus it led to. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 21:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Normally no consensus results in keeping the status quo, but this wasn't "there was no consensus to change Al Jazeera to no consensus", this was "there was no consensus about the reliability of Al Jazeera". At least that was my interpretation of the last discussion and its close. We also have to be careful in drawing any comparisons to procedures in other areas - e.g. an AfD outcome is binary, an article must exist or not, so a status quo default makes sense there (what else would we do?). WP:RSP isn't like that - there's an option which explicitly captures a lack of consensus. If we're in agreement that there isn't consensus on Al Jazeera's reliability, it seems very clear that WP:MREL is the most appropriate status. XDanielx (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- There will always be a lack of consensus on a source which reports facts which are inconvenient for some editors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Even if this accusation of editorial bias had merit, the state of consensus (or lack thereof) is what it is, there's no process for overruling a (lack of) consensus that we disagree with. XDanielx (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- There will always be a lack of consensus on a source which reports facts which are inconvenient for some editors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion review (Al Jazeera)
@Vice regent: Here is my review of the discussions listed in the Al Jazeera entry:
Review of the 12 noticeboard discussions listed in the Al Jazeera entry
|
---|
|
Based on this review, I believe there is consensus to retain Al Jazeera's "generally reliable" designation. I recommend the following changes:
- Note in the entry description that aljazeera.com was operated by the
then-unaffiliatedunaffiliated and now-defunct Al Jazeera Magazine untilitthe domain was acquired by Al Jazeera Media Network in 2011. - Note in the entry description that some editors consider Al Jazeera biased on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest.
- Note in the entry description that Al Jazeera's live blogs should be treated with caution, per WP:NEWSBLOG.
- Explicitly link Al Jazeera Arabic in the description instead of referring to "Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting".
Since this review was time- and effort-intensive, I strongly urge editors to convert the next RSN discussion on Al Jazeera's general reliability into a formal request for comment, which would ease the burden of evaluating discussions in the future. The RfC should explicitly ask editors to separately evaluate:
- Al Jazeera English, Al Jazeera Arabic, and other Al Jazeera channels
- Al Jazeera's coverage of general topics, the Arab–Israeli conflict, and topics related to the Qatari government
Any feedback or corrections on the above review are welcome. — Newslinger talk 02:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Edited: clarifications on aljazeera.com and Al Jazeera English articles; minor copyediting. 09:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC))
- @Newslinger, thanks for the comprehensive review of all discussions going back to 2007. I appreciate your time and efforts and I'm sure others do as well. I agree with all your changes. One question I have is: "
Note in the entry description that aljazeera.com was operated by the then-unaffiliated Al Jazeera Magazine until it was acquired by Al Jazeera Media Network in 2011.
" What is the practical purpose for writing this in the entry? Is it that Al Jazeera's reporting until 2011 should be evaluated differently? VR (Please ping on reply) 03:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)- No problem. The aljazeera.com technical note would inform editors that any links to the aljazeera.com domain that were cited or archived before Al Jazeera's 2011 acquisition of the domain are links to Al Jazeera Magazine content, and not Al Jazeera content. (According to the Wayback Machine, Al Jazeera took over aljazeera.com at some point between 27 February 2011 and 19 March 2011.) The "generally reliable" status and other details of Al Jazeera's list entry would not apply to aljazeera.com links that were cited or archived prior to the domain takeover. Instead, Al Jazeera Magazine content would be treated like any other source without a list entry.For comparison, the Daily Mail entry includes the sentence "The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliated Charleston Daily Mail, and reference links to that publication are still present" to clarify that dailymail.com links previously pointed to a different publication.I've amended the discussion review to state that Al Jazeera Media Network (AJMN) only acquired the aljazeera.com domain, and not Al Jazeera Magazine, since I am unable to find evidence that the now-defunct Al Jazeera Magazine was acquired by AJMN. This means that Al Jazeera Magazine can also be described as "unaffiliated" with Al Jazeera. — Newslinger talk 09:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Got it. I would suggest "Note that the domain name "aljazeera.com" only started hosting Al Jazeera English content starting 2011; links to aljazeera.com prior to 2011 refer to Al Jazeera Magazine, which is different from Al Jazeera English". Do you know the domain name Al Jazeera English was hosted on prior to 2011? VR (Please ping on reply) 15:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Al Jazeera English was on the subdomain
english.aljazeera.net
from some point in 2003 to 10 November 2011. It looks likeblogs.aljazeera.net
was also used for Al Jazeera English news blogs from some point in 2009 to June 2012. The entry already lists aljazeera.net as one of the domains listed in the "Uses" column.Thanks for the suggested wording. I've incorporated it into #Proposal 1 (Al Jazeera) below. — Newslinger talk 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Al Jazeera English was on the subdomain
- Got it. I would suggest "Note that the domain name "aljazeera.com" only started hosting Al Jazeera English content starting 2011; links to aljazeera.com prior to 2011 refer to Al Jazeera Magazine, which is different from Al Jazeera English". Do you know the domain name Al Jazeera English was hosted on prior to 2011? VR (Please ping on reply) 15:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- No problem. The aljazeera.com technical note would inform editors that any links to the aljazeera.com domain that were cited or archived before Al Jazeera's 2011 acquisition of the domain are links to Al Jazeera Magazine content, and not Al Jazeera content. (According to the Wayback Machine, Al Jazeera took over aljazeera.com at some point between 27 February 2011 and 19 March 2011.) The "generally reliable" status and other details of Al Jazeera's list entry would not apply to aljazeera.com links that were cited or archived prior to the domain takeover. Instead, Al Jazeera Magazine content would be treated like any other source without a list entry.For comparison, the Daily Mail entry includes the sentence "The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliated Charleston Daily Mail, and reference links to that publication are still present" to clarify that dailymail.com links previously pointed to a different publication.I've amended the discussion review to state that Al Jazeera Media Network (AJMN) only acquired the aljazeera.com domain, and not Al Jazeera Magazine, since I am unable to find evidence that the now-defunct Al Jazeera Magazine was acquired by AJMN. This means that Al Jazeera Magazine can also be described as "unaffiliated" with Al Jazeera. — Newslinger talk 09:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Newslinger. To clarify on point 11, you're interpretation that there was no consensus for the proposal is correct (rather than there being no consensus on the reliability of the source). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Workshop (Al Jazeera)
Proposal 1 (Al Jazeera)
Source | Status (legend) |
Discussions | Uses | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
List | Last | Summary | |||
Al Jazeera WP:ALJAZEERA 📌 |
![]() |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 |
2024 |
Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-funded news organization that is considered generally reliable. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English to be more reliable than Al Jazeera Arabic. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly Al Jazeera Arabic, is a partisan source on the Arab–Israeli conflict and on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest. Al Jazeera's live blogs should be treated with caution, per the policy on news blogs. Note that the domain name "aljazeera.com" only started hosting Al Jazeera English content in 2011; links to aljazeera.com prior to 2011 pointed to the unaffiliated Al Jazeera Magazine. | 1 ![]() ![]() 2 ![]() ![]() |
In addition to my suggested changes in #Discussion review (Al Jazeera), the above proposal includes the following modifications:
- Removes the Al Jazeera English alias from the "Source" column, since it is a language-variant channel that is easily identified by name
- Removes the Aljazeera.com alias from the "Source" column, since the domain is already listed in the "Uses" column
- Updates last discussion year to 2024
- Changes "state-owned" to "state-funded" for consistency with the Al Jazeera Media Network article, which describes Al Jazeera as "funded in part by the government of Qatar" and categorizes it under Category:Publicly funded broadcasters
- Adds Vice regent's suggested phrasing for "aljazeera.com", but with the word "unaffiliated" to match the language in the Daily Mail entry
Feedback and alternative proposals are welcome. If you have a substantially different alternative proposal, please create a new subsection below.
@Alaexis, CaribDigita, Rosguill, BilledMammal, Caeciliusinhorto-public, Horse Eye's Back, Vice regent, XDanielx, Sameboat, Scanf, and Objective3000: Pinging all editors who have commented in this discussion.
— Newslinger talk 10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- "State funded" isn't entirely accurate; it downplays the level of control that reliable sources say that Qatar has over the organization. Perhaps "state sponsored"? BilledMammal (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- But the control isn't really state control... Its family control... Its just that the same family controls the outlet and the state. Similar situation to the Mediaset assets when Burlesconi was in power with the added wrinkle of a hereditary aristocracy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- For extra context, I think The Guardian summarizes it well:
The Al Jazeera Media Network, which is funded by the Qatari royal family, insists it has editorial independence. But the network is widely seen by foreign governments as a soft-power tool for the Gulf monarchy.
See also the Department of Justice's letter sayingDespite assertions of editorial independence and freedom of expression, Al Jazeera Media Network and its affiliates are controlled and funded by the Government of Qatar
. - Al Jazeera denies these claims and maintains that it has editorial independence, but it seems like this is widely viewed with suspicion given the royal family's role in creating in the network, and just given that Qatar is an absolute monarchy with explicit legal restrictions on freedom of speech and press. For example, Penal Code 136 imposes a penalty of life imprisonment for certain "propaganda".
- I think "state funded" is fine if we separately elaborate a bit about concerns of monarchical control. The "conflict of interest" text hints at these concerns, but perhaps another sentence would be good to elaborate. — xDanielx T/C\R 15:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support Newslinger's proposal. Just want to add that this workshop should be for evaluating previous consensus, not forming new consensus. If a new consensus is needed, it should be done via RfC at WP:RSN.VR (Please ping on reply) 12:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Looks good to me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support - and thanks to Newslinger for digging through these discussions to summarize them. signed, Rosguill talk 15:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Generally support - it's is a very well-researched summary of consensus, and a clear improvement. As mentioned above, it might be good to elaborate slightly about concerns of potential state control, but that's relatively minor and could always be left to a followup discussion. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note - there's now an ongoing discussion on RS/N. — xDanielx T/C\R 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support This all seems reasonable and logical. Chetsford (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Post-implementation (Al Jazeera)
Thank you all for the feedback. Per the above consensus, I have implemented proposal 1 as written, and with the active noticeboard discussion added to the "List" column. (Since the noticeboard discussion is still in progress, it has not yet been evaluated.) The changes are at Special:Diff/1230365377.
Regarding potential elaboration on the "state-funded" phrasing, further discussion on Al Jazeera's relationship with the Qatari government would be better suited for the discussion on the noticeboard. Arguments in noticeboard discussions are taken into account for future versions of this list entry, whereas comments on this talk page are limited to interpretations of previous noticeboard discussions.
The current noticeboard discussion appears to be evolving into a full RfC. When this happens, I urge the RfC starter to ask responding editors to evaluate the aspects of Al Jazeera that I mentioned in the #Discussion review (Al Jazeera) section, and to list the RfC as a centralized discussion. — Newslinger talk 08:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Radio Free Asia is not a valid source
It's literally a propaganda arm of the US government. 23.28.148.2 (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- This was discussed at some length in the 2021 RfC. That discussion concluded that
there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use
. If you have read that discussion and think that there is reason to believe that the situation has changed, or relevant evidence which was not considered at the time, then I would suggest starting a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Yet another thread about Al-Jazeera
A lot of contention around the accuracy or lack thereof of the data coming from Gaza Health Ministry and in turn reported by Al Jazeera. Not to mention everything else that Al Jazeera reports is given credibility because what they say is reported on by the BBC, New York Times, etc
This article says it all - https://www.memri.org/reports/al-jazeera-journalists-day-hamas-commanders-night
I wouldn't think there's a single article about the Israel-Hamas War since October 7 that doesn't have a reference from Al Jazeera so what do we do about it now? Given the fact that Hamas, Al Jazeera and the Gaza Health Ministry are basically hand in hand, nothing they say can be taken on face value.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-deaths-women-children-e258a4c14641978a00dfb957ce348957 MaskedSinger (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Since this is about the reliability of the source rather than the maintenance of WP:RSP, you will want to bring this up on the reliable sources noticeboard rather than here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Would also be worth looking at the entry for MEMRI ... nableezy - 20:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware, but WP:RSN is still the right place to discuss sources. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Should I post this there? @Daniel Quinlan MaskedSinger (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Should you? Probably not. I personally would not without a reliable source. Read WP:MEMRI. It's up to you, though. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh I see. Still think when it comes to the reporting on Israel, Al Jazeera is conflicted.
- This says the same thing - https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-786392 MaskedSinger (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Should you? Probably not. I personally would not without a reliable source. Read WP:MEMRI. It's up to you, though. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Should I post this there? @Daniel Quinlan MaskedSinger (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- What does it say? @Nableezy MaskedSinger (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware, but WP:RSN is still the right place to discuss sources. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Would also be worth looking at the entry for MEMRI ... nableezy - 20:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Question (maybe a quick one), is Al Jazeera Mubasher grouped into WP:ALJAZEERA? If yes, that answered the question and discussion. If no, what is the reliability of it?
It was brought up on Talk:Al-Sardi school attack, and someone used WP:ALJAZEERA for its reliability. The RSP note seems to only talk about Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic, so I am unaware if Al Jazeera Mubasher is counted under that same RSP note or not. Wanting to copy the user who mentioned the source here as well: The Great Mule of Eupatoria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 10:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Per #Discussion review (Al Jazeera), most of the previous discussions listed in the Al Jazeera entry focused on Al Jazeera English, although there was some limited discussion of Al Jazeera Arabic. There was no discussion that focused specifically on Al Jazeera Mubasher.
- In general, sub-outlets (e.g. Al Jazeera Mubasher) of a listed media outlet (e.g. Al Jazeera) adopt the listed outlet's entry until there is consensus to treat the sub-outlet differently, after which the sub-outlet would have a special note in the listed outlet's entry or be split into a separate entry. At this point, I would treat Al Jazeera Mubasher (an Arabic language channel) similarly to Al Jazeera Arabic.
- If you are still unsure about the reliability of the specific article, a new noticeboard discussion is always an option. — Newslinger talk 09:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Should we mark it as no consensus? like we have to see if an article has been peer reviewed or not. I wouldn’t say its exactly unreliable or reliable. xq 00:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- RG is diffusion platform and inherits the reliability of wherever the paper comes from. Paper from an OMICS journal, the source is unreliable. Host a paper from a Wiley-Blackwell journal, the source is (probably) reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Noticeboard proposal to halt editing and mark this page as historical
An editor has proposed halting all editing on this page and marking this page as historical. If you would like to read or comment on this proposal, please see WP:RSN § WP:RSP and news articles that report what it says. — Newslinger talk 17:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Great analysis by of ADL status update by one of our own
@WWB Nails it Again... And does us a big favor of laying out "reality" to the press.
LINK: https://www.thewikipedian.net/p/anti-defamation-league-reliable-sources
Did Wikipedia "ban" the Anti-Defamation League? The truth is more complicated
- Contrary to news reports, Wikipedia's decision doesn't group with ADL with the National Enquirer—it's closer to HuffPost and Rolling Stone, sources useful for some topics, but not for others
Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation weighs in (or clears the air) on ADL update
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2024/06/26/wikimedia-foundation-statement-volunteer-processes-reliable-sources/ Ocaasi t | c 22:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Discogs as a source for images of albums/music CDS and ONLY those
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Refd.svg/55px-Refd.svg.png)
Discogs is currently listed as an unreliable source on the list of perennial sources because it is a user-generated source. I'm not here to dispute that. However, Discogs is also a source for images of music CD covers/booklets or. I think it should be an acceptable source for those and only those.
Here is my reasoning: while the scans could be manipulated, I do not believe there is any issue with such manipulation at Discogs. Furthermore, other sources that have scans of e.g. books are generally considered to be acceptable as far as I know e.g. I have not seen anyone proposing that using a book in the public domain that is hosted on the Internet Archive is unacceptable, even though anyone can upload there. Lastly, just like with content summaries of books, track lists in Wikipedia articles frequently don't cite any sources, as someone simply copying the track listing from the album booklet is considered appropriate. I find it absurd that using a scan from Discogs would be worse than using no source at all and relying on editors to copy information to Wikipedia accurately, especially for less common albums not owned by a lot of editors.
I think Discogs should be considered to be an acceptable source for such scan and, I can't stress this enough, only and exclusively those. Not for any of the user-generated content. Input is welcome. Cortador (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Page size
This page is presently 407kB long. It is difficult to load this page with a browser, and even more difficult to edit it. Are there any sources that are not sufficiently perennial, or sufficiently important, that they need to be included? Alternatively, could this page be split? James500 (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think splitting a totally reasonable idea and have tagged the page accordingly. Other extremely long lists have done this, usually alphabetically. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am opposed to cutting sources just to make the page shorter. If a source has been discussed repeatedly, and a consensus reached, there should be an easy way for editors to learn about that. But splitting is completely appropriate. John M Baker (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- There have been repeated proposals to this effect, but frankly there is no easy division that does not greatly reduce usefulness as a quick reference guide. It's long because there's a lot of entries and they need to be somewhere. I must note that a short while ago you were proposing this page's complete removal as useless, so it's not clear the degree to which your advice on its modification for usefulness should be considered - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Splitting the table means you can't sort it properly any more with all entries. Cortador (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree to split. The obvious choice would be A-M and N-Z. Otherwise sectioning alphabetically (A,B,C,etc), and collapsing each section could help with browser loading time if not mistaken? Similar to the French wiki version. CNC (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose – Agree with David Gerard and Cortador that the usefulness of a single-page presentation is paramount in terms of sorting and searchability, so I discourage arbitrary splitting or shortening of this page. There are many more readers of this critical page than editors. Therefore, as long as it loads in an adequate manner we should not alter the page to cater to editors. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fuzheado The entire point of this page is to centralize information. We could have a distilled parallel list of some commonly discussed sources on a user subpage, though. Bremps... 03:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Duplication at Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Currently_deprecated_sources
The table at Wikipedia:Deprecated sources § Currently deprecated sources seems to duplicate portions of the table here at § Sources. There is a risk of the content going out of sync. At the very minimum, it would be better to have some sort of template to excerpt rows from the bigger table.
I think the table in on this page should be preferred. It includes all the information in the other table. It also has incoming shortcut links. I propose removing the section on the other article and redirecting its shortcuts here after checking all information is accounted for. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that duplication is a perennial annoyance. Mind you, merging that into this will make this page even longer - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I synced most of the remaining information into this page. For the Uses column, I just assumed it was already merged. Any increase in visible page length is barely noticeable because most of the information was already on this page. This is what remains to be done:
- 174.92.25.207 (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)