Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Criteria for inclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I noticed several other things:

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

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

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

Moving towards a set criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would you consider some of these discussions significant?

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

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

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

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

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

Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources

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

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

Possible change to the classification of Fox News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daily Mail / The Sun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources with a currently active RfC and no previous discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox News

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPLC

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

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

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

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

Alexa rank?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boomsbeat.com

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

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

rate "Zero Hedge"

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

It is on Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list.

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

See propaganda in the Russian Federation

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

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

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

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

Fox News redux

"Fox has long been a bane of liberals, but in the past two years many people who watch the network closely, including some Fox alumni, say that it has evolved into something that hasn’t existed before in the United States. Nicole Hemmer, an assistant professor of Presidential studies at the University of Virginia's Miller Center and the author of Messengers of the Right, a history of the conservative media's impact on American politics, says of Fox, 'It’s the closest we've come to having state TV.'"

"[E]veryone ought to see it for what it is: Not a normal news organization with inevitable screw-ups, flaws and commercial interests, which sometimes fail to serve the public interest. But a shameless propaganda outfit, which makes billions of dollars a year as it chips away at the core democratic values we ought to hold dear: truth, accountability and the rule of law. Despite the skills of a few journalists who should have long ago left the network in protest, Fox News has become an American plague."

References

Still it has its defenders here. I guess so does the flat earth. Go figure. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz This is not the project page to discuss whether it is or isn't a reliable source. This article merely recaps the formal discussions held in other places, normally the article talk page and RSN. One of those venues is a better place to discuss this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Consensus on Mediaite?

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Soibangla, you'll want to post this discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. Since there was a previous discussion on Mediaite in 2017, a new noticeboard discussion would make Mediaite eligible for inclusion in this list. As explained in the notice at the top, this talk page is for discussing the maintenance of the list itself, and arguments posted here won't be evaluated. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 05:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Newslinger. This is best discussed at WP:RSN.- MrX 🖋 13:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. soibangla (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

LiveJournal

I was surprised to find over 3,000 current references using LiveJournal, while I was unable to find any clearly written statements on its use. Are the current RSN discussions enough to add it to this list? --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

​ Done. See the new entry at WP:RSP § LiveJournal. Thanks for bringing this up. — Newslinger talk 07:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

National Enquirer RfC

The RfC for the National Enquirer (RSP entry) was closed with "weak consensus to deprecate" the source, but also with "no consensus to create an edit filter to warn editors". In this case, should the list of perennial sources classify the National Enquirer as "generally unreliable" or "deprecated"?

In the meantime, I've classified the National Enquirer as "deprecated", since the word "deprecate" was used in the RfC's closing summary. This classification should be changed if there is consensus that "generally unreliable" is a better fit in this situation.

We should consider whether a source needs to have an RfC supporting an edit filter to be classified as a deprecated source. — Newslinger talk 07:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Crunchbase's RfC was just closed with "consensus to deprecate its use as a source, but to continue allow it to be used as an external link". I've revised the description of deprecated sources to indicate that an edit filter is not always in place. — Newslinger talk 08:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Examiner.com

Examiner.com is blocked locally for reasons noted in the WP:RS archives. That's surprising when importing a "good" link from dewiki (example), maybe add it to your list (red). –84.46.52.41 (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

 Added. You can see the new entry at WP:RSP § Examiner.com. Thanks for bringing this up! — Newslinger talk 08:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Took me some seconds to grok that black is worse than red. –84.46.52.48 (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Stupid Biased List

I've just found this list after seeing someone remove a citation and claim it isn't reliable as it's from the Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail is a national newspaper in the UK, which like every other national news source in the UK it has some bias when it comes to politics as it's right leaning. And it makes the occasional mistake like every other news source in the UK. However like 99% of the newspapers in the UK it is generally reliable.

Wikipedians seem to have a problem with the Daily Mail and every other British newspaper which leans to the right, as they're all marked as deprecated or generally unreliable.

Yet those same Wikipedians have no problem with the extreme left leaning, social justice warrior, newspapers The Guardian or The Independent, which are both marked as generally reliable, even though they're constantly making stuff up with regards to things like "Diversity".

If this list was accurate, then the only British news sources which should be marked as deprecated on this list are Daily Sport, and it's sister paper the Sunday Sport, which are just full of topless women, and ridiculous made-up stories, similar to the ones found in cheap £1 or less women's magazines. Danstarr69 (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the RfCs that resulted in the Daily Mail being deprecated as a reliable source? We don't care about right or left; we care that they have a reputation for fact checking and for not making stuff up.- MrX 🖋 20:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Danstarr69, this list is a product of discussions elsewhere on Wikipedia, largely on the reliable sources noticeboard. Each entry on this list has a link to previous discussions where those sources were discussed. I would suggest that you read through them. However, note that there are plenty of sources listed as reliable, and as unreliable, from all over the political spectrum on this list. The reason Daily Mail is deprecated isn't because it's conservative, it's because it's a tabloid newspaper that has a long track record of poor editorial oversight. As for why Daily Sport etc. aren't included, it's likely because those sources haven't been used on Wikipedia before. The goal of this page is to document the results of discussions about notability, not to proactively and comprehensively assess every possible source. It would be a colossal waste of time to search out every minor tabloid and nudie mag to document here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Danstarr69, the Daily Mail was the subject of 37 discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard, including two highly-attended RfCs in 2017 and in 2019. The Daily Mail's entry in this list is a reflection of the community consensus established in those RfCs. — Newslinger talk 23:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Dan Bongino

Has https://bongino.com/ ever been discussed here? There is currently a dispute over including his book in the Further reading section at Talk:Trump–Russia_dossier#Bongino's_book.

The actual "Further reading" policy does have standards. It doesn't allow just any book: "Any links to external websites included under "Further reading" are subject to the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External links."

Per WP:ELNO we would never allow Bongino's book. It is not based on RS and is completely counterfactual. His book is full of conspiracy theories. OTOH, if the book had an article here, we could include it, just as we could include it in a See also section. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss source reliability. As I explained to you on the dossier talk page, WP:ELNO would not prevent this book from being listed under further reading. - MrX 🖋 17:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this is one place for that, but, I'll give you that linking to a Google Books summary is indeed an easy way out. Therefore, technically, we can literally link to anything. Got it. Let's make sure it's clear in our policies that there are no lower limits. You may be happy with that situation, but I will still maintain higher standards by only recommending sources that are somewhat reliable. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not. I should know—I created this supplemental guide! There is no universal further reading inclusion guideline. You can propose one, but for now, local consensus rules.- MrX 🖋 20:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no noticeboard for external links, so the best venue for this discussion is probably Wikipedia talk:External links. Since there are some generally unreliable sources that are allowed as external links, e.g. Crunchbase (RSP entry), Discogs (RSP entry), and IMDb (RSP entry), I don't think discussing this here (or at WP:RSN) would give a conclusive answer on whether the book should be a "further reading" recommendation. — Newslinger talk 23:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Ahem→ WP:ELN - MrX 🖋 01:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Oops. Yes, the external links noticeboard would be the best place to discuss this. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to link to a specific entry in the list?

I'm guessing that there's a way to link to a specific entry in the list WP:RSP..., or not? --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, simply do WP:RSP#AlterNet. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, each entry has an ID. For example, take a look at the source of the first entry (Al Jazeera):

|- class="s-gr" id="Al_Jazeera"
| [[Al Jazeera]] <small>([[Al Jazeera English]], [[Aljazeera.com]])</small>
| {{/Status|gr}}

The first line (above the source's name) contains id="Al_Jazeera", which shows that the ID is Al Jazeera. In most entries, the ID is the same as the source's name.

You can link to the entry with WP:RSP#Al Jazeera. Alternatively, you can use the {{RSP entry}} template in a discussion: {{rspe|Al Jazeera}} produces (RSP entry). ​— Newslinger talk 02:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Indicators for auto-revert and edit filter

Should this list indicate (in the Status column) whether a source is subject to automatic reverts from User:XLinkBot (from accounts less than 7 days old) and whether a source has an edit filter applied? This would give editors more visibility on the restrictions applied to each source, much as we do now with a separate icon for blacklisted sources. As you can see at WP:DEPSOURCES, it's clear that whether a source is deprecated doesn't convey whether a source is restricted. — Newslinger talk 23:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I tend to think that it's not really that important. The deprecated and blacklisted icons should make it clear enough that the source should not be used. The edit filter and auto reverts are merely technical functions to enforce these.- MrX 🖋 18:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

​Okay. I had already added the ability to display these indicators into WP:RSPSTATUS ({{/Status}}), but I didn't change the list. I suggested this because there are quite a few sources that are being auto-reverted, even though some of them are classified as "no consensus". For example, Daily Kos (RSP entry), Media Matters for America (RSP entry), and NewsBusters (RSP entry) are on User:XLinkBot/RevertList. CelebrityNetWorth (RSP entry) and Famous Birthdays (RSP entry) are on User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 10:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

If the relatively few filtered sources are a subset of deprecated sources, maybe there should be a single deprecated+filtered icon to denote it, rather than two separate icons. In the case of auto reverting link additions by new users, I just don't think it's particularly useful to this list's purpose. I'll defer to other's opinions as I don't feel that strongly about this, but would prefer to avoid icon clutter.- MrX 🖋 12:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

​I also dislike icon clutter. What if the description included a sentence disclosing that the source is being auto-reverted? A footnote can be used to provide more details. — Newslinger talk 20:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Yes, I was think along those lines as well. - MrX 🖋 20:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Where's CNN on this list?

I can't help but notice CNN isn't listed in the table? starship.paint ~ KO 07:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Surprisingly, it seems that it hasn't been discussed that much. I searched for section headers which contain CNN and there are only about eight discussions, a majority of which don't actually mention CNN.com's main content.

Archive	Participants	Summary
29 (2009)	2	Concerns inclusion of opinion; CNN assumed reliable
72 (2010)	3	two users say "yes, obviously it's reliable"
98 (2011)	4	Concerns CNN poll, not news
140 (2013)	13	Mainly concerns RT; CNN described as better despite some bias, and reliability still context-dependent
147 (2013)	4	Concerns individual transcript; user who called CNN "crappy" blocked by ArbCom since 2013
165 (2014)	2	User-submitted content (iReport) is obviously not reliable
212 (2016)	2	Concerns two individual news articles
217 (2016)	7	CNN is not fake news

I think this is enough to give CNN its own table row. Jc86035 (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Jc86035: How about I start another RSN discussion on CNN? starship.paint ~ KO 09:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: You could do that, although I think the larger discussions (140 and 217) would be enough to summarize CNN as generally reliable excluding opinion and iReport content, so having another discussion wouldn't necessarily add much. Jc86035 (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Jc86035: - could you inform me if this page is meant to list only unreliable sources or is it supposed to list reliable sources as well? I can't help but notice more missing organizations, Los Angeles Times, ABC, NBC etc. It's funny, some of them are in the references but not the table. But please, I'm not asking you to search for all of them! starship.paint ~ KO 09:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: If a source hasn't been discussed enough on WP:RSN (i.e. at least twice) then it can't be included in the list, since by definition it needs to be discussed more than once for the discussions to be perennial. Many news organizations don't intentionally mislead (and don't have controversial biases) and so don't need to be discussed at RSN; probably as a direct result, most national newspapers can't be – and don't need to be – included on the list. Jc86035 (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm okay Jc86035 - frankly I'm tired so I won't be doing the CNN thing. starship.paint ~ KO 09:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hansard added as additional considerations apply

Based on my reading of the three headlining RSN discussions concerning Hansard (all of which refer to the UK Hansard), I get the feeling that:

1. Hansard is considered reliable for parliamentary proceedings and UK government statements, i.e. it's OK as a source for "Mr X argued that the government of Brasilistan has repeatedly engaged in human rights abuses" or "According to a report by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the government of Brasilistan has engaged in human rights abuses"
2. Hansard is not reliable for e.g. "The government of Brasilistan has engaged in human rights abuses" or "The UK Government has led efforts to combat human rights abuses conducted by the government of Brasilistan". Reliable secondary sources should be used instead.

I added the source as "no consensus". Is my addition an accurate summary of the reliability of Hansard? feminist (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, based on the contents of the discussions, this looks accurate to me. Primary sources are usually limited to "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" at best, since WP:PRIMARY requires their interpretations to be substantiated by reliable secondary sources. — Newslinger talk 22:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

filmreference.com

What is the consensus on filmreference.com? Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Toddst1, filmreference.com is currently blacklisted because its parent company, Advameg, has a history of publishing content farms from scraped or improperly licensed data. You can see the blacklisting discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2019 § Advameg sites (city-data.com, filmreference.com, etc.). — Newslinger talk 00:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Removed Daily Kos

I've removed Daily Kos from the list at Special:Diff/897026709. It was classified as "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply". I think the noticeboard discussions are too sparse to assign any evaluation to the Daily Kos. Many of the comments are quite negative, but discussion #1 focused too heavily on the site's Elections portal to be generalized to the entire site. If the listed discussions were more substantial, I think the appropriate classification should have been "generally unreliable" based on their contents. Please feel free to restore the entry if you find more significant discussions on Daily Kos. — Newslinger talk 09:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of User:Rosguill/NPPRS, a list of sources for new page patrollers

There is a discussion of User:Rosguill/NPPRS, a list of sources intended to help new page patrollers evaluate an article subject's notability. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Centralizing information about sources. — Newslinger talk 04:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Where is ABC News?

To say it was frequently discussed would be something of an understatement. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 13:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobody has written an entry for it yet. I previously looked through these discussions, but passed on creating an entry because almost all of them are passing mentions of ABC News in discussions on other sources. If you can find several discussions that meet the inclusion criteria, feel free to list them here or create an entry for ABC News yourself.​ — Newslinger talk 23:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Newsweek

The entry is ambiguous - it says generally reliable but also "rom 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times; its articles from this time period should be scrutinized more carefully." There's a pointer to a discussion this year which was ambivalent. Doug Weller talk 17:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Obviously I also weighed in on that RSN discussion but I agree that Newsweek is a bit ambiguous right now. In terms of how it should be handled here given that ambiguity I don't know but it being in green given that discussion makes me a tad uneasy but then again I'm a tad uneasy about Newweek so that could be influencing what I think. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The reliability classification of a publication isn't necessarily aligned with the consensus in its most recent discussion. Recent discussions are weighted more heavily than older discussions, but I didn't think the mixed sentiment in the April 2019 discussion cancelled out the earlier discussions, in which the reputation of Newsweek was not questioned.

Since the most recent discussion was focused on the International Business Times, it might be a good idea to start a new discussion or RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard that focuses exclusively on Newsweek. If you choose to start an RfC, the results of that RfC would take precedence over all of the other discussions. ​— Newslinger talk 05:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

"Generally"

Some editors, including DIYeditor at the active moratorium RfC, have said that the word generally in generally reliable and generally unreliable is ambiguous, since it can be interpreted in two ways:

1. As a rule; usually. (Wiktionary definition #2)
2. Without reference to specific details. (Wiktionary definition #3)

In this list, we are referring to the first definition ("As a rule; usually"). This can be verified in the descriptions for generally reliable and generally unreliable:

Generally reliable: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases.

Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases.

Is there a less ambiguous word we can use to replace generally? Would usually or mostly be a better word for this use? — Newslinger talk 23:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Even before you got to the suggestion I came up with usually but I'm guessing that could cause its own confusion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

​Is usually also ambiguous in some way? (Just want to make sure I'm not overlooking something.) — Newslinger talk 00:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be best to say something like "generally reliable for [its area(s) of expertise]" or something to that effect except in cases where we mean the source is reliable on pretty much any topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I've edited the description of generally reliable to start with this sentence:

Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise.

Does this change address the issue, and do you have any other concerns about the description? (We could also switch to usually if that would be an improvement.) ​— Newslinger talk 01:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Medium News Blog Site

There is no consensus on whether Medium is reliable or not. Medium is considered a newspaper and magazine blog, which would make it a source to be cautious about. Brendanm2129 (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Brendanm2129, editors in previous discussions identified Medium (RSP entry) as a self-published source, which is considered generally unreliable. If you have a different opinion, please feel free to start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 01:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

OpenSecrets.org

Should we add OpenSecrets.org, which is operated by the Center for Responsive Politics? It collates political fundraising information, and discussions have supported its use. TFD (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hi The Four Deuces, and thanks for noticing that the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) is a perennial source. My search found four significant discussions:

1. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 111 § Koch Industries and Sunlight Foundation Blog
2. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 143 § OpenSecrets.org
3. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 173 § OpenSecrets.org (and the Center for Responsive Politics)
4. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 174 § NRA PAC contributions to Congressional candidates

The discussions indicate that CRP/OpenSecrets.org is a usable primary source, but I don't think there is enough agreement to classify it as generally reliable. Most editors are willing to accept reliable secondary sources that cite data from OpenSecrets.org, but that requires evaluating the reliability of the secondary source, and is not a ringing endorsement of the reliability of OpenSecrets.org.

Would you agree with a "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" entry for CRP/OpenSecrets.org, similar to Hansard (RSP entry) (another primary source)? ​— Newslinger talk 23:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• What exactly is the accusation sheet against the Center for Responsive Politics? On which grievances would we base an accusation against them for being improper as sources for Wikipedia? They seem to be a data gathering entity. -The Gnome (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  ​I'm not aware of anything "improper" about the CRP. However, I don't think the discussions linked above support a generally reliable classification, because there was some disagreement regarding the suitability of OpenSecrets.org data. A number of editors voiced concerns about OpenSecrets.org being a primary source, and this list generally recommends more caution for non-secondary sources (e.g. Hansard (RSP entry) and Encyclopædia Britannica (RSP entry)) because "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." (also noted in WP:V § Original research). The generally reliable sources on this list are largely secondary sources.

  Since the last noticeboard discussion about OpenSecrets.org was from 2014, new input would be welcome. Please feel free to start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 10:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Common Sense Media

Greetings, everyone. I recently came across a film whose major claim to fame was the amount of references to Common Sense Media. CSM is an organization that describes itself as dedicated to "improving kids’ media lives". CSM is concerned that "the media in general [are] encouraging violent or antisocial behavior in children." It provides reviews for "thousands of movies, TV shows, music, video games, apps, web sites and books" and then "indicates the age for which a title is either appropriate or most relevant." It also provides a "five-star quality rating" system that is entirely different from the system used by the Motion Picture Association of America. CSM currently provides free content to media companies that distribute it to tens of millions of American homes.

It is clear that this is a non-profit that promotes a political agenda. Irrespective of whether we respect or reject that agenda, should we continue to use CSMK as a reliable source for films' notability? CSM's focus seems to be exclusively the extent to which the film is, according to their own criteria, suitable for children. Therefore, they will quite often highlight an otherwise non-notable film, because the film ostensibly promotes the values CSM supports. I'd suggest placing a description of CSM here as follows: CSM is generally assessed as promoting an agenda. Its film reviews can be quoted in an article but they do not, by themselves, necessarily provide evidence of a film's notability. Support or Oppose-The Gnome (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi The Gnome, since this talk page only gets a fraction (about 0.6%) of the page views as the reliable sources noticeboard, I think you might want to move this discussion there. The result of the noticeboard discussion would determine how CSM is classified and described in the list. — Newslinger talk 10:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Newslinger. I'll take it there. This discussion is hereby closed. -The Gnome (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Allmusic

I've been treating it as unreliable for disputed information in a BLP, but it's difficult to see any general consensus looking over the many RSN discussions. Anyone want to take a crack at identifying all the RSN discussions and trying to determine what we can say about it here in RSP? --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 Added. I've added AllMusic under its parent company RhythmOne (which also owns AllMovie and the defunct AllGame):

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
RhythmOne (AllMusic, AllMovie, AllGame, All Media Guide, AllRovi)		25	2019	RhythmOne (who acquired All Media Guide, formerly AllRovi) operates the websites AllMusic, AllMovie, and AllGame (defunct). There is consensus that RhythmOne websites are usable for entertainment reviews with in-text attribution. Some editors question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available. Editors also advise against using AllMusic's genre classifications from the website's sidebar. Listings without accompanying prose do not count toward notability.	1   2   3

Notes

Please feel free to change the entry as you see fit. ​— Newslinger talk 14:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem! — Newslinger talk 18:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The Western Journal

The Western Journal should be deprecated. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

​I agree that it is a highly questionable source, but we've just had our first noticeboard discussion of the source, and it was not an RfC. Feel free to start an RfC on the website. I would do it myself, but I'm waiting for the moratorium RfC to be closed first. — Newslinger talk 15:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, I don't edit here often enough to know the procedure. Would you mind starting the process? -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: is there an estimate when the "moratorium" will be over? X1\ (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

​​There is no moratorium in place right now. (In fact, the Bellingcat RfC was started after the moratorium RfC.) However, to minimize potential interruptions, I would prefer to wait until the moratorium RfC is closed before starting another RfC on this noticeboard. Either of you are welcome to start an RfC on The Western Journal at any time, but if you would like me to do it, you'll need to wait. If you want to help reduce the waiting time, please consider closing some of the other RfCs in the requests for closure queue. — Newslinger talk 07:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger and BullRangifer, I have started a "rating" at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. X1\ (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, X1\. I would personally phrase the discussion a bit differently, since there are some editors that don't like to see requests to "rate" sources, and will respond accordingly. See this Fox News RfC for an extreme example. Instead of asking editors to "rate" the source, could you please instead ask editors if the source is "generally reliable for news and opinion" and provide links in the discussion (from a domain search for westernjournal.com  ) to several uses of the Western Journal that you find questionable? — Newslinger talk 02:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

​Almost there! If you want to make WP:RSN § RfC: "The Western Journal" a request for comment, you can add the {{rfc}} tag (with the relevant RfC categories) to the top of the discussion. This publicizes the discussion across Wikipedia in several ways. Otherwise, if you just want to keep this a normal discussion, please remove the "RfC:" at the beginning of the RfC: "The Western Journal title to avoid confusion. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 02:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger and BullRangifer, I replaced the "rating" with a RfC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. X1\ (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

​Sorry if it looks like I'm nitpicking, but I forgot to mention that the first sentence in an RfC needs to be a question. WP:RFCBRIEF has some examples, and you can also refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 261 § RfC: Crunchbase as an example of this in practice. Could you please make this one last change? — Newslinger talk 20:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, thank you for hanging-in there with me as I fumble through this. I wasn't as complicated last time, or maybe it was and people just let it slide. X1\ (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

​And thanks for making all of the changes! I've added two more RfC categories, and everything looks good to me. RfCs (through the formal process) are scrutinized more closely than other discussions, and following the instructions closely is the best way to ensure that the discussion isn't closed prematurely on procedural grounds. — Newslinger talk 20:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, Thank you for the "RfC categories", as I didn't know what to pick. X1\ (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Anytime! — Newslinger talk 20:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Critics vs audience

How are critics any more a reliable source than an audience review? Both are opinion. All the preference over critics to audience is, is a form of hypocritical elitism. I just had a post removed because I added the audience rating along side the Rotten Tomatoes critics rating. Which were very difference numbers. And I've found audience ratings and actual viewership ratings for shows and movies are higher than critics. So if critics are wrong so often why are their ratings considered reliable and audience ratings not? And again both are just opinions, so why does one opinion hold more water than the other other than elitism? I thought wikipedia was for facts. The fact wikipedia doesn't want to include those rating seems to be against facts. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Nonsense. Read WP:RS. Critical pieces are published under editorial control. Viewer ratings are self-selected user-generated content and have no editorial control. If you can't distinguish between these cases, you are going to continue to struggle with editing here. Your claims of "elitism" are laughable. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense, they are opinions that are just as flawed as viewer rankings. Actually even more often given how often the critics dislike a series or movie, and fans love it. Which shows they are not any more reliable than viewer reviews. Are critics voicing opinion? Yes. Are veiwers voicing opinion? Yes. Do critics get it wrong often? Yes. Do fan reviews get it wrong often? Yes. So either neither of them are reliable, or the are both valid. The editorial control is such a cop-out when most have no real review and are rubber stamp approved or rubber stamped serialized in various editions. And just what is that editorial control... oh right more opinion. So yes it is absolutely elitism to keep rule that flawed. And your snide attitude and attacks aren't warranted. I'm debating a rule not a person here unlike you. And the rule is flawed. And it is time some of these problematic rules get reviewed again and shook up rather than the 'that's the way we always have done it protected by an old guard that wants to protect it self. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Critics often have no professional training, they've have 'self selected' into a field with no real qualifications. There have been countless corruption scandals involving payments to critics for better reviews, on top of the lack of any real reliability in reviews reflecting audience liking or disliking a topic. A review opinion being called reliable here is absolutely ridiculous and this rule should be changed. Either to remove all reviews on the basis of no academic accounting or reliability, or by letting other quantitative reviews like viewers to be noted as well. That would be the more professional way to deal with these sections. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose that at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Once your proposal gains a consensus and the guideline is changed, you can update this page. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia routinely cites the opinion of experts in its articles. )This goes to the heart of the policy to use "reliable sources".) The policy is evidently applicable in matters and lemmas of science and history but when it comes to pure opinion, such as the professional, yet still subjective assessment of a movie, aka movie criticism, the same one applies, with certain caveats: First, we always also include the vox populi by citing sources such as Rotten Tomatoes, and, second, the "movie experts," i.e. the critics, are individually cited by name. This presents the reader with a wider and useful viewpoint. -The Gnome (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's put it this way:

Editors on Wikipedia often have no professional training, they've have 'self selected' into a field with no real qualifications. Editors on Wikipedia have been countless corruption scandals involving payments to editors for better articles, on top of the lack of any real reliability in Wikipedia articles reflecting readers liking or disliking a topic. A Wikipedia article being called verifiable here is absolutely ridiculous and this rule should be changed. Either to remove all Wikipedia articles on the basis of no academic accounting or accuracy, or by letting other quantitative edits like anonymous IPs to be noted as well. That would be the more professional way to deal with these Wikipedia articles. Elizium23 (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Elizium23. The way you colored your text makes it seem as if it was copied from some guideline or essay, which, however, I'm unable to trace. In any case, I do not understand too well what you're suggesting, though it may be my fault. (The first sentence of your message even reads garbled.) Are you saying we should change Wikipedia's foundational policy on verifiability, or perhaps change it? In such a case, I believe that the appropriate forum is elsewhere. -The Gnome (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Google Street View

They actually do show old Street View images on Google Maps, which can be found by clicking on the clock icon left of the attributed month in the navigation pop-up in the top-left corner of the screen. Case in point. ToThAc (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, ToThAc! This is the first time I've seen this feature, and it's very interesting. I've changed "neither Google Maps data nor Google Street View pictures are publicly archived, and both are removed or replaced as soon as they are not current" to "Google Maps data is not publicly archived, and may be removed or replaced as soon as it is not current" in WP:RSP § Google Maps. Pinging Jc86035, who added the original entry in January, as a courtesy. — Newslinger talk 06:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for changing that! And honestly, the image of that power line serving the Seaholm Power Plant was the best example I could come up with considering that it was upgraded circa early 2008. ToThAc (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

U.S. News & World Report

Have there been any discussions on the reliability of news articles published by U.S. News & World Report? Bobbychan193 (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Deprecation, RfCs, and inline citations

Hi ToThAc, I appreciate the updates you made to the list in the 10 days. The list is most useful when it's up-to-date, and editors are always welcome to help maintain it.

There are 3 things I'd like to point out:

1. We've never had a RfC to formally define the word deprecated. The word was gradually adopted by editors on the reliable sources noticeboard to refer to sources that have been confirmed through a formal RfC to be worse than generally unreliable. Since there are examples of sources that were blacklisted through a standard discussion (e.g. Centre for Research on Globalization (RSP entry), Examiner.com (RSP entry), Famous Birthdays (RSP entry), etc.), the only feature we use to consistently distinguish a deprecated source from a generally unreliable source is the presence of a successful formal RfC. It wouldn't be a good idea to mark a source as deprecated if it hasn't undergone a successful RfC, since the deprecated designation would lose its distinguishing feature.
2. The legend currently states that the RfC icon is only used for uninterrupted RfCs. This is because editors occasionally submit unsuccessful proposals through RfCs that are closed prematurely, when they are withdrawn or sustain overwhelming opposition. For example, a 2018 RfC to deprecate Fox News for political subjects was withdrawn, and another 2018 RfC on The Hill (RSP entry), Fox News, and The Daily Caller (RSP entry) was closed prematurely.

   If an unsuccessful RfC was closed prematurely, it's considered "interrupted" and doesn't get marked with the RfC icon – there's limited space in the "List" column and using it to highlight interrupted RfCs wouldn't be a good use of our readers' attention.

3. At 227kB and growing, this list is a very long Wikipedia page that may pose some accessibility issues for slower computers and mobile devices. (We've tried to shorten the page by introducing templates, but these efforts mostly affected the length of the wikitext on this page, and not the size of the fully rendered page.) Until we develop a long-term solution, we should probably try to avoid making new entires too long.

   Inline citations take up a large amount of space, and I would recommend using them very sparingly in the Summary column. In general, we don't need to cite sources when they're already mentioned in the linked discussions. They might be useful for citing important quotes from third parties or for providing external links that are vital in context, but most entries on the list wouldn't benefit from inline citations – it would be better for the readers to read the actual discussions.

The above explains some of the practices that have been in place for this list. These practices can always change if there good reasons, so please feel free to share any suggestions you may have for improving the list. Thanks again for helping out with updates! — Newslinger talk 07:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Alright, thanks very much. ToThAc (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Forbes

While reading articles, especially those about popular culture from the last decade, I've noticed that there are often consistently at least one or two citations to Forbes even in some B-class and GA-class articles, even though it's been fairly clear for a while that Forbes contributors are just bloggers with a nice domain name and good SEO as a result.

Do we need to have some kind of drive to get editors to realize that it's a bad source (e.g. giving user talk page notices to people who've recently added links to the site)? People just seem to keep obliviously adding it. Jc86035 (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• ​Yes, articles from Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry) are a persistent problem, especially after they moved all of their staff editors to the /sites directory, which made it more difficult to tell whether a link is to a staff-written or a contributor-written article. I think we can help address this by creating a list or database of Forbes.com usernames that also records whether they are staff writers or non-staff contributors. This database could then be used by user scripts or bots to quickly identify whether a Forbes.com link is generally reliable or unreliable. — Newslinger talk 04:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I agree, having a whitelist and/or blacklist would be helpful. As a start, searching DuckDuckGo for "Forbes Staff" site:forbes.com/sites turns up a number of staff members. Jc86035 (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Great suggestion! I ran that search on DuckDuckGo with the following script in my browser's web development tools:

function getForbesNames () {
  const urlElements = $('.result__url__full').toArray()
  const names = urlElements.map(element => element.textContent.match(/sites\/([^\/]+)/)[1])
  const uniqueNames = [...new Set(names)]
  const sortedNames = uniqueNames.sort()
  const namesList = sortedNames.join('\n')
  
  copy(namesList)
  return namesList
}

getForbesNames()

Here's the result:

Forbes staff writer usernames

abrambrown alanohnsman alexandrawilson1 alexknapp amyfeldman andersonantunes angelauyeung antoinegara arielleoshea ashleaebeling asiamartin carolinehoward chasewithorn chloesorvino chrissmith christopherhelman chuckjones chucktannert danalexander danielfisher datadesign deborahljacobs denispinsky denizcam digitalrules emilycanal forbes forbes-finds forbescontentmarketing forbespr halahtouryalai haleykim hayleycuccinello isabeltogoh janetnovack jeffkauflin jennagoudreau jenniferrooney jenniferwang jeremybogaisky johnkoppisch jonathanponciano karenhua karstenstrauss kathleenchaykowski katiesola kerryadolan kristinstoller kristintablang kurtbadenhausen laurendebter laurengensler lisettevoytko luisakroll maddieberg maggiemcgrath matthewherper meghancasserly michaeldelcastillo michelatindera mikeozanian msolomon natalierobehmed nathanvardi noahkirsch pamelaambler parmyolson rachelsandler randalllane richkarlgaard robertberger robertolsen russellflannery samanthasharf sarahhansen specialfeatures steveforbes stevenbertoni strategyand susanadams theapothecary thomasbrewster toddwoody vickyvalet zackomalleygreenburg

​This forms a whitelist, but I'm not sure how comprehensive it is. We could also do the same for contributors (and "Senior Contributors") to form a blacklist, although I expect that list to require ongoing maintenance considering how many contributors there are. — Newslinger talk 12:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I've checked the results by downloading all the pages and searching through the JSON, and most (but not all) of the results are staff.

Extracted JSON

"name":"Abram Brown","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Alan Ohnsman","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Alexandra Wilson","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Alex Knapp","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Amy Feldman","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Anderson Antunes","jobTitle":"Contributor" "name":"Angel Au-Yeung","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Antoine Gara","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Arielle O'Shea","jobTitle":"Contributor" "name":"Ashlea Ebeling","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Asia Martin","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Caroline Howard","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Chase Peterson-Withorn","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Chloe Sorvino","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Chris Smith","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Christopher Helman","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Chuck Jones","jobTitle":"Senior Contributor" "name":"Chuck Tannert","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Dan Alexander","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Daniel Fisher","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"DataDesign","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Deborah L. Jacobs","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Denis Pinsky","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Deniz Cam","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Digital Rules","jobTitle":"Contributor Group" "name":"Emily Canal","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Forbes","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Forbes Finds","jobTitle":"Contributor Group" "name":"Forbes Content Marketing","jobTitle":"Contributor Group" "name":"Forbes Press Releases","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Halah Touryalai","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Haley Kim","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Hayley C. Cuccinello","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Isabel Togoh","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Janet Novack","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Jeff Kauflin","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Jenna Goudreau","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Jenny Rooney","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Jennifer Wang","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Jeremy Bogaisky","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"John Koppisch","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Jonathan Ponciano","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Karen Hua","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Karsten Strauss","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Kathleen Chaykowski","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Katie Sola","jobTitle":"Former Staff" "name":"Kerry A. Dolan","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Kristin Stoller","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Kristin Tablang","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Kurt Badenhausen","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Lauren Debter","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Lisette Voytko","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Luisa Kroll","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Madeline Berg","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Maggie McGrath","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Matthew Herper","jobTitle":"Former Staff" "name":"Meghan Casserly","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Michael del Castillo","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Michela Tindera","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Mike Ozanian","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Michael Solomon","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Natalie Robehmed","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Nathan Vardi","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Noah Kirsch","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Pamela Ambler","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Parmy Olson","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Rachel Sandler","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Randall Lane","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Rich Karlgaard","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Rob Berger","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Robert Olsen","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Russell Flannery","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Samantha Sharf","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Sarah Hansen","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Forbes Special Features","jobTitle":"Contributor Group" "name":"Steve Forbes","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Steven Bertoni","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Strategy&, part of the PwC network","jobTitle":"Contributor Group" "name":"Susan Adams","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"The Apothecary","jobTitle":"Contributor Group" "name":"Thomas Brewster","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Todd Woody","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Vicky Valet","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff" "name":"Zack O'Malley Greenburg","jobTitle":"Forbes Staff"

Using Google might be slightly more comprehensive, given that DuckDuckGo doesn't seem to have as good a web scraper. Jc86035 (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Agree to have in place a warning against using as sources non-notable contributors-cum-bloggers hosted by Forbes' websites, per above. It has been a constant problem. This is a problem for most such bloggers hosted by other media, as well. -The Gnome (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Litmus test for source reliability in the AmPol2 area

Please join the discussion at Litmus test for source reliability in the AmPol2 area -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Deprecated Source is code for conservative source

It doesn't take someone very smart to realise that the "reliable sources" Wikipedia checklists have a ridiculous liberal bias, and that almost all of them have been taking aggressively partisan and left-wing stances (AND misreporting world events AND lying by omission journalistic dishonesty AND mislabeling political figures as "Far-Right"), What on earth makes Breitbart an unreliable source but the fucking BBC - a propaganda wing of the British government, the upper echelon of whom are handpicked by MI5 - is reliable? It's completely arbitrary. Arbitrary cherrypicking to support a political agenda and it turns political pages of right-wing politicians into thinly-veiled POV hackpieces de-facto - just look at the absurd page on Viktor Orbán to see what I am talking about. "Who Watches the Watchmen"? Wikipedia articles are supposed to hold a neutral POV and editors are supposed to uphold this neutrality, but what happens when the arbitrarily approved list of secondary sources are themselves overwhelmingly lent to a partisan POV, and the list of unreliable sources almost unanimously conservative?

Counterpolis (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Have you actually read the underlying discussions in which consensus was reached that sources like Breitbart are comically unreliable? Obviously not, because your self-righteous rant is not the least bit convincing.- MrX 🖋 01:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Counterpolis, if you disagree with the designations for Breitbart News (RSP entry) and the BBC (RSP entry), the only way to challenge the existing community consensus is to start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. This list is just a summary of past discussions. See Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-12-24/Discussion report § "Apparent left-wing bias in deprecating mostly right-wing sources" for my hypothesis of why most of the deprecated sources (as of December 2018) have a right-wing bias. — Newslinger talk 02:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Reboot to specifically address Fox News (talk shows). Please participate

Please join the discussion at Reboot to specifically address Fox News (talk shows) -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Talking Points Memo

I can't find any mention or discussion of Talking Points Memo. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The Oracle

Is the newspaper publication written by the University of Florida in Tampa considered reliable? http://www.usforacle.com 204.186.240.186 (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Doubtful, but WP:RSN is the place to ask. --Ronz (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

New static Media Bias Chart 5.1

Announcement from adfontesmedia:

"Thanks for all your feedback on both the interactive and static versions of the Media Bias Chart! We are continuously striving to make this a better and better resource over time. We received quite a few requests to make the static version a little friendlier for downloading, zooming in, and printing. Specifically, we got quite a bit of feedback that though people appreciate the precision and data on the 5.0 interactive version of the chart, the overlapping logos on the static version made it harder to share and use in classrooms and presentations. Here's our solution!"

• New static Media Bias Chart 5.1

Enjoy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

SPS and Quackwatch

This may be of interest [5]. Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I would like to challenge the current wording of this page ("Quackwatch is a self-published source").

I compiled a list of all prior RSNB discussions and I personally don't see anything there strong enough to support such a statement.

Prior RSNB discussions

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Stephen Barrett "Why are we throwing skepticism out the window because of the specific wording of Wikipedia policy, when the obvious intent of Wikipedia's sourcing policies are to keep us citing independent, reliable sources instead of those with a vested interest in promoting their employers' products?" Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2#QuackWatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Plural medicine, tradition and modernity (Mentions Quackwatch and whether a book criticizing Quackwatch is an SPS, but no discussion about Quackwatch being an SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#Quackwatch etc (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery "WP:SPS allows for this sort of sources "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.": This guy meets this with flying colors for the field of medicine and of quackery in medicine" but no actual discussion about whether Quackwatch is an SPS Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 55#How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"? (Discussion about SPS in the last four comments of the thread) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 118#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 146#Could Quackwatch, Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer be used to affirm that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudoscientist? (No mention of SPS, but the article being discussed is a BLP) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 148#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 223#Two sources in the lede of Alkaline diet (Discussion about Quackwatch, No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 252#Climatefeedback.org (a climate science fact-checking website) "[Climatefeedback.org is] Not technically WP:SPS. In order to be "self-published", a website must be under the sole proprietorship of a single person or definable ideological group. This is not the case with this source which is simply a fact-checking website. Compare Snopes, TalkOrigins, or Quackwatch" Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal#Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal

In order to avoid fragmenting the discussion, I would ask that any comments about whether Quackwatch is or is not a SPS be posted at the link Slatersteven posted above, and that discussion here be limited to the question of whether this page should temporarily remove the claim "Quackwatch is a self-published source" because it is currently a disputed claim. It can be put back if the consensus turns out to be that it is a SPS, but in my opinion the consensus isn't there yet. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please can we keep this discussion in one forum, not 5.Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, Guy Macon. I'll review everything and respond in the noticeboard discussion. — Newslinger talk 20:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

When it concludes, we need to make sure that the discussion is properly closed by an uninvolved editor. Specifically, uninvolved with WP:FRINGE.- MrX 🖋 20:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

In the interim, I've noted that the "self-published source" descriptor is disputed, with a link to this discussion. — Newslinger talk 22:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

While we're looking at the entry, I think A 2007 Arbitration Committee finding describes Quackwatch as a "partisan site". should be removed, and am rather surprised it's there. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, that finding was included because it was mentioned in five of the linked discussions, excluding the currently active one:

1. Quackwatch (2007)
2. Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery (2009)
3. How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"? (2010)
4. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 13 § Is Quackwatch a reliable source? (2015)
5. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 16 § Proposal to address Quackwatch by name in this guideline (2015)

A source's description in this list typically notes when the source is considered biased or opinionated. For Quackwatch, many of the editors in the discussions who argued that Quackwatch is partisan referred to the 2007 Arbitration Committee finding. If editors did not refer to the ArbCom finding, it would not be mentioned in Quackwatch's entry here. — Newslinger talk 22:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned? That's it? Take a look again, especially in the context of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal#Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The 2009 motion modified (in Special:Diff/170373080/262218213) the section header of the 2007 finding from "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" to "Sources used by Fyslee", but did not change the "partisan sites" wording in the finding's text.

As an interim measure, I've changed the sentence in Quackwatch's entry from "A 2007 Arbitration Committee finding describes Quackwatch as a 'partisan site'." to "Some editors consider Quackwatch a partisan source (disputed), citing a 2007 Arbitration Committee finding." while the source is under discussion. Please feel free to make further adjustments to the entry if needed, but I don't think it would be correct to completely remove all mentions of bias/partisanship from the description based on the past discussions.

Considering the scope of the disagreement around Quackwatch's classifications, I think the best way forward would be to start an RfC that asks:

• Whether Quackwatch is generally reliable in its areas of expertise,
• Whether Quackwatch is a self-published source, and
• Whether Quackwatch is a biased or opinionated source

The active noticeboard discussion would be the best place to hold a workshop on the wording of this RfC.​ — Newslinger talk 01:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "Quackwatch is a self-published source (disputed)" meets all of my objections, consider it de-challenged, at least by me.

I beg anyone considering posting an RfC to post a pre-RFC and gathering comments on the RfC wording and the proposed location for posting it first. We have had far too many cases recently where someone posts an RfC and someone else immediately responds by claiming (rightly or wrongly) that the RfC is invalid, deceptively worded, posted in the wrong place, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it makes more sense to focus on the RfC than on the past discussions, since the RfC will eventually override all of the other discussions. I've shared my RfC format suggestion at WP:RSN § Workshop on Quackwatch RfC. Feel free to use it, tweak it, or propose something different. — Newslinger talk 05:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The current wording is "Quackwatch is a self-published source (disputed) written by a subject-matter expert." That is flat out incorrect. It should be amended to "Articles written by Stephen Barrett at Quackwatch are self-published sources (disputed) written by a subject-matter expert."

Most of the content at QW is not written by Barrett. It may appear so when one looks at many of the articles on the index page, but that's just the surface of a huge database of information and content authored by others. Let's get this right. Pinging Newslinger. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The current discussion is also about the specific use of QW on BLPs, not about the general use of QW:

• WP:SPS says: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. (emphasis in original)

That issue should be mentioned because, otherwise, people will get the impression that QW cannot be used in other situations. Even the ArbCom decision and discussion makes it clear that QW can be used in all other situation, but on a case-by-case basis, exactly like we would do with any other RS.

Therefore this wording should be added to the above:

• Articles by Barrett are SPS and should not be used about the person in a BLP article, but can be used about their false claims.

The last phrase can be discussed, but that should be the intent of the SPS prohibition, as implied by the way QW was handled in the ArbCom case. They handled it in the general sense (can be used in all articles on a case-by-case basis). The SPS issue was never brought up at all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi BullRangifer, I've changed "Quackwatch is a self-published source (disputed) written by a subject-matter expert." to "Articles authored by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch are self-published source (disputed) written by a subject-matter expert; WP:BLPSPS applies for these articles." as an interim measure, although the final wording should be determined by RfC. Please feel free to make further adjustments.

Keep in mind that Quackwatch is classified as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply". Most self-published sources are automatically considered generally unreliable, but the fact that Stephen Barrett is a subject-matter expert activates the relevant sentence in WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I think it's clear that Quackwatch can be used for content unrelated to living persons, and any editor who invokes WP:SPS for Quackwatch's non-BLP content should be reminded of the exception for subject-matter experts. — Newslinger talk 00:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The previous version of the wording was restored by MrX in Special:Diff/924800998. I agree with MrX's reasoning, but thought that BullRangifer's more restrictive wording was an acceptable compromise (in the interim) until an RfC on Quackwatch is completed. There are many cases when sources with more than one author are considered self-published (e.g. group blogs), and we need an RfC to clarify this for Quackwatch. — Newslinger talk 01:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to wait until until the RfC determines how to classify this site before adding elaborate explanations that don't represent consensus. I am not comfortable with this wording. - MrX 🖋 01:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's focus on the RfC. If the current wording of the entry is controversial enough, we can blank the the entire description until the RfC is closed. I think the "(disputed)" labels are enough for now, but others might disagree. — Newslinger talk 01:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, your edit summary reads: "This is not accurate. It implies that the other articles published on the his website are not self-published, which may or may not be the case. This needs to be resplved properly through an RFC. I will explain further on the talk page if necessary."

That's a puzzling interpretation of secondary or tertiary sources. Barrett operates QW, therefore his articles published there are primary SPS. That does not apply to anyone elses' articles; they are secondary or tertiary sources, and definitely not SPS. It's not their website. Some have not been published elsewhere, and some have. The situation for those only published at QW is like an article in a newspaper, where there is an Editor-in-Chief, in this case Barrett. QW is therefore the secondary source we can use.

BTW, many of the tertiary sources are no longer available elsewhere, which is one reason why the website is so valued. Some are historical documents, others are scientific research, governmental reports, legal decisions, and consumer education material from official agencies. The older stuff is often not available anywhere else. While the URL for the ref may be QW, the actual source is the original, and should be attributed to the original source. We do this all the time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Marking it as "disputed" should be fine. If there is disagreement about whether previous discussions have been correctly summarized, we can evaluate that here. We should not conflate "source articles" with "source publications". As I have said before, if a third party article on quackwatch is deemed reliable, then it will have been published elsewhere. That is the source that should be cited, since we do not usually cite WP:TERTIARY sources.- MrX 🖋 01:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened here but BullRangifer's comment seems out of place here. It was made almost an hour after mine, but somehow it appears above mine and is outdented. Did someone do some creative refactoring?- MrX 🖋 13:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as "partisan" is concerned, maybe we just need better guidelines for RSP on how we present it? As far as editing is concerned, aren't the areas where it's partisan, and when to attribute it, most important? --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

​The word partisan (WP:PARTISAN) is just a synonym for the phrase biased or opinionated (WP:BIASED – which points to the same section). The only effect of classifying a source as partisan is that editors are advised to use in-text attribution for that source, and this is covered in WP:PARTISAN. — Newslinger talk 00:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The ArbCom decision should have been withdrawn because it's clearly outside their scope. The decision has been misused, and continues to be misused.

Would it be inappropriate to simply remove it from the RSP entry at this time? --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Speaking for myself only, I have no objection to removing the Arbcom reference. This is supposed to a summary of consensus building discussions, not findings of facts or remedies from specific Arbcom cases. - MrX 🖋 18:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The arbcom reference appears to be in direct contradiction of Wikipedia:Arbitration#Scope of arbitration, which says:

"The Committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to resolve the conduct issues have failed, and will make rulings to address problems in the editorial community. However it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"), so users should not ask the Committee to make these kinds of decisions. It will not do so".

Decisions about the nature of sources should be made by the consensus of the community, not by the Arbitration Committee. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think about QW, ArbCom's opinion about a source is well outside their remit, and completely irrelevant to the normal editorial decision making process. We cannot force them to respect the limits of their mandate, but we can certainly quietly ignore them when they do not. We should not include the ruling in this list, because it gives the impression that it means something. GMG^talk 18:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

No objections to the removal, either. Thanks, Ronz, for removing it. — Newslinger talk 23:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the removal as well as the statement that it was outside ArbCom's scope. Hopefully that sort of statement hasn't been made by the Committee recently (and of course that I never made such a statement when I was an Arb :-). Doug Weller talk 16:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Not that I understand exactly how this works, but if almost no-one new is now saying its *partisan*, how about removing *Some editors consider Quackwatch a partisan source.(disputed)* completely. Because they were only regurgitating what the arb-com had previously said, not necessarily agreeing with it.

From https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/partisan "partisan adjective UK strongly supporting a person, principle, or political party, often without considering or judging the matter very carefully: The audience was very partisan, and refused to listen to her speech. partisan politics" 05:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatCafe (talk • contribs)

If it helps, I'm inclined to say that it is partisan. That's sort-of the point of the source. - Bilby (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Most editors prefer not to ask a partisanship/bias question in the upcoming RfC. However, RfC surveys allow for open-ended explanations, and editors who wish to express an opinion on perceived partisanship/bias will probably do so anyway. After the RfC, it will be clear how Quackwatch should be classified and described here. — Newslinger talk 07:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

​One more thing: I want to note that bias is not necessarily a bad thing. WP:BIASED/WP:PARTISAN states, "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." This list treats reliability and bias independently. There are sources whose biases do not compromise their reliability: a good example is the Southern Poverty Law Center (RSP entry), which is considered both generally reliable and biased. — Newslinger talk 07:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

New subpage for the QW talk page

I have created a new subpage, which is then linked to from the talk page:

• Talk:Quackwatch/Use of Quackwatch as a source

Feel free to improve it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration with Cite Unseen project

There is an ongoing discussion to integrate the data from this list into the Cite Unseen project. Here's the description from the project page:

Cite Unseen is a Wikipedia user script that helps readers quickly evaluate the sources used in a given English Wikipedia article. The script adds iconic indicators to identified sources that indicate various attributes of the source, such as if the source is a news article, opinion piece, or government-controlled. This allows readers to quickly and easily identify the potential orientation and possible ideological biases of the sources used in an article they are reading.

Cite Unseen is actively developed by SuperHamster and Sky Harbor, who gave a presentation ("Cite Unseen: A Year Hence") at WikiConference North America in the past week. You can install the current beta version of the script at Cite Unseen (source).

If you're interested in collaborating with the Cite Unseen project, please join the discussion at m:Talk:Cite Unseen. — Newslinger talk 02:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Discussion

Starting this thread because there was some interest at WikiCon NA to discuss this page further. Happy to report that most everyone seems very enthusiastic to find out about this, and there was a good deal of optimistic talk about how to potentially improve it. GMG^talk 17:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That's good news. I look forward to hearing some of the ideas.- MrX 🖋 01:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear the positive response. Will the feedback be published somewhere? (See also the collaboration opportunity with the Cite Unseen project in the section below.) — Newslinger talk 02:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Newsweek, Deadspin, and the danger of this list

In reading the Ringer's coverage of the upheaval in Sports Journalism the idea of Zombie publications plays prominently. This seems inspired by this piece from Slate. The Slate piece just takes it for granted that Newsweek, currently listed as "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise" is no longer a good source. And with articles like this last week from the Columbia Journalism Review that assertion hardly seems offbase. I would suggest that the radical editorial overhaul at Sports Illustrated and now Deadspin in the last couple of weeks casts a long shadow over any coverage of theirs going forward. A source like SI was, for most of its editorial life, was as a reliable of a source (in its area of expertise) as a weekly magazine can be. The fact that it's not anymore presents problems for us here on Wikipedia. "Fortunately" since it's not listed we don't have any problems here on RSP. Nor is Deadspin listed. So nothing needs to change for either of these.

But Newsweek is listed here and worse an argument can be made, and I would certainly be willing to make it, that Newsweek has in fact not been a reliable source for at least two years and likely longer - or in other words it has not been a reliable source since before this page was created and labeled it a reliable source. The last substantive discussion also seems to largely agree with me. But it wasn't properly formed as an RfC so Newsweek continues its green status and is being added by some number of conscientious editors to articles thinking "yeah that's a good source." And because of the recent RfC it doesn't even feel appropriate for me to just go to RSN and bring up the CJR article (and The Atlantic article and the Wall Street Journal article and the Politico article if you want three of many RSP approved sources who've covered Newsweek's downfall). How in this age of media tumult where reliable source can go from hot to not in the blink of an eye - do we keep this list itself reliable and avoid putting a stamp of approval on sources that might no longer be reliable? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

This has occurred to me also. The only solution I can think of is for someone to start a new discussion whenever a sources falls from grace. That said, I doubt Deadspin has ever been a particularly reliable source for our purposes..- MrX 🖋 02:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree Deadspin is not so likely to have found its way onto the list as generally reliable, but SI certainly would have if we didn't take it so for granted that it was never discussed at RSN and Newsweek did. This is why I tried to focus on them more than Deadspin. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that if you have new articles written in RS like the ones mentioned above that's grounds for starting a new RSN RfC, provided that these sources were not discussed in a prior discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

That's probably true. And seems worth doing. But I don't want to lose sight of my larger points - how do we handle the fact that reliable sources can rapidly become unreliable and that some damage is done, because of this list in the time between the source becoming unreliable and Wikipedia formally recognizing this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here isn't RSP, it's that sources can change in quality over time. Any reliable source is one Claas Relotius away from spewing falsehoods. Any source listed at RSP has faced far more public scrutiny than the typical editor is likely to conduct when using an article, and individual editors aren't necessarily going to be up to date on whether Newsweek is reliable either. At the end of the day, I think that the question of whether RSP is useful at all is just a version of "Is Wikipedia useful at all" in miniature. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that the radical editorial overhaul at Sports Illustrated and now Deadspin in the last couple of weeks casts a long shadow over any coverage of theirs going forward. I want to make sure I understand the claim being made here. The proposal is that the editorial board expecting Deadspin writers to stick to sports coverage and avoid political content, is expected to make them less reliable as a source for sports coverage? 70.26.87.27 (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The editorial staff resigning en mass makes them less reliable but their reliability, or not, isn't really the point here (that discussion would belong where someone added them as a source or at RSN). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC is the best way to reassess sources like Newsweek (RSP entry), when there is new evidence that significantly contradicts the source's longstanding classification. None of the 7 previous Newsweek discussions were RfCs, so a new RfC would override all of the previous discussions. (Of course, editors participating in the new RfC would refer to the contents of the previous discussions and consider them alongside the new evidence.) The moratorium RfC was closed as no consensus, and Newsweek looks like a case where starting an RfC would be the most practical way to ask the community whether this source should be handled with more caution. — Newslinger talk 01:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

To raise a related question, what if a source slowly becomes less reliable without any change of management or mass firing/quitting that we can point to? What if it slowly starts being unreliable about some things while remaining reliable about others? How do we handle that situation? An RfC is a poor tool because a large number of the comments end up being about the areas where the source is still reliable. In my opinion, the SPLC is an example of this.[6][7] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that our most likely chance of catching a slow decline in quality would be if a publication like CJR picks up on and reports it. Once well-regarded sources pick up on a change in a source's quality, it doesn't really matter if it was a precipitous change or a gradual one.

This does leave the door open for problems if no one notices a decline in quality, although I'm uncertain that there's anything that could be done to address that situation. In theory we could have a regular review of highly cited sources on RSP (say, every 2 years), but I imagine that in order for that to actually be effective it would take an enormous amount of work, and I don't know that we have enough editors to be able to effectively conduct such an audit. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggested text for Gateway Pundit deprecation

The Gateway Pundit just got deprecated. How's this for its entry? Any URLs that need adding?

|- class="s-d" id="The_Gateway_Pundit"
| data-sort-value="Gateway Pundit" | ''[[The Gateway Pundit]]''
| {{/Status|d}}
| {{rsnl||RfC: "The Gateway Pundit" (October)|2019|rfc=y}}
{{rsnl|256|Among low-quality sources, the most popular websites are right-wing sources|1}}
| {{/Last|2019}}
| ''The Gateway Pundit'' was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site was unacceptable as a source. It is unreliable for statements of fact, and given to hoax articles and reporting conspiracy theories as fact.
| {{/Uses|thegatewaypundit.com|}}

Who else do we need to tell? XLinkBot? Editing tags? Is there a list? - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you add a diff to "the 2019 RfC"? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

When I tested the link to {{rsnl||RfC: "The Gateway Pundit" (October)|2019|rfc=y}} it went to the present discussion, and is trivially changeable when the discussion gets archived. (I cribbed that one from the entry for the Daily Caller, and twiddled it for Gateway Pundit.) If there's a proper place to put the diff, please do so!

I was more wanting to check the wording of the explanation was reasonable :-) When fans of terrible sources try to edit-war them in, they always refer back to the line on WP:RSP, so I wanted to get it right - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

ToThAc I'm not sure your present text correctly summarises the RFC. It seems to encourage use far more than the tone of the RFC - David Gerard (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I see. What I don't understand is the part about "[...] and given to hoax articles and reporting conspiracy theories as fact." Maybe I'm a bit confused here, but what is that even supposed to mean? ToThAc (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It's ... given to publishing hoax articles, and it's given to reporting conspiracy theories as fact - what part of the sentence is ambiguous? - David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@David Gerard: The "and given to hoax articles" part. It appears to disrupt the sentence flow. ToThAc (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

well, whatever changes make it clearer then :-) - David Gerard (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The XLinkBot request is at User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList § thegatewaypundit.com and the CiteWatch entry has been added to User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg § WP:RSP. Over the next week, I'll work on documenting all of the steps needed to maintain this list, to make it more approachable for any editor to help out.

The suggested copy works pretty well, although I agree that adding the word publishing (i.e. "given to publishing hoax articles") would make it clearer. I've changed the summary to this version. Feel free to tweak it to make it better. — Newslinger talk 11:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

cheers :-) The site isn't actually used as a source anywhere ... I replaced the one article-space usage I could find, and I actually added it to the site's own article - David Gerard (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at VPR that may be of interest.

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#On the use of deprecated sources for a discussion on how to treat deprecated sources. Please make proposals at that location (not here), and comment on any existing proposals that others have made. --Jayron32 19:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

is the list an authority

I've seen users sometimes misunderstand the actual nature of the list. I added a sentence :

The list has no authority of its own. It's the discussions that have the authority--the list is intended as an accurate summary and shortcut.

In this sense, it's similar to Common Outcomes, The authority behind Common Outcomes is the AFDs it summarizes. (and since the nature of AfD discussions is to be variable, it's often proven very difficult to get a proper wording for the summaries). Fortunately. most of our source discussions do reach a consistent conclusion, and the list here I think almost always does accurately summarize the discussion. (Whether or not one agrees with the results of the discussions). DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Good one - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The wording has been adjusted a couple of times. Feel free to reword if necessary. I don't think WP:RSPUSE or WP:RSPIMPROVE have been extensively copyedited yet. — Newslinger talk 01:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Verified interviews and opinion pieces

Should an exception be added for verified interviews and opinion pieces by notable individuals for certain sites on this list?

Examples:

• The following text was removed from Thaddeus McCotter 2012 presidential campaign because the interview was with The Daily Caller

"McCotter continued his efforts to be included in the debates in September. In an interview with The Daily Caller he said the other candidates "don't understand what's wrong with the economy, let alone how to fix it",<ref name="bolton">{{cite news|url=http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/09/gop-presidential-candidate-thaddeus-mccotter-on-why-he-should-be-allowed-to-debate/|title=GOP presidential candidate Thaddeus McCotter on why he should be allowed to debate|last=Pappas|first=Alex|date=September 9, 2011|work=The Daily Caller|accessdate=March 13, 2012}}{{deprecated inline|certain=yes}}</ref> and that foreign policy was not being discussed enough. He observed that since former United Nations ambassador John R. Bolton announced he would not run for president, foreign policy discussion had ceased. McCotter hoped the next president would select Bolton as Secretary of State.<ref name="bolton"/>"

However, the official Twitter for McCotter @ThadMcCotter recognized @McCotter2012hq as the official Twitter for the 2012 campaign, which retweeted the interview, verifying the interview was a factual representation of the campaign's stances.

• The following text was removed from the same article because it references an opinion piece from The Daily Caller:

"According to Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller, McCotter was "The Red Eye candidate", who represented a subculture of "creative think[ing]" libertarian-leaning Republicans, who enjoy rock music.<ref name="re">{{cite web|url=http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/24/the-red-eye-candidate/|title=The Red Eye candidate?|last=Lewis|first=Matt|authorlink=Matt Lewis (journalist)|date=May 24, 2011|work=[[The Daily Caller]]|accessdate=August 3, 2013}}{{deprecated inline|certain=yes}}</ref>"

However, it is merely for stating the opinion of the notable journalist Matt K. Lewis, who is now the senior columnist for the The Daily Beast. Lewis's verified twitter account linked to the article, confirming he did in fact write it.

Thanks.William S. Saturn (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Probably not, but this is not the right venue. This page is for discussing entries that summarize previous discussions. This should be discussed at WP:RSN. - MrX 🖋 13:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Italics

What do they mean (on the 1st column)? Why are some names italicised, others not? Guarapiranga (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

​We match the italicization of the main article. For example, Ars Technica (RSP entry) is italicized, while the Associated Press (RSP entry) is not. The article title follows MOS:ITALIC, which refers to MOS:MAJORWORK: newspapers and magazines are always italicized, but websites are in a gray area and we usually look at coverage in reliable sources to determine whether we should italicize the name of a website. — Newslinger talk 23:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The Irish Sun

Would it be alright to add The Irish Sun (without the link) under The Sun (UK) in the same box in the sources section of the project page? The Irish Sun is part of The Sun as can be seen on that page and The Irish Sun links to The Sun (United Kingdom)'s page. Its just that the way it is curently stated does not make it clear from looking at the table alone that this includes the Ireland addition, as the Repbulic of Ireland is a different country to the United Kingdom. Helper201 (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'm inclined to support adding it, since The Irish Sun shares some content with The Sun (RSP entry), including entertainment news (and Dear Deidre). The quality of the rest of the content appears to be similar. This applies to The Sun's other regional editions as well. Perhaps some other editors can chime in. — Newslinger talk 14:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Just to be clear, I also support adding it to the list. Helper201 (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

​I think it would be better if this question were asked in a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, instead of in an RfC here. This is because the noticeboard gets much more traffic (over 30 times more in the last month) than this talk page. Would this be acceptable to you? — Newslinger talk 07:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That is completely fine with me. Would you mind posting it there please as I have no experience posing there and you seem more familiar with this than me? However, I can give it a go if you are pushed for time. Helper201 (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

​Sure, the post is now at WP:RSN § Regional editions of The Sun. Since there is an unusually high number of active RfCs on the noticeboard, I've started this as a normal discussion instead of an RfC. If it gets controversial enough, we can promote the discussion to an RfC. — Newslinger talk 08:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you. Helper201 (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for bringing this up. — Newslinger talk 08:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Added. Hi Helper201, the noticeboard discussion has been archived here. Since there was no opposition, I've added The Irish Sun and The Scottish Sun as aliases and additional domains of The Sun (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 11:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, thank you for your help, really appreciate it. Helper201 (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Scottish Sun cleared, working on Irish Sun (mostly sports or pop culture, but also quite replaceable) - are they in the relevant bots and editing tags? - David Gerard (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

whoops, my search was wrong - 663 Scottish Sun to go, tralala ... - David Gerard (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

​Thanks for taking these removals head-on! I've requested auto-reverting from XLinkBot at User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList § Regional editions of The Sun, and any admin can handle the request with the instructions at the top of User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList. — Newslinger talk 11:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Beetstra has added the domains to the auto-revert lists. — Newslinger talk 11:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

it's a slightly more productive way to waste time than playing Angry Birds ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Currently down to 89 uses of thesun.ie, and only 25 uses of thescottishsun.co.uk! The remaining ones require a little effort, but it'll be worth it - feel free to join in replacing these if you're supernaturally bored - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I addressed a few, but I'm hesitant to remove the sports-related citations. Many of the remaining ones are sports-related, although I suppose they can be replaced instead of removed. — Newslinger talk 01:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

yeah, that's why they're work - I've been trying to replace them, and only removing if there are literally zero other sources for the claims, which is frequently the case with the more interesting or colourful claims, which look very like The Sun making stuff up - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Both now at 0! Next numbers to get down: thesun.co.uk, dailymail.co.uk - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Bloomberg News / Decision not to investigate Michael Bloomberg

I believe we should consider adding a note regarding Bloomberg News and the 2020 US election in light of the outlet announcing a policy of not investigating Michael Bloomberg or any democratic candidates, due to its ties to candidate Michael Bloomberg: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/24/bloomberg-news-will-not-investigate-mike-bloomberg-or-his-democratic-rivals-during-primary.html

Former Bloomberg bureau chief has criticized that decision, saying it bars "talented reporters and editors from covering massive, crucial aspects of one of the defining elections of our time" and calling the decision "not journalism": https://twitter.com/meganmurp/status/1198665230273974272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fmedia%2Fbloomberg-news-not-investigating-bloomberg-democrats

As a result, the Houston Chronicle has dropped Bloomberg as a source for its campaign coverage: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/474333-houston-chronicle-stops-using-bloomberg-news-wire-stories-for-campaign

Candidate Michael Bloomberg has responded to criticism, saying employees at his organization "just have to learn to live with some things": https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/06/media/michael-bloomberg-reporters-investigate-democrats/index.html

Perhaps a note could be added here along the lines of "Because of the outlet's ties to Democratic Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, the outlet has recused itself from investigative coverage of the Democratic field in the 2020 election. Source should be used with caution regarding Michael Bloomberg and the Democratic primaries."

Or something along those lines? Just getting the conversation started. MaximumIdeas (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey MaximumIdeas. For discussions regarding the reliability of individual sources, you should post at the reliable sources noticeboard so that it can get broad community participation. All that this page really does is summarize discussions that take place at venues like RSN, rather than duplicate the purpose of RSN as a generally discussion board about sources. GMG^talk 17:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! MaximumIdeas (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)