Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 382

Archive 375

←

Archive 380

Archive 381

Archive 382

Archive 383

Archive 384

Archive 385

Is this a reliable source?

I'm trying to add this page (https://outdoorlights.store/blogs/lights/solar-lights-benefits) as a source to a content section about the benefits of solar lights. This is a well-written and well-referenced article from a leading manufacturer and solar lighting expert. However, a moderator keeps reverting this citation due to this site being "commercial"? I do know that academic and non-commercial sites should always be preferred but I do believe this is a relevant and reliable source. What are your thoughts?

It's also worth noting that this Wiki entry already cites other "commercial" sites so I don't understand the double standards. Thanks for your help :) Tiago Miguel Antunes Pereira (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the wiki entry: Solar lamp (Benefits section) Tiago Miguel Antunes Pereira (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it is a wp:sps, by a manufacturer (that does not in fact make them a subject expert, but does raise were concerns about how independent they are). Please read wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The reason for removal is not simply because it's commercial (or that it's an SPS per above -- linking to that policy or RS won't help at all). It's neither well-written nor well-referenced (all the references point to other stores, or just a simplistic explanation of lumen ratings, or a DOE public info page. It is utterly meaningless. There are hundreds of sources out there that actually explain what a solar lamp actually does or goes into detail with concepts like life cycle etc. You linked to simply a promo page that is effectively just saying "solar lamps are great and help save money and the environment" without actually going into or referencing the rigorous study that making such quantitative claims requires. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

As a general comment to experienced editors, a new editor is looking to (from their perspective) contribute to one article in one manner that they think they can. They are not here to learn policy from scratch. WP:BITE and WP:CRYPTIC don't have to explain why you shouldn't barrage newbies with a million policy abbreviations -- you just obviously shouldn't. If you don't want to address something specific, here are some general questions to ask a newcomer when they are looking to add an inappropriate source/link:

1. Does your source look similar in publication form and function to the other sources in the page?

2. Does the information your source adds to the page seem like the type of information (quantification, history, opinions, summaries, etc.) other sources here are used for?

• If so, could other types of sources provide that information in a more rigorous way?
• If not, is the information worthwhile for an encyclopedia?

3. Does the source cite other sources? If so, could those be better to use?

"If none of the above, consider posting your source on the article's Talk page and await a response. Remember, this is not a newspaper -- there is no deadline." Something like this might be worth adding to Wikipedia:How Wikipedia looks to newbies, but nobody reads that anyway (it's a useful expansionary essay on BITE imo). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

As for the other stuff in the article, I have just removed one external link that was useless. Other links are also subject to review and removal as is appropriate. - Donald Albury 15:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Specific case of using Instagram, with limited reason to suspect falsified information

I'm aware this is a one-off case, and the note in the page header encourages posting on the specific article's talkpage first, however, I believe I will be more likely to receive a response here.

Recently, I have been in the process of improving the page of the Australian TV series The Newsreader, and decided to scour Instagram for any potential sources of information about the production of the show. I am aware of the general rule to question, and largely avoid, using that as a source for information, but so far if I have included information from there in the article, it has been from recognisably reliable accounts (such as the show creator, and cast members). In my search, I came across what could be called a fan account for the show, having earlier this year posted multiple times about information they claim to have received through having been part of a virtual 'Write Night' hosted by the Australian Writers' Guild in which the show creator spoke about the development of the show (which legitimately did happen); it is these posts, which I list below, that I am asking whether could be considered reliable or not, and so appropriate to include the information within them into the article.

• https://www.instagram.com/p/CdFJykRP5n1/
  • for example, this link is to a post that includes a passage reading "Michael Lucas started to create the show in late 2014/early 2015. The integral Helen and Dale relationship and characterisation was ultimately how it is now, however their profession was not yet decided. Michael mentioned that Helen at one point was a nurse!". Another reads: "The show had a working title called ‘Lavender Marriage’, and it was going to initially be two people who were married out of necessity and convenience - not necessarily for love." These could then be referred to, if included in the article, as something like "The show was originally devised under the working title Lavender Marriage across late 2014 and early 2015, with the plot centred on "two people who were married out of necessity and convenience - not necessarily for love"; by this point, the relationship between Helen and Dale had already been outlined, but their professions not, with the position as a nurse considered for Helen briefly.*ref tag here*")
• https://www.instagram.com/p/CdLIHQvPdp4/
• https://www.instagram.com/p/CdP5_HRPkHi/
• https://www.instagram.com/p/CdP8Pndv0aF/
• https://www.instagram.com/p/CdVrOoxPWZc/
• https://www.instagram.com/p/Cdf4NPlvCnM/
• https://www.instagram.com/p/CdqA25wP66R/
• https://www.instagram.com/p/Cds99RFv-HS/
• https://www.instagram.com/p/CdvQspiPjD5/

I see little reason why the account holder would provide incorrect information given their obvious enjoyment of the show and a will to accurately represent it - even less reason for them to do so with deliberate intent and purposely deceive followers and readers who come across the post - yet I understand the wariness of using Instagram posts as a source, and sources in any respect that are clearly fan-run. It is possible the information the user posts is elsewhere (there's a couple of interviews with the creator and cast I found - from reliable and recognised media sources - that I haven't have a chance to look at/into yet), and if so that could help back-up the reliability of the source in question here, but the amount of crossover between the information I have already found and that the account's posts provide is minimal (although exists; for instance, in the quoted text, the show's creator talks of the show originating as just the fact the main characters were in a relationship for a time before the show's set-up was developed further, which has been discussed in a somewhat similar way elsewhere). Phinbart (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Amended mistake in original post. --Phinbart (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's agree on some things: I'm sure there's disagreement over where the bar should be for reliability on articles of small TV shows and the like, but certainly we agree the bar for inclusion of material is far higher than on say a fandom wiki. I have little doubt about the general accuracy of the things you're describing (except for the ability to reliably manually transcribe that amount of continuous live speech, which is dubious -- when transcribing quotes old-school for an interview and you don't know pro shorthand you just focus on single noteworthy lines, and ask the subject to stop, clarify, repeat etc. regularly) but when the publishing of the material is from a closed Zoom meeting and then a few Instagram posts it's unlikely many other writers from the show have seen it and reviewed what was said/posted for mistakes or mischaracterizations.

Then there's the encyclopedic value of certain material at certain points of time, which is a judgement call: the authors/creators' opinions and intentions about their work is at least significantly irrelevant (see influence -- it's only the standard in pedagogy, but most critics would say the author is at least somewhat dead is my understanding), if not mostly. That said, for obscure or recent unpopular works the likelihood any notable third party reviews them in depth may be unlikely. So what's the encyclopedic relevance (for a non-fandom) of what the creator says beyond say some objective, conceivably easily verified facts (assuming you simply made a phone call or wrote an email, which I imagine none of the editors I've recommended this to have done)? I honestly think only the latter -- something objective that anybody on staff/set who sees stated could instantly either verify or contradict -- would be worth considering printing from material such as this, regardless of the medium of the source. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. From what you've said, I get the sense that the information should only be trusted - and thereby seen as fit to include in the article - if it has been publicly backed up/confirmed as true by the creator, or other senior members of show production/development. The fact I have not seen the information posted elsewhere, such as by someone else having attended the 'Write Night' like a journalist or something, does seem to go against the case for inclusion. The lack of a recording of the meeting apparently publicly available to view is frustrating here, as well.

And, just a hypothetical question, even if I was to engage in correspondence with someone who would be in a position to verify the information, would this have to be done publicly, say via Twitter, as what would one do to prove the creator had said it was true if done privately, say via email; upload a screenshot to the talk page? Or would this be a fruitless, overly complicated endeavour and too much effort for an article on a relatively 'small', as you say, TV show? Phinbart (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes people do it to say on the Talk page, "I emailed the production company, this is how they replied, here's a screenshot and stuff," but that's usually for getting at more nuanced details of source material than whether the source itself is reliable/correct (I've seen people do it to clarify academic articles, and I was minutes away from emailing the literal IMF to ask if they made a typo until someone told me why I was an idiot). But I more recommend it to people so they can demonstrate to themselves what is meant when by information that is easily verified by a third party -- I am completely serious when I suggest people try it, at least once, by telephone, with a live response. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, again. I will await doing anything further here along those lines for the time being in case I manage to find (the more important pieces of) the information from the listed sources, that I would like to include in the article in some form or another, elsewhere (as I mentioned in my original comment, there's creator/cast interviews I haven't had chance to pore over yet), and in case another user happens by here and responds to the original comment themselves. I appreciate your time and lengthy, detailed responses. Phinbart (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

thecompanion.app

We have a person (IP address) who sees to solely focus on the domain thecompanion.app per Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/thecompanion.app. Not certain whether we have a realistic use of the source, or opportunistic abuse. I am hoping that others know something about the domain. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• Based on their "about us" page [1], this is basically a paywalled group blog. The backgrounds of the 5 editors look like they might have some expertise in the area, but I don't see any third parties citing its stories, which is what I'd want to see before treating this site as reliable. Banks Irk (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjnYhKhE52M

This is bieng used in an edit war over the date of death. I doubt it is an RS, but I am in danger of edit warring, so is it? Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course it is not. Andre🚐 16:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

No, in no way it can be considered as a reliable source. Abrvagl (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Well he's the global chief federal court postal court judge and had a book printed on regular printer paper, so he seems legit, right? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, can someone tell the user using it, they are not listening to me. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The OZY citation seems RS to me EvergreenFir (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

MAybe, but it was not the one I raised or they use at first. But looking at this it might be more of a behavioral issue than an RS one. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to link to the article and diff or Talk page dispute. And after you do that, you need to tell the problematic editor yourself. And if it continues to be a problem, proceed with suggestions in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

They have accepted it, now. Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Then we better refer to published paper rather than to YouTube video Abrvagl (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

100% not a reliable source, to the point I'd say it isn't a source, period. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

A Daily Mail interview relayed by The Times

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At Stabbing of Salman Rushdie a Times piece is being used to relay an interview the suspect's mother did with Mail Online. The Times piece (archive link for the full article) says She told MailOnline ..., linking to the Daily Mail piece. Is this covered by WP:DAILYMAIL or is the Times reliability in copying the Mail's interview sufficient here? nableezy - 19:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to the archived version of The Times article. A paywall prevented me from reading more than a couple of paragraphs previously. That article covers much more than the quotation from the mother originally posted on Mail Online. Presumably, the journalists at The Times are as aware as most Wikipedia editors of the Mail's credibility problems. And yet they chose to use thus quotation in their coverage. I think that we should conclude that the quotation is accurate in this specific case, and not falsified. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Im specifically asking about the parts from the Mail, and they are attributing these quotes to the Mail. nableezy - 19:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

My take is that as long as we are sure the source quoting from the unreliable source is one known for its journalistic standards, we can take the quote are being presumed reliable by the republishing source. So yes, the quote could be used in this case. Masem (t) 19:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that this is analogous to similar issues with the National Enquirer, a truly reprehensible publication that occasionally publishes a scoop that turns out to be true. Coverage of John Edwards' affair, the OJ Simpson trial and the murder of Bill Cosby's son come to mind. When actual reliable sources repeat the reporting, that gives that specific reporting legitimacy that it would otherwise lack. Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the foregoing; where a reliable source sees apparent indicia of reliability in a source we think of as something less than reliable, it is the former publication in which we place our trust. Generally speaking, I think such "source laundering" works so long as the RS does not disclaim it either explicitly or implicitly. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable sources are routinely used by reliable sources. Historians for example use literature from the time of the Roman Empire to determine what happened. They also use memoirs and autobiographies to write the biographies of historical figures. We trust the authors of reliable sources to determine what is or is not accurate in unreliable sources, something Wikipedia editors are not permitted to do. So we can assume that the parts of the interview cited in the Times are accurately reported. TFD (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the part I dont get though. The Times isnt saying they verified anything. The only thing the Times supports is that the mother told the Mail these things. And they give the link to the interview. There isnt any claim about anything in the interview besides that it happened and the Mail reported it. But if we are of the position that the Mail cannot even be trusted to accurately quote an interviewee correctly, why would we still quote the interview even if another source says the Mail published this interview and it said XYZ? nableezy - 20:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

If Times journalists believe that the sections quoted are reliable, that is sufficient for us. They have the expertise to determine which statements in the Daily Mail are reliable, and which are not, which Wikipedia editors do not have. Since I must assume the conclusions of "Perennial Sources" are accurate, I don't know based on their reporting alone if Rushdie's mother ever talked to the DM. But if Times reporters said she did, then that is a fact reported in a reliable source. We have no policy based reason to challenge facts reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I just attributed it to the interview to the Mail like the Times did. nableezy - 19:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmm...it's ok for the Times to cite the Daily Mail but Wikipedia cannot. Now that is interesting...source laundering...and that is ok because..? Do you not see the oxymoron here? Atsme 💬 📧 20:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The Times being, of course, famously bound by Wikipedia policy. I'll skip ahead. It's ok because we here at wikipedia bend every possible rule to inconvenience conservatives. You found us out. What wit and dogged investigation it must have taken. Protonk (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, as we all know, Wikipedia is not a reliable source--rather, it is a large agglomeration of user-generated content. As such, you cannot "launder" sources through Wikipedia. A reliable news organization, on the other hand, presumably has some sort of fact-checking, editorial control, and some kind of reputation for accuracy. As such, I expect that even claims which are sourced to some other organization would be vetted to some degree. The stance doesn't seem at all contradictory to me, but then I didn't sleep well last night, so that might affect things. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thx Dumuzid, but...the Times article was published Aug 15, 2022 – the Daily Mail article (interview) was published Aug 14, 2022 – fact-check, really? You think Times just picked up the phone and called Daily Mail to confirm? Seriously...c'mon folks. Why didn't The Times conduct their own interview if Daily Mail is such a terrible unreliable source that we had to deprecate it? This isn't making any sense. Atsme 💬 📧 20:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

If youd like to challenge the consensus on the Daily Mail citing that the Times quoted an interview by them you are free to do so. But as that consensus is a result of a well-attended RFC you'll need to set up an RFC to do so, and I dont really think trying to shift the conversation here in that way is the way to go if that is your goal. Especially given your previously stated concern about how this board used to be about evaluating a specific source in a specific context and that it is an error to stray from that. Youre straying from exactly that right now. This is about a specific article, thats it. nableezy - 20:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Atsme, The Times apparently saw enough indicia of reliability in the interview that they were willing to publish it themselves. That doesn't mean they exhaustively fact-checked every possible detail of the story. To be sure, sometimes sources don't endorse like this -- a common example I can think of is where there's a note to the effect that one source could not match another's reporting. But, where as here, a reliable source apparently adopts the reporting of one deemed not-so-reliable by Wikipedia, that's enough for me. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Dumuzid (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Protonk, please keep the sarcasm down. That reply, while not a PA, wasn't CIVIL either. Springee (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Who's being sarcastic? I'm just letting everyone in on the secrets of the cabal. Protonk (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see an issue here. Regardless of whether or not any fact checking was done, The Times is, in effect, staking part of their reputation on the trustworthiness of the interview conducted by the Daily Mail. The consequences to The Times should it later be found out that the Mail misrepresented or otherwise falsified part or all of the interview is on them. For our part, we have had multiple discussions and RfCs on the reliability of the Mail, and those aren't really changed by a solitary or minority of re-uses of interviews conducted by the Mail and reprinted in whole or part in other sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• I would say this all falls under “use common sense and occasional exceptions apply”, and WP:IAR. We can cite a deprecated source in specific cases when there is consensus that doing so makes a particular article better. Deprecation is NOT a ban. Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Exactly, so why deprecate sources to begin with? We do not need WP:RSP to make those determinations for us – that is the purpose of RSN – and there are too many cons for RSP, including the fact that consensus can change. I'm saving the link to this discussion. Atsme 💬 📧 21:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Presumably, 24 hours is enough time for The Times to have communicated with the mother of the accused to ask one simple question: did MailOnline quote you accurately? Cullen328 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• The Mail group is deprecated for the simple reason that they regularly publish stories that are untrue. So the question here is, did they make this up as well? I'd suggest that even the Mail would be unlikely to falsify an interview, because they don't like being sued. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Source deprecation is nothing more than a filtering system that is put in place to prevent the project from being overwhelmed with garbage. If a source's "garbage-to-useful content" ratio is high, then it's deemed to be a net negative and treated as such. The same principle is applied to decisions on whether to block editors who also happen to make useful contributions. M.Bitton (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the correct idea inline, but a proper full citation footnote should read something like: Author-Date, Daily Mail <http/originaldailymailarticle>, as quoted in Author-Date, Times <http/originaltimesarticle> (or alternate citation phrasing). Suck in your pride and embrace the requirement to link to a deprecated source, ya punks. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to link to the the primary source (DM) since we're reporting what has been published by a secondary source. M.Bitton (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Ninja EC: my edit summary read "you still have to link the Mail if you cite it". This is not strictly true for secondary citations, as they only should conform to whatever shortened citation format you are using and do not need a full citation in the bibliography. It is not necessary to provide further bibliographic info than the minimum unless that given by the source in the primary citation is not sufficient (author-date-title-newspaper should be enough, but a link would be better.) The concern is user-centric however -- if you found it difficult to find the primary article, you might as well provide a link. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• There was a very lengthy, in-depth discussion about Daily Mail, & related topics: at Jimbo's TP. Part of his comment that speaks volumes here & in the Fox disussion follows: The point of Wikipedia policy is not, and should never be, about dislike or politics or anything like that, but about quality. The Mail is a low quality source. This classic example of fake news has been online for 7 years. (Debunked: [11], [12], [13], [14].) ¶ Going back to the original inquiry, I do stand by my statement but would need to strengthen it. "No, that is not true. It is true that the Daily Mail is not preferred as a source, but there is no absolute ban on using it" is what I said. In light of the quoted statement, I would now say: "No, that is not true. It is true that the Daily Mail is generally prohibited as a source, but in Wikipedia terminology that does not mean an absolute ban. Exceptions to the general rule can and do exist, per WP:IAR as well as general common sense in specific circumstances." Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 22:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• The whole point of deprecation is stop wasting time discussing whether x, y and z published by a deprecated source is reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• The days of argumentum ad Jimbo have long passed us by. nableezy - 22:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Stop wasting time? We see how well that works. I didn't start this thread. Atsme 💬 📧 00:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You did send it off on this pointless tangent though. nableezy - 02:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe part of the 2020 thread Newsweek reports on exclusive reporting from The Daily Mail is comparable. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

nableezy, except the Times did not attribute the statements to the DM, they attributed them to the speaker. IOW, they said they were accurately reported, at least to the extent they were quoted in the Times and you now want to question the accuracy of one of the world's most respected publications because you think you can better assess whether the conversation was accurately reported than they can. Why should I assume that your judgment is better than Times journalists? TFD (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

She told MailOnline that Matar .. is literally in the article. And what I said was attributed to the interview in the Mail, not attribute it to the Mail. nableezy - 12:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it is attributed to the Times. Otherwise, it would be reported as "According to the MOL, she told them." TFD (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That doesnt make a ton of sense to me, the Times is saying "in an interview with the MailOnline" ..., and youre saying the Times is saying that it is according to them? No, they say it is coming from the Mail interview and link to the interview. nableezy - 16:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, this is mostly moot as the NYT has since interviewed the mother (here) and says she verified the DM interview. Will add that to the article shortly. nableezy - 12:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but will come up again, because the Daily Mail is a major publisher of original reporting that gets picked up by what we deem reliable sources. In fact, many stories in unreliable or deprecated sources get picked up by reliable sources and some of them are accepted by those sources as accurate. In other cases they merely report the claims made in these sources and say they cannot be verified. We should report what our reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• The issue is not that things published in DM are guaranteed to be lies, which is what people seems to think it means. Just because some bit of information appears in the DM first does not make that information toxic and tainted and unable to be used by Wikipedia ever, no matter what. That's not what all of this source deprecation stuff means. What it 'actually' means is that the DM are known to have knowingly and deliberately written and published, without remorse or corrections, stories they knew (or should have known) were fabricated. Not everything, just enough that it isn't clear when they are or are not telling the truth. I would posit that the vast majority of the stuff they publish is likely to be true; we know this because almost everything written in the DM is also written in other sources that we can trust, and most of it can probably be corroborated. The issue is, that when it matters that we cite the DM and not another source, which is to say that when the DM is the only source of information on a story, because they have been known to have been fabricating stories and that's why we've written them off. Heck, most of those are probably true to, but we can't be sure. Other sources like the Guardian or the Times or whatever don't have that problem. So, when the Times writes something, it's usually acceptable. Even if the DM wrote about it too. I don't know why there is this sense that deprecating DM means that we need to scrub Wikipedia of any information that happened to be published in DM. That's not what it means. It means we find another source and use that instead. --Jayron32 15:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Jayron32 has called WP:DEPS a "policy" and now says what deprecation means without backing of dictionaries or WP:DAILYMAIL1. That I can ignore. However, WP:DAILYMAIL1 does say "nor should it be used as a source in articles", and we can see that the source is Daily Mail, and it's not old or opinion which would be okay according to the closers. So I believe that the alternatives are to ask for an exception to the ban and cite the "Exclusive: Distraught mother of Iranian sympathizer ..." article or -- much easier -- leave the material out. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Wow. You really combed through over two and a half years of my contributions to play "gotcha" with a time where I used a word imprecisely. You seriously need to find a new hobby. --Jayron32 18:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

lol, all this in service of a rag that would say your mom shot the queen just to watch her die. Protonk (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reliability of sources

I would like to know why CNN and MSNBC are considered reliable, but political reporting by Fox News is not considered reliable. Why are the sources The Federalist, The Daily Caller. The Daily Wire, and the New York Post considered unreliable, but considers Vox, Slate, The Nation, Mother Jones, and Jacobin to be reliable sources? Interstellarity (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a certain aspect of your question that was not answered by the reply you got at the Teahouse? 331dot (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link to the original question here ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 14:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Interstellarity was told at the Teahouse that reliability does not necessarily depend on bias, which I agree with. However, on RSP, we refer to a source's "bias" 66 times and as "partisan" 18 times. At a brief glance it doesn't seem too unbalanced left-vs.-right, but it's certainly inconsistent: in an edit I did on The Economist, the bias info was reverted. So is explicit bias and POV-pushing relevant or is it not? SamuelRiv (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile revisiting some of these depending on how the current Fox News RFC resolves. Masem (t) 15:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I have reread the reply I got at the Teahouse and I understand what that means. Based on what it says, a source is not required to be unbiased in order to be reliable. I think that it is about how accurate the source is in presenting its information rather than whether it is on the left or on the right. Hope that clarifies things. Interstellarity (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't mandate a consistency with how different sources are handled. Our job is just to interpret and accurately reflect the consensus of editors. Some sources are biased and reliable, some sources are biased and unreliable, some sources are unbiased and reliable. And I assume that some unbiased sources are also unreliable. In order to add some notes to RSP it needs to come from the consensus of editors, not one person's opinion on a source. Andre🚐 17:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• I would love to see a general “downgrading” of ALL news media. We should be relying on scholarly analysis, not journalism. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree, we still have a strong place for reliable news. Andre🚐 17:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Honestly that just seems unrealistic. It's not often you see a bunch of scholarly sources being published on topics like contemporary pop music or recent video games. And if we were to rely solely or mostly on scholarly sources, I doubt we'll have FAs like Delicate (Taylor Swift song) or Lorde or Spider-Man (2018 video game). ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
  _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 18:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  That sounds like a terrible idea —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  News media shouldn't be outright deprecated, but I do think it's use should be reined in. Churnalism, partisanship, and over-reliance on social media all contribute to a reduction in quality journalism. At the very least, facts originating in news media should be given time for competitors to confirm/rebut. Slywriter (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• I should start of by saying my political bias is right of center, but even so I will admit that there is a lot of truth to the saying that "facts have a liberal bias" (at least when applied to popular sources of information and not academic ones, for academic it probably goes the other way). When combined with wikipedia's strong and inherent bias towards facts this can lead to a perception of bias against conservative mass media. I would be worried about it if we didn't hold academic work above the mass media's work because at the moment that corrects any skew which would result from an overly liberal pool of mass media sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Here's my 2c: "Facts having a liberal bias" is said tongue-in-cheek, which refers to, in the U.S., that a faction of right-wing in our present era have abandoned rigor. You can talk about Nixon, maybe Iraq/WMD, maybe Qanon or Stop the Steal. Some examples of unreliable sources are Newsmax and One America News. Some sources which are right-lean but not-unreliable are National Review, Reason, Wall Street Journal, Detroit News, San Diego Union Tribune.

  There are also left-fringe unreliable sources. Occupy Dems and Raw Story that we currently do not use. Other examples could include Mercola, ThinkProgress, CounterPunch, RT, WSWS, Palmer Report, Jimmy Dore, Young Turks. Mainstream center or center-left-ish sources like CNN, NYT, WaPo, NPR, aside from op-eds, are reliable and don't have strong political edge/bias to reporting. Lefter-leaning sources like MSNBC, HuffPo and Vox are AFAIK generally reliable even though they have a stronger partisan lean than the more staid and "conservative" establishment publications. The "liberal media" is largely a right-wing mythology used to attack center or minorly-center-left reporting to claim it is far-left. Andre🚐 21:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know what to tell you -- you only had to google it. Journalists are more liberal, the U.S. media are more liberal in general; you can easily find more recent work on both, and one saving grace is it may be that there is generally not much bias in the selection of coverage (2020 study that links to more recent studies also). Part of this is going to be inherent to the general rise of investigative and counter-establishment journalism. Of course this very tendency in journalism that may be attractive to liberal activism may also be eroding essential democratic institutions. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Cherry-picking. Here's an alternative: "Despite research to the contrary, the general public and a significant number of politicians are convinced the U.S. news media have a liberal and pro-Democratic bias" Andre🚐 22:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  That's a study looking at whether public perception of media bias depends on partisanship, not on whether the media itself is partisan, and it does something remarkable for a 2010 study as in its literature review it claims that no media bias exists but only reviews literature as late as 2002 (and spanning as early as the 1960s, which really makes no sense to me). The 2002 reference is Niven's book, which seems fine but also pretty wide and sparse in scope. That seems to be the case for this topic of research in general however. See a more detailed review (2013). SamuelRiv (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think it makes sense go back to the 60s when reviewing media holistically in the US - remember WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YEARS, and that whole Watergate thing? If not, I recommend All The President's Men, book or film. Anyway, the 2013 article you linked looks more interesting than the 2004 Barro piece [note: the piece is a BusinessWeek op-ed from 2004, relies on Groseclose, is an archived link, and it is not a journal article. I removed it from his article and the Groseclose article because it is no longer published, is an opinion piece, and he is not an expert on this field Andre🚐 00:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)]. Barro is a right-wing economist (he believes the Keynesian multiplier is less than one and has trashed Obama-era stimulus), not a media theorist, and a partisan on this question. It's true that many journalists themselves, and academics, tend to hold more liberal views than the population at large. There's a well-known association with education and tolerant/permissive views on a number of things. However, it doesn't follow that that translates into biased mainstream sources, and the 2020 Science Advances study you linked reinforces this idea that their personal views don't translate into systemic biases in the content. This other recent study is a great example. They had Fox News viewers watch CNN for a month and it actually taught them a couple things. Andre🚐 23:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Anyway, after reading some of the 2013 text you posted, it mostly emphasizes the work of Groseclose. Two main critiques of him, Brendan Nyhan, and JT Gasper[2] who couldn't replicate Groseclose (quoting) : "Using the same data but analyzed over different periods of time, I find a different conclusion than the previous article. I examine four-year rolling time periods and find that the data produce different parameter estimates in the early- to mid-1990s as compared to after 2000, with all analyzed outlets appearing more moderate or conservative in later time periods.." Nonetheless, Groseclose 2005 considered CNN, PBS, and ABC the "most centrist" outlets, which contributes to my point that the generalization of "liberal media" is flawed, even if you don't like the Tien-Tsung Lee[3] article. Many mainstream middle-of-the-road outlets with robust fact-checking and journalistic integrity tend not to be substantially biased. [00:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)] Here are the cites for David Niven (mentioned), a related Eisinger 07 and the reviews of Groseclose including Nyhan and a critique by Nancy Rosenblum and one by Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Andre🚐 01:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• The more specific issue in the US is that there's essentially a right-wing "bubble" of sources which exist primarily to advance conservative causes, for whom accurate reporting is secondary or not even a concern at all - Fox News is the core of this, with most of the others basing their approach on it to one degree or another (though with steadily-increasing disregard for reality as they try to outflank each other on the right to seize the same audience.) There isn't really anything comparable on the left - sources like Vox or Mother Jones have a clear outlook, like any source does, but they're published from a perspective that telling the truth will change or protect the world (see eg. the Washington Post's "Democracy Dies in Darkness" motto.) Whereas Fox was specifically founded with the goal of protecting future Republican presidents from what happened to Nixon, regardless of accuracy or facts. This fundamental disregard for the truth means that sources within that bubble rarely achieve a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy outside it. Note, though, that there are conservative-leaning sources that aren't in the bubble and which do focus on accurate reporting - the issue is that for people within the bubble, such sources tend to not be considered sufficiently conservative, if at all, because one side-effect of this dynamic in the US is that for many people "conservative" has become synonymous with distorted reality. Sources like Vox or Mother Jones can criticize Biden or Obama and maintain their audience; sources in the right-wing bubble generally cannot safely criticize Trump, on anything, regardless of the facts, without risking the loss of their audience. --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Whether you look at the news media bubble (538 2017-03-10, Politico 2017-04-25) or the news filter bubble (Yao & Hauptman among dozens) it's evident on the left and right, so I don't know what you're on about without a shred of evidence.

  In cases where an article (or editor) makes a bunch of claims in a row about such and such without giving a smidgen of evidence, I'd rather have a Fox News source (so I know who to blame/track/call for original source if I really need) than no source at all. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is the false equivalence. There are bad sources on the left, biased sources, which have published bad info, like Occupy Democrats and Raw Story, and there are those on the right that are biased and extremely unreliable such as Daily Caller, Infowars, Federalist, Breitbart, Blaze, etc. Those who believe that generally center, establishment sources such as NYT, CNN, AP, WaPo, etc. are far-left, or equivalent to a Fox News of the left, are making a false equivalence. Places like NYT care about facts and telling the truth, and try to do so. Fox is OK with breaking a few eggs to make the omelet. Even the most left-leaning sources generally don't abandon factual reporting as much as the ones on the right do. If you read Mother Jones, The New Republic, American Prospect, Vox, etc., it's not some left-mirror of Infowars with left conspiracy theories. It's not both sides. Andre🚐 21:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• The print versions of CNN and MSNBC are considered reliable, but the TV versions are not. This is the same with any media company. Also, The Nation, Mother Jones, and Jacobin are all considered unreliable, so I don't know what you're talking about. They are in the same vestige with The Daily Caller and the New York Post of "partisan print media that is occasionally correct, but presents the information in their slant". Curbon7 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed Andre🚐 22:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Well actually, that's overstating it. Some of those you mentioned are considered reliable but biased/opinionated. Andre🚐 22:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Curbon7: Just as a note, WP:RSP has The Nation, Mother Jones, and Jacobin as WP:GREL. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Red-tailed hawk, Honestly had no idea that those 3 ere considered GREL, so striking as I was clearly talking out of my ass. I've always operated that they weren't, in particular with The Nation, which I've found to be quite consistently poor. Curbon7 (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily agree that consensus is being read correctly in the RSP entries, but I wanted to just let you know. It could be the case that the three perennially discussed sources are ripe for a new discussion/an RfC if you believe that they are miscategorized there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would encourage such a discussion. Andre🚐 05:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Also the consensus on CNN and MSNBC doesn't distinguish between TV and print (Does that exist? I assume you mean their online publications.). Just that their talk shows are considered equivalent to op-eds/SPS. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  "Print version" meaning online text-based version? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Masem - this topic seriously needs to be revisited. We should not ignore what Cuomo did to protect his brother, which may have become a bigger clickbait story than what his brother actually did, and how he responded to the sexual harassment claims and nursing home scandal. We need to be writing for the enemy to maintain a NPOV, so ask yourselves how we would have treated those stories if it involved a Fox News talking head and Republican governor? It's pretty obvious. Atsme 💬 📧 18:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  At worse that makes the Cuomo coverage of Cuomo unreliable. And Cuomo was fired from CCN for it too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that Cuomo was fired for his inappropriate action is a point in CNN's favor for reliability. In fact, not just Cuomo, but Jeff Zucker is no longer with CNN. Their new management has stated his goal is to return to hard news and is shaking up the newsroom. [4] [5] [6] it should be considered one of the more reliable sources due to its high standard for fact checking. Andre🚐 19:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources

reception on Boss Baby: Back in the Crib

Any good sources on where to find Boss Baby: Back in the Crib? BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• Where to find sources for an article is not really the purpose of WP:RSN. Use your favorite search engine instead, and then you might want to check WP:RSP for whether the sources you founds are deemed generally reliable for films and entertainment. Banks Irk (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

For future reference this is a place to ask to ask whether or not a particular source is reliable (ie you found a source you wanted to use for reception but were unsure of it met our standards or had questions about existing sources used for reception).--67.70.24.37 (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in effect in legacy media commentary on social media-new media

One of the defining criteria of legacy media is that it is not generally interactive while social media-new media generally is.

I'm using "legacy media" here instead of mainstream media as this has the antonym of niche/alternative media.

Anyway, I'd like to flag a concern that established and traditionally operating media outlets may have a tendency to rubbish independent investigators etc. driven partly by their own vested interests. "How dare these mavericks achieve more engagement than us?"

I think that this phenomena may have been evident, for instance, in coverage of the "free Britney conspiracy" and Depp v. Heard where, in both cases, legal decisions swung away from views widely presented in the coverage of traditionally operating outlets and in line with views presented by people whose comments sections typically remained open. One thing that established sources may arguably be reliable at doing is bashing their competitors. Independents, as often being the new kids on the block, may make easy targets.

Perhaps there are other examples of potential bias but these are the ones I've seen referenced and, for NPOV, I think it's a topic worth flagging. GregKaye 17:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem with "new-media" is it is often (in effect) an SPS, but a nonexpert talking about their own personal opinions. Also I am unsure that Traditional media did represent views widely divergent with legal decisions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Would also add that I think much of the "legacy" media criticism of new media, is their lack of any rigorously established internal code of journalistic ethics. That is not to say every new media outlet is unethical (or that every "legacy" media acts ethically all the time!), but I would assume that's a separating factor in several cases. Mostly, I think, its just a lack of new media having a track record that lends credibility. Finally, it is editorial standards. But, as some academics like Jonathan Haidt has pointed out, Twitter has kinda become the editorial board at places like NY Times, who shadow-edit content based on Twitter outrage (see, for example this in Politico). Anyways, sorry for rambling. In general I feel several new sites are actively shared by renowned media journalists on Twitter, like Bulwark or Daily Beast, so I don't really think its a case of new vs. old. And of course, you have Bellingcat being independent investigators with the highest acclaim in the business. Its probably either a case of perceived credibility (as viewed inside the media business) and corporate interests not wanting to give too much room to competitors. Note how ultra-corporate Fox News never even provides links to the other "legacy" media articles they constantly cite, lest they drag away any of their precious traffic.--Euor (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree, there are a lot of new media sources or blogs that kind of later grew into media orgs. Many of them are reliable. Some are not. Similarly some legacy media are not reliable at all. Some are. So I reject the premise of new vs old media. It's basically all new media now. Even the major mainstream sources have had to adapt and become technology companies. Andre🚐 18:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Instead of thinking of "new vs old media" perhaps an alternate perspective could be to think of established media vs YouTubers etc. In the Depp v Heard situation I suspect that a response of some established media contributors was to take a kind of Right Great Wrongs from what they saw coming from social media and from comments sections of media that had opened them. I think it was a bit like a tug-o-war. I distinctly remember, for instance, article titles at The Guardian stating how Amber Heard was looking good or some such in what seemed to me to be a blatant attempt at PR. Meanwhile, the majority of people responding while watching the trial and a juror who later made later comment disagreed. That article either seems to have disappeared or has had a title change. What I fear that we may on occasion be left with is RS presenting a balancing bias but, as we can only quote the RS, all we would get (in addition to some hopefully neutral content) is one side of bias. GregKaye 21:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I haven't followed that story so you'll have to cite more specific sources and info. Andre🚐 05:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

As for the Amber Heard one, remember this: media, at least where I'm from, try to be "watchdogs", a sort of check. So in the Heard case, I remember a lot pulling forward topics that might be lost in the public frenzy surrounding the trial. What would this trial, the exposure, and the verdict mean for other women saying they are victims of abuse? Separate from the veracity of Heard's claims, of course. And with everyone tearing into Heard, suppose if she actually IS telling the truth? Of course, all of these things are pretty unpopular when public sentiment is so strongly in Depp's favor, and may seem out of touch to most people. YouTube and TikTok and social-media driven outlets obviously do better to follow whatever is social media opinion.--Euor (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

A very good point. Many journalists and media try to go after the scoop and act as the fourth estate, a check on the power of authority. Entertainment isn't my area, but contrarianism, as well as sensationalism, transcend topic. The main problem with Youtubers or Tiktokers is not that their material isn't good content, but that it isn't rigorous or reliable. However there could certainly be exceptions to that. It would be interesting to do a proper study for the topics @GregKaye mentioned for the unversed. I am of course aware of the Free Britney and the Depp v. Heard stories, but not well-versed enough to know how they were covered by different types of media. Andre🚐 19:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Dismissals of Youtubers etc. include universal judgements of them as not operating in rigorous or reliable ways.
New media contributors typically face the fire of their comments sections yet I still don't see that established media groups can necessarily even have a motivation even to acknowledge that material by new media contributors can be good content. It's potentially more to their benefit to focus on specific, sensationalist Tiktokers (who may or may not get some things right) and opt out even of mention of new media contributors who can aim for presention rigorously compiled content. GregKaye 22:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• This may be off topic… but one effect that technology has introduced to “legacy” media is that it allows a “we can always fix it later” attitude towards fact checking. In the days of “dead tree” hard copy, newspaper reporters tried harder to “get it right” before publication than they do today. Issuing corrections was difficult, and more embarrassing. When they mistake in the old days, they had to actually issue a correction notice in the next day’s paper and draw (at least some) attention to it (although the corrections were often “buried on page 27”). Today, with on-line journalism an error can easily be corrected with a simple re-upload. That makes reporters less careful, and thus more prone to making initial errors. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

A journalist's word or interpretation should not be considered an RS on law (which is detailed on American law in WP:RSLAW) as journalists are basically just taught the handful of court cases that guarantee their own rights. Those covering the court beat learn quite a bit more, but still not what it takes to actually analyze law. Of course "citizen journalists" are a model of public information that could not in any way be considered comparable to traditional journalism or an RS for WP. If you're making an assessment based on looking at all idiots with opinions on what's popular in the internet, only the most intelligent-sounding get filtered in, and of those a few get lucky and a few have maybe some background to make a decent prediction about law, and somehow asserting that that's a more meaningful source of analysis than a sampling from a collection of maybe 10 major mainstream newspapers, then both your critical thinking and statistical skills need a bit of a tune-up. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

A lot of what GregKaye mentions is opinions published by legacy vs new media. This should not affect Wikipedia articles because, per News organizations, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The only real exception is facts in articles by experts. But even that does not elevate the opinions expressed to weight for inclusion, unless they receive widespread secondary coverage. For example, Zola's letter about the Dreyfus Affair, J'Accuse…!, published by the newspaper L'Aurore, received such attention that it could possibly be excluded from coverage of the story.

I think one solution would be to pay attention to the policy on opinion pieces and analysis. I have had numerous discussions with editors who claim that the writers are experts because they are journalists and their publishers are reliable so what's the problem. But the expertise of journalists is to report the news, which is then subject to some sort of editorial review, not to explain the news.

Certainly, any media source shows bias in the selection of which stories, facts and opinions they report and what they don't. But that's not a new problem.

TFD (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

TFD, yes but within WP:NEWSORG, opinionated WP:POVs may lead to a shifting of the WP:balance of their outputs should, for instance, they WP:CHERRYPICK even WP:SOAPBOXing or WP:SENSATIONAL... references to bolster their opinions. Yes, they can still be "reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author" but there could be problems regarding the selection of their coverage. It's perhaps worth noting that the RULES followed by sources don't always have the same base as ours. I think that sources can also suffer from their own variant problems of recentism if contributors join onto a bandwagon contemporary to their time. Source articles don't tend to be revised to the extent ours often are. GregKaye 05:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Although they are "reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author," Due and undue weight says, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Opinion pieces therefore have no weight, and cannot be included unless they have attracted attention in actual news reporting. Zola's letter for example became widely reported in news media and hence had weight. Take for example global warming. As a reader, I want to know who supports the theory and who doesn't. I don't want to see a plethora of opinions by people I have never heard of. While we should not tell readers what to think, they want to know whether an opinion is supported by experts or crackpots. Personally, just knowing that experts support one opinion makes me believe it is more credible, even though experts are sometimes wrong. TFD (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

This is why we should be writing our stories on breaking events from the 10-year view and watch out for issues of RECENTISM. We can cover the fundamental objective facts of a story without issue, but as soon as we dig into reactions and commentary, we get into all sorts of problems with both legacy and new news mediums. There's almost no way we can encyclopedically write about reactions in the immediate wake of stories without introducing the bias from primary news coverage, but several months or years after an event we can. Masem (t) 19:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

TFD, true but my arguement relates to a potential problem for Neutrality when presenting viewpoints ... in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources in cases in which sources themselves may have bias in regard to content covered.
I agree with Masem on recentism but worry that, while content such as instantly produced social media responses to and within new media may get lost over time, any biased coverage within an established media content might naturally prevail. In some cases though, such as in relation to the "free Britney" movement, recentism may be radically replaced during a process such as with Britney being freed. GregKaye 09:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Say for example that legacy news media decide to give equal coverage to climate change sceptics and mainstream science. They in fact often provide "both sides" of a dispute, even when one side has no scientific support. That should not affect climate change articles because reliable sources say there is a scientific consensus that it is real. TFD (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. GregKaye 19:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• We've had these sorts of "is the media biased when it talks about the media" discussions before and AFAIK they've always reached the consensus that the general presumption of bias in that case is inappropriate. It's too broad - comparable to eg. trying to treat an author as biased simply because of their nationality or ethnicity, or looking at the owner of a publisher and then arguing that they're biased in every field that that owner is involved in (which, for most publishers nowadays, would amount to "everything".) We use WP:BIASED in a fairly narrow and specific sense to refer to biases that rise to the point of requiring attribution; if we treated eg. every publisher as biased when talking about publishing, and every academic as biased when talking about academia, then we would quickly find ourself with no unbiased sources for anything and WP:BIASED would become meaningless. More generally, while bias and reliability are separate topics to an extent, one feature of a high-quality news RSes is having a degree of separation between editorial and reporting, which extends to keeping reporting insulated from the biases of the owners - a news source that completely fails at that probably isn't an WP:RS because its editorial controls are inadequate, which also means that if a news source is a high-quality RS we shouldn't have to constantly question whether its news reporting is WP:BIASED just because of its owner, the nation it publishes in, or - yes - whether it's covering its competitors. This doesn't mean that they're completely unbiased in the colloquial sense (there's no such thing as a truly, immaculately unbiased source), but they reach the threshold where we can cite them for unattributed facts in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

My immediate goal here was to "flag a concern" and that's here been raised in searchable discussion. I'm certainly sceptical regarding an extent of keeping "reporting insulated from the biases of the owners" when owners may hire people such as editors and people such as editors may hire and commission their source's reporters. Regardless of source ownership, any established media contributor getting relatively low "views" figures, I'd speculate, might well feel less than positive (both for themselves and for their organisation) when new media contributors get high "views" figures. GregKaye 10:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The point that is usually missed by "citizen journalists" and their advocates is that the very presence of editors itself (as well as institutional reputation, owner reputation, market value, etc.) adds many layers of accountability to any story printed. Even if, say, no article is routinely fact-checked, any blatant ethical violations a journalist may commit reflect on all the parties above, so all those parties have an interest in enforcing some form of ethics, regardless of what biased editorial voice they may or may not also choose to enforce. In contrast, a "citizen journalist" has zero to lose in terms of reputation, finance, or career for completely fabricating a story and/or sources, or lacking basic rigor, and relatively little to gain in contrast by having strict ethics (there's no worthwhile long-term reputation to be gained -- it ends on retirement or when social media gets sick of them). There are a few exceptions, but usually they are all pre-estabished from traditional journalism or the editorial process in some way. The strength of these market forces depend largely on social norms that expect a truthful media, which is largely a postwar status quo, but since they exist they are more powerful than all the best journalistic ethics classes and experience combined.

Even if some journalists may feel resentful that new media voices get more clicks, Americans still expect a fair, factual, neutral media even while only 6 in 10 find their news to be generally so and while trust in the media has been declining for decades. If all traditional media suddenly shut their doors, I'm not certain people would immediately start paying to get it restarted and that expected norms wouldn't sink like a rock in the meantime. However, I do suspect there's an opening in the current U.S. market for retro-style "unbiased" journalism with modern accessibility. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think the concern may be valid but what sources could we call on to cover it? Another issue is that the quality of these new media sources varies widely. How can I tell if the self published blog by an MD is a good source by a careful person who is interested and knowledgeable about a medical subject or if they are a quack? The YouTube legal channels have been interesting as many did really good work looking at some of the recent, high profile cases. However, it's interesting to see where the individuals don't always agree. Their coverage is often deep but, as a non-lawyer, how am I to tell who is good or bad at analyzing the law? The same is true of those looking at the Ukraine was. I do recall when traditional news media was talking about bloggers finding and breaking big stories. But we also have examples of the internet getting things totally wrong[7]. While I might find certain new media sources interesting/good I others may not agree. More importantly, we all could be wrong so it's probably best to err on the side of deferring to our traditional sources (while including a health dose of skepticism and RECENTism). Springee (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Springee, thank you, and your recognition that, at least, "the quality of these new media sources varies widely" goes way beyond a potential disregard of new media within legacy media. Again I am not arguing here that new media should necessarily be cited. I'm specifically arguing that a biased and negative portrayal of new media can be presented within legacy media. Sure, legacy media will credit(/shift responsibility to) any source inclusive of police and academic reports, residents' observations and even new media scoops. Yes "we also have [legacy media highlighted] examples of the internet getting things totally wrong"[8] I think this unWP:balanced highlighting of examples illustrates my point. GregKaye 05:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of interest with media organisation/contributors when covering defamation and freedom of speech issues

As, I think, a valid speculatory question: how many journalists, when developing an article, have begun writing something they thought was valid but then retracted the content (or had it retracted by editors, lawyers etc.) because the content had a potential vulnerability to litigation. Then these same journalists (or their colleagues) cover topics related to defamation and parallel topics related to freedom of speech and I think there's a potential that they might cover these topics with bias. GregKaye 06:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment For quite a few entertainment topics, there are rather reliable "fan sites" for lack of a better word that are good sources, established for years with a reputation for accuracy or a gathering point for fans of a certain franchise to get information. I suppose we'd have to vet them individually. Legacy/20th Century media has good and bad sources, I don't see why it can't be the same for new/21st Century media sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Film Review Source

Are these websites considered reliable for film reviews?

indiaglitz.com

nowrunning.com

filmibeat.com

chitraloka.com

www.viggy.com

mirchi9.com

Greatandhra.com

daijiworld.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by PravinGanechari (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

A flaw in how we are assessing News sources

• This isn’t about any specific source, but about how we are assessing News sources in general. I have been thinking about the discussions and RFCs we have recently held about various News sources, and I have noticed something I think is important: A LOT of our recent discussions focus on the number of times a news outlet makes mistakes, but there is no discussion about whether the outlet corrects those mistakes. Issuing corrections is, IMO, an important part of the “accuracy” part of “ a reputation for fact checking and accuracy”.

In our discussions about news outlets, we are quick to note how often the outlet makes errors (just look at the “evidence” sections in recent RFCs) but we rarely discuss whether those errors are ever subsequently corrected. This may be due to the fact that errors are easy to compile (there are lots of websites, such as Politifact and Newsguard, that do fact checking - some better than others - that we can use to do this)… but it is much more difficult to compile corrections. Back in the days of paper journalism, newspapers contained “Corrections” pages, where they owned up to mistakes and corrected the record. Having such pages was part of what gave a paper a good reputation. Today, in the digital age, corrections are less easy to spot. But they remain important.

My point is that, while it is valid for us to discuss an outlet’s fact checking… we need to take our assessments to the next level… we need more discussion about whether (and how) the outlet corrects the record after they say something erroneous. That is an important part of having a reputation for accuracy.

please share your thoughts. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Isn't not part of the journalist practices that we look for is how they correct published stories, either by way of redact, an errors column, or similar process? Yes, this usually requires WP editors to prove this out rather than relying on 3rd party sources that are evaluating this feature, but it is already considered most of the time. --Masem (t) 14:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  It should be part of what we discuss, but I don’t see us ever actually discussing it. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Interesting you should raise this, as in my only recent contribution here I discussed corrections (in the Sky News Australia thread; in that case, the BBC reported that Sky had removed disputed information from its website without issuing a correction). Other things I think some editors here don't look at closely enough are whether the publication has a transparent editorial code/processes/review, and whether it's subject to an effective media regulator that has the power to enforce standards (and if necessary, penalise outlets that fail to meet these). Jr8825 • Talk 15:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think media regulators would apply to most of the developing world, and yet (some) reliable sources exist in the Philippines, Uganda and Bolivia. In some countries, media regulators act as censors, or coerce independent media into tugging the line. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree, but we must also assess whether it is a retraction, correction, or excuse. Do they say "we made a mistake" or "if you believed us fool on you". It also matters if they repeat the "mistake" even after issuing an explanation. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, if there's a correction every other day it's not an encouraging sign of reliability. Jr8825 • Talk 15:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  That as well, we need to judge how often they have to make corrections. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not how often (in the days of printed news, respected outlets contained a “corrections page” every day)… it’s more a question of what they need to correct and how they correct it. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  It is all of them, after all not every news organ need to post corrections every day (or every other day). If they do that must raise concerns about their fact-checking. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. By your standard, we would have to deem some of the most respected print outlets (such as NYT, WSJ, Times etc) unreliable… because they all have a daily corrections page. It was/is a regular feature. I think issuing corrections is one of the things that MAKES them reliable! Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not just the frequency of corrections but the magnitude of seriousness. Andre🚐 16:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

If this [[9]] is an example, it's not every day, or even every other day. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with SamuelRiv below, my original point about frequency was quite dumb. Density of corrections would be the only reasonable way to compare error frequency, and it's rather impractical to measure. There are better ways to weigh up a source; I doubt anyone here actually goes to a corrections page and starts counting in the normal course of evaluating. Jr8825 • Talk 06:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is a fair point. Major outlets that publish dozens, if not hundreds, of articles every day inevitably end up with a lot of corrections. For example, here's a regular correction bulletin from The Guardian. I suppose it's whether the corrections are indicative of understandable, occasional mistakes, or whether significant errors keep cropping up in a way that suggests fact-checking processes are seriously lax or (even worse) that bias could be frequently leading to factual inaccuracies. Jr8825 • Talk 16:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Right. And in many cases, unreliable outlets have errors that never get corrected despite external fact-checking. Andre🚐 16:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Every major news outlet should have many corrections listed every single day as part of their routine. Ever read the New York Times, or like, any print newspaper (in the postwar era) ever? The number of corrections or even density of corrections itself is not a reasonable metric. (Density may be part of a reasonable metric in conjunction with output frequency, staff size, and deadlines, however, but that would require some fine-tuning to get right and a lot of good information on a publication to accurately measure. Maybe we should rely on a RS to tell us whether a source is generally responsible with corrections or not instead, hm?) SamuelRiv (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, this is the key. All news outlets issue corrections. But do they "regret the error" or do they issue a correction that kind of implies they regret correcting it. Andre🚐 15:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  • The key point of WP:RS is whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So the question isn't whether they've made mistakes; I think arguing "this article has a mistake in it!" with a direct link to the article is a very weak RS argument, sometimes amounting to no more than "I personally disagree with their conclusions." The question is whether their mistakes have affected their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (and to a certain extent whether secondary high-quality sources treat them as mistakes or deliberate misinformation, since the latter case is an argument for full deprecation.) Corrections are important and are part of being an RS, and errors followed by corrections that have had no impact on the source's reputation don't say much about their reliability; but it is also possible for a source to issue corrections that are too belated, insufficient, or which don't actually address the core error - "we're sorry some people are offended" sorts of things. That's something we have to evaluate by looking at secondary coverage, especially with an eye towards the source's overall reputation (rather than just one or two high-profile events.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

There are also cases where the same error appears across the media. MSNBC, the New York Times, the Associated Press, and CBS all ran the fabricated story that Bernie Sanders' supporters had thrown chairs at the Nevada Democratic Convention, according to Snopes.[10] No account of that is taken in assessing individual publications. Obviously. they would have no affect on considering the reliability of the mentioned sources, because they are considered reliable a priori. But it seems perverse to deprecate a source for reporting the same misinformation that the most reliable sources also report.

To me, our approach to assessing the reliability of news media is original research and should be discouraged as such. Instead we should base our decisions on the weight of opinion published in reliable secondary sources. There are for examples schools of journalism that publish peer reviewed material about news organizations. Or we could consider membership in media associations, such as the Independent Press Standards Organisation as proof of reliability.

TFD (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

And this is why we should adhere closely to NOTNEWS and RECENTISM - broken record, I know. Unlike print, online media is instantaneous. There is no time for fact-checking, and if you've ever done field production for headline news you would know that there is no time for fact-checking. You shoot the scene, you do the interview (someone at the news station is also on the phone recording it), if you're shooting via satellite truck it's direct uplink, and if not, you drove like hell to the TV station. The recording goes straight to the edit suite & next thing you know, it's on the 6:00 news. The fact-checking comes after the segment is televised or published on the internet. At CNN it was a steady stream of news gathering 24-7. Reliability is only as good as the field producers, and what the news department makes of the footage. The out-of-context stuff occurs at this point of the process. We are in a much different era for news gathering - this is not Walter Cronkite, The Huntley–Brinkley Report, Ted Koppel. your Daddy's/Grand Daddy's printed newspaper or Time Magazine that required typesetting & 4-color processing that allowed more time to get the news fact-checked. This is McDonald's drive-thru news. Atsme 💬 📧 22:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

And even more to the point: most of what is published by sources we already deem reliable is useless from what we should be writing about. The daily behavior of what happens in political races or events mean little when we should try to be writing to summarize the event from 10 years+ in the future. Editors really need better discretion what is appropriate information that is appropriate for enduring coverage of a topic, and what is just noise produced by 24/7 news coverage. This often means the "breaking news" type stories are rarely useful for WP in the first place. Masem (t) 18:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I think there seems to be confusion between TV production and investigative journalism, or investigative reporting. Someone like Maggie Haberman, the NYT's White House correspondent, is doing very little TV production. Chiefly because the NYT is a newspaper, but if you look at the bylines for a major network news channel like CNN or Fox News, most of the bylines aren't on-air personalities, they're reporters, working beats and stories. Most of what they do is talk to people, research things, write things, and work very closely with other journalists trying to figure out what the facts are, how they can learn more facts, or verify and confirm facts. Sure, it's not still exactly like All the President's Men, but you should really watch that movie because it's a pretty good portrayal of the fundamentals of journalism and how journalists hold power accountable. I agree that the bigwig talking heads and news anchors at any outlet, inclusive of CNN and NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, etc., are probably not doing a lot, if any, of the reporting and writing that goes into a news story. However someone like Manu Raju might have bylines and help source tips and scoops in addition to occasionally being an on-air reporter or going to Washington press conferences to ask people things. It's true that in 2022, most of the writing, and communication, uses modern smartphones and computers, not typewriters and telegraphs and rotary phones. But the field of journalism is alive and well, it does have standards, ethics, best practices, processes, values, principles, techniques, etc etc, and while there may very well be uneven application of said trappings, Wikipedia can and should eliminate some of the bad offenders like the Daily Mail, Breitbart, etc. that are just pushing propaganda at the expense of factual accuracy. Andre🚐 22:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

TFD: What part of WP:NOR says we can't do original research to assess the validity of sources? What precedent in the history of Wikipedia says not to do that? The fact that people continue to think NOR ever applies to these discussions is what has kept anyone from seriously trying to put forward best practices, how-tos, and case studies on source evaluation (we have Wikipedia:Evaluating sources, which has glaring conceptual errors, has long sections of cruft on other policies, and hasn't been updated in years). SamuelRiv (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Agreed but this is more of a British (or European) thing. Sadly, even the most reliable of sources in the United States fail to correct mistakes; perhaps this is because of the laxer oversight. I don't think this can be applied vigorously. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that's true, the most reliable of American sources certainly publish corrections. Typically on the article themselves, rather than a standalone 'corrections' page. It also came up with the recent USA Today issue where they removed articles from a reporter once they became aware of issues with their stories. Perhaps you're referring to those corrections just being less common? Bakkster Man (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  They are certainly less common, and particularly on political topics. I'm thinking of the New York Times, and this article, and there are many other examples. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately without a subscription I can't tell what the article said, nor what correction-related issue you're looking to bring up. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  I somehow doubt you've never heard of archive.ph or that you are really unaware of what the correction-issue with that article is, but I'll leave it at that. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  Please WP:AGF. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  That article looks accurate (New Research Points to Wuhan Market as Pandemic Origin) - what is the correction issue with it? NYT is one of the more reliable sources, and does a good job of issuing corrections. As do most of the other reliable sources such as AP, CNN, WSJ and Wapo. Andre🚐 22:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying what RSP is for

I have noticed that we are getting a LOT more requests to list sources (especially news sources) on RSP. Most of them do not fit the criteria of being “Perennial” (ie discussed multiple times - usually with the same result). These RFCs tell me that there is a general misunderstanding as to what the purpose of WP:RSP is. I think we need to brainstorm a better way to clarify that purpose. Ideas? Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

RSP is for political types to wage POV wars safely out of the way of actual content. It has no policy force. Ignore it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of editors editors DO treat it as having the force of policy (especially when it comes to those sources that are listed as “deprecated”). A lot of editors seem to think RSP is a general list of “spproved/good” and “not aporoved/bad” sources. It wasn’t supposed to be that, but it may be turning into that. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many clueless editors. That's not news. But RSP is catnip for them. Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thx, Alexbrn, I can appreciate your answers, even though we don't always agree. Atsme 💬 📧 23:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It does have the force of policy, RSP acts as a supplement to WP:RS. Noticeboards dedicated for policy pages is how one obtains a global consensus for more specific questions related to the policy and ignoring it would be ignoring that consensus. Even if the RSP page itself did not exist, the discussions or RfCs still do and its consensus would still apply. All RSP is, is a means of tabulating that information. That there's a problem with editors trying to insert sources which aren't truly perennially discussed into it, or editors misreading it as an exhaustive black and white source list doesn't mean it has no utility or that it need not be followed. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree 💯 Andre🚐 19:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You can "agree" all you like, but this further exemplifies the WP:CLUELESSNESS issue. Even leaving aside the fact the WP:RS is not policy, RSP helpfully states at its head "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". Alexbrn (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn is spot-on. Sorry, RSP is not MEDRS by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn't have any more bite than an essay. Atsme 💬 📧 23:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Explanatory essays can explain the consensus of editors. If they are missing anything or inaccurate, they should be updated. Content guidelines have many exceptions but they have the force of consensus which is what Tayi Arajakate means when he says consensus applies. Andre🚐 19:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

They said "It does have the force of policy". You agreed. Again, these are perfect examples of people claiming RSP has no problems, instead showing exactly the opposite. Alexbrn (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not literally a policy but by virtue of consensus, it is binding, as policy empowers the consensus to bind. Let's not split hairs, it is getting pedantic. We have a category of things called policy and guidelines, but we also have a system where rules are interpreted. Wikipedia:The rules are principles and the statements of policies and guidelines are a description of the consensus, they don't have force on their own, WP:NOTBURO and WP:NOTDEMO or a court or a state. Andre🚐 19:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Further exemplification of the problem. A explicitly non-policy page does not flip to become policy because you say so. RSP does not enjoy consensus as to its use or even existence (as you may easily see from this very thread). Alexbrn (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You know what's cluelessness? It's rejecting standard practice and calling it cluelessness. WP:RS being a content guideline and not a policy doesn't change anything, it's just pedantic. If it makes you happy, WP:RS relates to WP:V which is a policy. When I said it has the "force of policy", I meant its based on policies and guidelines and is not some random personal essay as you would like to have it treated as. The only thing that's preventing RSP from becoming a "official" supplementary page is that it's more ad hoc and includes entries based on smaller informal discussions alongside widely attended RfCs. The entries themselves are based on consensus so it doesn't matter how formalised the list itself is. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". Every word there is meaningful. Alexbrn (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I've a question for you. Are you going to try to use InfoWars as a source in articles because the page has the generic essay disclaimer that says "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community"? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there anybody so fucking stupid they'd try and use Infowars as a source? and if such a person existed would an essay-style page divert them into thoughtful introspection about their worldview? I do wonder where this push to legislate the obvious is coming from. Alexbrn (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it isn't as obvious as you think and that the "legislation" i.e the RfCs that have occurred on it are irrespective of RSP. The list just lists it and its entry is just the closure of those discussions. Clearly there was a need for it and there are people who do in fact trust it as a source to the point that it becomes a problem. Even if they don't listen, it's an useful tool that one can directly refer to for people who are trying to prevent its use. Then there's the other kind of person who may have simply never heard of it and can refer to the list to see what kind of source it is and what the consensus on it is. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn you clearly haven't spent enough time in the American Politics area to observe that folks are, for I assume good reasons, trying to occasionally use dubious sources and dubious information, whether it is Counterpunch, or Washington Examiner/Washington Times, or just brazenly linking directly to politician websites, or self-published blogs from randos (not talking about you-know-who but much worse stuff). The need for clue is high for many editors, you seem to be both simultaneously having a very high and a very low opinion of the mean or bottom quartile of new editor. Andre🚐 04:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Has RSP helped the AP2 problem, or made it worse? If such a fucking stupid person does exist who thinks Infowars in RS, and in the (unlikely) event they are redeemable, the route is through gaining some understanding of Wikipedia as a whole, not through being told they're going to be spoonfed a colour-coded checklist of usable/unusable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of RSP is to get one's favorite/most disliked source, upgraded/downgraded via an RFC regardless of how many times it has been discussed before, heh. Tsk, be serious. Selfstudier (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• I concur that RSN is being overwhelmed by interminable RFCs proposing that sources be listed at RSP. It is not an appropriate use of RSN. RSN should be for questions on the order of "Is this source reliable for this statement in this article?". After a sufficient series of such questions over many months, it may be appropriate to list the source at RSP. Banks Irk (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a slightly more effective method of searching the RSN archives, but with the possibility of added POV in the summary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

the problem is that there are a contingency of editors who think that any source not listed on WP:RSP = automatically ok to use even if they're obviously not. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have more problems with ones thinking no source can be used unless it is marked green at RSP. NadVolum (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I certainly use it with a quick CTRL-F when I have concerns about a source I'm looking at, but like you point out, it's not a full reckoning of every source, just the ones that come up a lot. (or once or twice, but someone really wants to have it on the list with their wording) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fuel for the WP:CLUELESS. If it was just scaled back to an index that would be fine. With the commentary, novel terminology (e.g. "WP:GREL" created in 2019), icons, colour schemes, etc. removed. It's becoming a blight on the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is red at RSP, so you can't use those links to support your argument. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh No. Now I've crashed. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I oppose any removal or scaling-back of the policies and processes that exist on RSP and this noticeboard. They have utility. If you have constructive suggestions for how to improve them, that would be welcome. I agree that not all of the threads on this noticeboard are useful, but some are. Individual threads may or may not lead to changes or new consensus on things. A consensus has force whether or not it is listed on the perennial sources list. Also, I don't see how RFCs are "interminable." They have a well-defined start and end date. Once a given RFC is closed it will not be reopened again for a while unless things materially shift. So, generally, I don't see a problem with the current RSN/RSP, and I oppose any attempt to yank the rug out of the process when there are currently some important questions being posed and discussed. Andre🚐 17:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

With due respect to Andrevan, his comment illustrates the problem nicely. He (she?) seems to think RSP is part of a “process” for deeming sources reliable/unreliable… when that wasn’t what it was intended to be. It was supposed to simply be a handy reference guide. Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

A consensus has force whether or not it is listed on the perennial sources list ← sorta maybe, depending how strong that consensus was. So why not simply have an index to prior discussions without all the arguments about gubbins to overlay that? Alexbrn (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the argument is about the gubbin. The discussion is about the reliability of a source. The gubbin is just a marker to the conversation for ease of use. As you probably know, there are often perennial disputes that new editors may bring up again and again. This is a way of providing some project-wide guidance, which often has plenty of exceptions and complexity. Andre🚐 17:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The "gubbins" has zero policy force. It's the result of often asinine arguments. The more relevant WP:PAG is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

All policies on wikipedia are a description of a consensus, and are not firm rules. RSP is a process that summarizes the consensus of editors, which have force. Andre🚐 18:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

RSP is basically an essay-status page reflecting the WP:LOCALCON of a small number of editors, many of whom are hardened political POV-warriors. For any particular question it may be right, or it may not. Just like essays in general. Alexbrn (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hundreds of editors have the force of consensus and years of following the process and principles herein. Andre🚐 18:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

With due respect to Blueboar, whether a process was intended, one was formed and is being followed. In my recent attempt to start an RFC I tried to propose one with 2 options, but I was told that the 4 option format is "standard." That's a process, de facto. Andre🚐 17:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I wasn’t talking about the “4 question format” of RFCs… but what comes after that… ie the belief that the results of all these RFCs need to be listed in RSP. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you that the RFCs do not lead to a listing on RSP unless they are perennial and the listing is useful. Andre🚐 18:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd go the other way and say we shouldn't hold RFCs here unless they're perennial or need at RSP for some other exceptional reason. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This is an almost perfect illustration of the problem. Alexbrn (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

On another page you have tried to argue that self-published blogs are fine to use for amateur media criticism. Perhaps the "problem" is that some editors have ideas that are outside the prevailing consensus view. You are free to discuss those ideas, but you have to disagree and commit with the consensus of editors. Hundreds of editors are participating in the RSN and RSP process to discuss the reliability of sources. It's quite problematic and uncomfortable to challenge that consensus and instead claim that all sources are fine and that only context matters. It's awfully problematic to suddenly propose to dismantle this system that has been running for years at minimum simply because one of the discussions is going a certain way or some discussions are long, contentious, or not very germane. Andre🚐 18:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a further almost perfect further illustration of the problem, in thinking a specific case can be generalized into a "rule". RSP is largely meaningless except that it attracts people who don't understand that. In my own areas of interest it's largely irrelevant, except for the way it's rendered RNS a bloated mess. Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Mail used to be in use, then there was a consensus of editors to deprecate it, and now it is removed from articles. I agree that an RFC on one article, about a narrow case, may not apply in another unrelated case. (You yourself argued the opposite of this proposition days ago.) However when it is a consensus on whether a source should be reliable or deprecated, that does have force. That's how Wikipedia prevents concern trolls from coming in all the time to say that NYT is unreliable and soapboxing on talk pages. WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH: it's a form of disruption not to get the point and continuously grouse about one's own views on sources. That's why we have an RFC. If the RFC ends and I don't get the result I believe in, I still have to abide by it. Andre🚐 18:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether an RfC is generalizable depends on the RfC (look at the closing wording to get a clue). The deprecation of the Daily Mail happened before RSP even existed[11] and has nothing to do with RSP, again perfectly illustrating the problem of people thinking RSP is the law. And people saying the NYT is unreliable are idiots and need to be removed from the Project - again RSP has nothing to do with that. Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

RSP is simply a tool for enabling the deprecation of the Daily Mail, or the reliability of NYT, to be easily referenced and for those consensus decisions to be easily discussed and enforced if needed. There will always be some exceptions. Andre🚐 18:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is it's not "simply" that. Something that was "simply" that would just point to the consensus with a plain summary. RSP has spawned new wikilinks, terminology, categories, argued-over commentary, would-be "processes", colour-schemes and icons. And a whole bazaar of stupid argument. Alexbrn (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the 3rd time or so that you've characterized the good faith participation of editors as "stupid," "asinine," lacking in clue, you're painting with a pretty broad brush, so please consider your tone and your message and how it might be received. We are all here as volunteers who have given years of our free time to the project because we enjoy it and want to improve it. Andre🚐 18:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yet you were on about "concern trolls". Seems there are all kinds of problem editors here. Most Wikipedians are great; some of those hammering on RSP, not so much. Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The concern trolls are out in force lately opining on Wikipedia's bias and the issues they have with NYT being unreliable and the like. The RSP board/system are a tool we have to counter those trolls, not encourage them. Many of our noticeboards from fringe theories, and BLPs, or AN, attract problem editors as well as well-meaning editors. Andre🚐 18:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There are a few editors prefer it as was and WP:CCC, all da time. Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You may propose an RFC on RFCs or an RFC on RSN/RSP. I imagine a number of editors would like to participate. And then when that RFC ends, we have to all be happy with the result, and a no-consensus result is status quo. Andre🚐 18:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

RSP arbitrary break

• Look, here's the issue: Wikipedia editors are expected to be able to assess sources against the clearly defined standards at WP:RS, and if they find sources that are not up to those standards, they are expected to just fix it. No one needs permission to make Wikipedia better. We don't need to discuss blatantly obvious stuff here. When a source is contentious or if its provenance or reliability is unclear, discussions here can shed light on that. We aren't the "source approval board" or the "source banishment board". We're the "Hey, we've had a bit of an argument over whether this source can be used to verify this Wikipedia statement here, can y'all help us out" board. We have an actual, honest-to-god discussion up right now how fucking Babylon Bee needs to be handled. It doesn't need to be discussed. It's a comedy website. It's not a source, it's fiction. If someone is stupid enough to have used it as a source to speak in Wikipedia's voice, you don't need to call together a kangaroo court to decide if you should remove it. Just remove it. There are millions of good reliable sources in the world, and billions more bad ones. We don't have the resources to preview all of them and give our thumbs up/thumbs down. If you have the competence to edit Wikipedia, you have the competence to assess the reliability of most sources. Just take care of it. Save this board for disagreements and edge cases. --Jayron32 18:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with the sentiment. Just go fix it, be bold, etc. I still think the board and the system have validity. I also thought the Babylon Bee discussion seemed unnecessary at first, and yet, there is a legitimate discussion there, and the OP appears to be earnest. I'm not saying we need to list the Babylon Bee. But more to the point, I do think some editors are challenging that even the discussion of perennial, complex, controversial sources should occur. Andre🚐 18:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  The only value in the Babylon Bee discussion (apart from some mild amusement) is that it educated one editor a little bit more about how the WP namespace isn't Wikilaw, and it raised the possibility that maybe some editors might read the description of the procedures of RSN/RSP and think that this is a formalized way to implement a fixed policy, which precisely lends support to Blueboar's original point that there is a problem with RSN/RSP. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record… I DON’T think there is a problem with RSN… I DO think there is a problem with RSP: which is that too may editors seem to think that the result of an RFC has to be listed at RSP in order for that result to be considered “official”. Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It certainly feels like a baby and bathwater situation to me. Andre🚐 19:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• I call shenanigans. RSN was never used for RFCs until very very recently, and I think it is an egregious misuse and abuse of RSN that a handful of editors have hijacked it to advance political and other agendas. If somebody appointed me God of RSN, any new topic not formulated as "Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article?" would be summarily deleted. Banks Irk (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Meh… @Banks Irk, I think you are over stating the situation. We have always had “is X reliable?” questions asked without context (ie where we had to ask for the context)… and plenty of RFCs have been held here over the years - just not as many as we are currently seeing (the number of RFCs has risen recently). Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Fair distinction. Certainly lots of RSN topics start out "Is X a reliable source?" and someone, occasionally me, asks for the context "for what statement in what article?". Absent that, the issue should be flushed... notwithstanding that the answer may be "No, Mad Magazine is not a reliable source for statements on U.S.foriegn policy - it isn't reliable for anything!". But, while I haven't posted all that regularly, I do read RSN regularly, and using it for RFCs was virtually unheard of until very recently. And now, it is ridiculously abused. Banks Irk (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  IMHO I don't find general discussions about "is X reliable?" a bad thing. The bad thing is that either we have discussions over sources that are too obvious to be discussed (Babylon Bee) or we have discussions like the one I closed about Cambridge Scholarly Publishing, where 90% of discussion is editor commentary without supporting evidence and is strongly either in meta territory (what is RS?) or ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT territory. Also, since RSP is not independent of RSN, it isn't possible for RSP to have problems but not for RSN; the only possible exception I think of is unbalanced summaries of RSN discussions on RSP. But otherwise RSP is in fact a good piece of guidance that many misinterpret as binding policy (though consensus still binds us).

  As for Blueboar's concern: WP:RSPCRITERIA says "editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard," which is additionally bolded as emphasis. The current wording quite strongly suggests that this should normally be enough. Since we don't define "perennial" anywhere earlier (other than "frequently discussed"), this wording more or less serves as the definition. So obviously editors use this IMHO flawed guidance to force their source to appear on RSP. I can't blame the editors here. They don't see their source on RSP so they often think they would make a service for the rest of Wikipedians if it appears there so that they know they can use it/should generally avoid it. They may be biased in that thinking and seek inclusion of some totally niche outlets but that's a different matter and a problem of the current guidance for RSP. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  I did some digging through the archives to see when we added the inclusion criteria and what was said at the time… it’s the first discussion in WT:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 2 from January of 2019. Worth reading.

Even back then, they were concerned about some of the same issues we are discussing, such as the list not being “perennial” enough. Perhaps we should ping some of the editors who took part in that discussion, and see what they they think about the issue now that 3 years have gone by. Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't have much to add other that I agree with those who are concerned that RSP is both becoming it's own monster and the constant RfCs at RSN are an issue as well. It has become almost a strategic move to try to get sources editors like/dislike rated at RSN. If you can just get that "green" or "red" then you can finally get tell the opposing editor they have to allow/remove that particular fact/claim from the article. It also means often editors evaluate if a source is good for a claim (both verifiability and DUE) based on "did this come from a green/yellow/red source. If there is a disagreement between green and yellow content, green wins of course. A flaky claim made by a green source is plenty to overule a considered counter claim made by a yellow source. What else do we need to talk about? Of course not every RSP entry was based on a RfC so some classification is just the assessment of a few editors who have looked at prior discussions. Thus some "conclusions" may not be based on an actual RfC. Even then we would be at the merci of who bothered to respond to the RfC at the time. This brings up the issues RSP has caused at RSN. How many RfCs are started with a simple question which simplifies to, "Is X a RS (list 4 categories)?" These questions almost always ignore that almost all sources are NOT reliable for at least some uses (The New England Journal of Medicine is not a RS for theories in aerodynamic compressibility). Questions about the reliability of a source need to come from proposed uses of that source rather than some open ended question with no example of how an editor is trying to use the source or why the particular article is good/bad. I do think the RSP list has become it's own monster and hasn't improved the overall quality of Wikipedia. It would be better if we got rid of it or at least radically stripped it's scope down. Springee (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Your discussion of "strategic moves" ascribing some Machiavellian intent to editors downgrade the sources they do or do not personally like is assuming bad faith, and gives away the game that editors are casting doubt on the entire RSN/RSP system because it is able to produce a result that they do not like. (And by the way, I hate the National Review, and I've been reading the Wall Street Journal since I was a child in my father's office.) You may say you were against the system from the beginning, but I have seen several editors opine that in fact using the noticeboard as it is used for RFCs is not the correct usage. Blueboar has said he is not against RFCs and I believe him on that. You however @Springee are saying that it should be removed or pared down.

But instead of saying the whole system is bad, throw it away, you should propose a constructive improvement to the system that addresses its perceived shortcomings. Some of your comment almost seems that you are questioning the entire premise and operating model of Wikipedia, which has been operating this way for almost (over?) 20 years now. Now I don't mean RSP specifically. I'm referring to the consensus mechanism that a source should or shouldn't be acceptable to use across the board. The idea of a rating system, or colors, or special categories and names, is not critical to this whatsoever. But the idea of a consensus of editors that a source is generally not good to use - that's been around for a long time. In fact, when I was most active as an editor (2004-2011 I guess you could say?) it was just a given, that Fox News was not good to use. The fact that many editors now think it is OK to use despite being frequently inaccurate, and willing to sacrifice truth for propagandistic purpose, shows the need of an RSP-like system, but the particulars of the system are entirely negotiable. However, it is definitely the case that some sources, like Infowars, are just bad to use, for good reasons, by the consensus of editors. And it is ALSO the case that some editors nonetheless want to use Infowars, for what we assume are good reasons. That's why we need an RSP or RSN like system that is clear and easy to understand. Andre🚐 04:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

If you think my comments question the general operation of Wikipedia for the last 20 years then I suspect we had a failure to communicate. I'm concerned about the way RSP is being used and it isn't 20 years old. Prior to RSP it was still clear that DailyKos and DailyCaller were low quality sources. If you think a far more limited form of RSP would be the answer, fine, I'm OK with that. I told you the problems I've observed. I didn't say, "the solution is..." Springee (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the RSP system is working well. I'll think it is working well if Fox News is downgraded or deprecated, or if the status quo is upheld. I'll respect the outcome of the RFC no matter what happens. I don't see the Babylon Bee RFC as problematic, or helpful, it's natural that there will be chatter of new users posting stuff on the noticeboard trying to be helpful and maybe learning something. I do think the rigidity of the editors insisting that editors all follow a specific format might be something to improve. Sometimes, it is fine to just ask a simple Yes/No question, in my view. That is a more traditional Wikipedia RFC as well. Andre🚐 04:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• you should propose a constructive improvement to the system that addresses its perceived shortcomings ← here's how to fix it. Make RSP "just" an index of previous discussions at RSN. No colours, no labels, no extra layer of interpretation, no icons, no pre-cooked RfC questions designed for RSP. This could be done by script to fillet out the relevant table column. Then RSN could get back to discusing sources in context (with possible wider ramifications) rather then being a battleground for people wanting to score points by getting an RSP entry in the colour they want. Alexbrn (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Speaking only for myself as someone who started an RFC here that is currently the largest one on the board, I use dark mode and monobook, and my favorite user interface is a terminal. I am not the person who advocated for the colors, and I don't think the colors are in any way the reason why editors start RFCs here. The colors are an unimportant detail. Anyone who thinks the reason why people start RFCs here is the color, should read WP:BIKESHED. The reason why people try to get a source downgraded is because it's not trustworthy, and publishes bad information, so people should stop using it in articles. That will improve the encyclopedia by using science-based, fact-based, consensus reality sources and not echo chamber sources that publish wrong information and violate journalistic ethics and integrity. If you want to improve the system, instead of removing the crowd-pleasing but ultimately unimportant niceties and affordances, you should instead come to the purpose and understanding of RS consensus of the form of the present RSN ranking. Andre🚐 04:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  What you seem to be saying is "I like it, so anybody else's doubt is not legitimate". Maybe you've never had to argue with people saying a source can't be used because "it's not green at RSP". My proposal would preserve the discussions so confused people could (shock, horror) read and understand what the consensus is on a source rather than having it reduced to an icon and colour. That way such people may become less confused and gain some understanding of how Wikipedia works, rather than thinking that RSP is going to spoon-feed them simple "stop/go" decisions on every source. I feel an RfC for reform of RSP brewing. Alexbrn (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  That's really quite an uncharitable strawman characterization of my comments. You are entitled to your RFC and I encourage it. Andre🚐 05:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  A step by step approach might be a better way to proceed, any wholesale attempt at reform will produce nocon. Selfstudier (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well I tried a first step[12] but was quickly reverted. Apparently RSN users are too stupid to understand big words. Alexbrn (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Now, now..I meant in a consensus discussion, odds on a random edit to that sort of page being reverted are quite high. Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Reverting for the sake of it is disruptive. Reverting because RSN needs extra dumb language seems odd. Alexbrn (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Changing (or, as I would prefer, removing) that bit of WP:RSN header would probably be hard. Unfortunately the text was appoved in an RfC. I asked the closer of that discussion (Eggishorn) about rationale in December 2019 but did not challenge. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I reverted the bold changes to the text as did another editor. I don't mind changing the text, but these changes seem to change the meaning too much. An important result series of statements by supporters of the result from the RFC Peter linked to is that, "confirms that "In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion...", as it was common practice before the proposed text was added to the header."", "There are a lot of garbage websites out there that should never be used as a source for any Wikipedia article, and the community should be able to judge them as such without the need for going through them on a case by case basis.", "RSN is the logical place to hold RfCs on general reliability / deprecation of sources", "The deprecation RfCs and the Perennial Sources page have helped avoid rehashing some of these, well, perennial discussions. It's good to make others aware of this common practice, etc. Andre🚐 16:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Those weren't a "result", they were supporters' statements. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Struck and corrected my inexact statement. Andre🚐 16:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

This feels getting awfully close to WP:NPA Andre🚐 14:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I like the suggestion! Alaexis_¿question? 20:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support Alexbrn's suggestions – common sense, adheres to PAGs, a no-brainer. Atsme 💬 📧 12:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this or any other sweeping change, especially anything that would significantly change the context of previous RFCs. At the end of the day, our sourcing has drastically improved over the past few years; RSP has also generally reduced arguments over perennial sources. Neither is there any particular indication that our sourcing has become more biased or one-sided - if you look at any high-traffic or mid-traffic article, they have generally improved in quality over time. On top of this, numerous secondary sources have highlighted Wikipedia's recent processes and results as an example of a good way to deal with misinformation, eg. [13][14][15][16][17] - that doesn't mean there's not room for improvement, but people who want sweeping changes (especially ones that would effectively change the context of a massive number of established consensuses, many of them with huge amounts of participation) ought to present actual evidence that there's a problem, not just speculation and opinions. Because as far as I can tell, our current system is, broadly speaking, working, and has helped us maintain an ever-growing amount of well-sourced high-quality content despite being in an era when outright junk news sources with no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are increasingly common and easy to flood the zone with. --Aquillion (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Aquillion. Andre🚐 00:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I understand the concerns that there's been much more RfCs recently. IMHO, a RfC is all right when a) there's a dispute, b) there's discussions on the source during the past, c) it's brief and neutral. RSP also isn't perfect: first, a lot of colours could be misleading, such as classifying if a ref is a RS based on a few discussions wiht no consensuses (one example I can think of is Mother Jones as generally reliable). Second, often editors could disagree on the written sections, and this could cause disagreement. But I do strongly oppose a change that rm all labels, colours, and text; this is too sweeping and decrease its use somewhat, per Aquillion and Andrevan, if RSP is just a list of RfCs. In articles for more political topics, IMHO a summary does help to resolve disputes on if a ref is a RS somewhat, especially for these that are generally unreliable. Yes, it might just be an explanatory essay, but it has 27898 times in the past 30 days, so IMO some editors agree with that it's quite useful (of course, I know this argument isn't very good). This might be just because of my POV, but I strongly disagree with this edit. The current wording has consensus based on another RfC, as mentioned above. What is chronican also and intractable disputes? Also, if there's just a disagreement with two/three editors on whether a source is a RS, this seems to disencourage a posting at RSN, limiting to Dispute Resolutions and 3O, which doesn't seem to be effective in if a ref is an RS, and IMO this wording could cause a lot of disputes at articles. Many thanks! 04:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

RSP arbitrary break 2

I want to get back to my original question: To those of us who DO think there is a problem with how RSP is currently operating - how would you suggest we FIX it? Blueboar (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove color-coding (or bold-text categorization) for everything but deprecation and blacklisting; reserve total source deprecation for only across-the-board spam, copyvio-cum-citogenesis, or fabrication in a manner that could deceive a good-faith researcher, or perhaps if it's a true perennial source that is totally inappropriate like an open wiki; there's plenty more we could do. I raised issues of standards inconsistency and blatant source material or terminology ignorance in the summaries in a recent Talk RSP thread, but that seems like small potatoes now, though periodic cleaning of the list for CREEP would seem appropriate. (And though you're asking about RSP I want to add that lately with RSN threads it seems the first instinctual response to posts asking if a source is across-the-board reliable is "no", which is tacit approval for mass removal. The standard for such behavior should be essentially equal to deprecation (isn't it though?). As such the instinctual response to any new thread should be to demand specific context, and ignore responses that make conclusions prior to such context being provided.) SamuelRiv (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Once again we're conflating a problem with the color-coding or the summarization - with the very idea that it should be permitted to deprecate sources. Sure feels like we're litigating the results of an RFC or the ability for a consensus to deprecate sources, and not just some colors and icons. Andre🚐 13:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Re deprecation, I would prefer that was not an option at RFCs, if a source is to be put up for deprecation then it should be in the format of a standalone discussion and ideally the source should already be gunrel. Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'd be fine with an RFC that offered 2 options: Status Quo, and either Downgrade or Upgrade, but editors seem to generally feel that is not neutral, and an RFC should offer 4 options to be neutral. The logic goes that if we only offer Status Quo or Upgrade, we're limiting the options of editors who may believe Downgrading and Deprecation are merited. I can see the logic even though I don't mind a more targeted Yes/No question. But, I do not agree that Deprecation should be off-limits, because now you only have 3 options which favors Upgrading. Andre🚐 13:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• As for my own thoughts… I would change the RSP criteria to more than one RFC. To add a source to RSP, we first need a whole bunch of “is X reliable for saying Y in article Z” discussions… and then an RFC that ask “ok, what do these discussions say about X’s reliability in general”. Finally, in order to deprecate, we should hold a separate “Is it poor enough to deprecate” RFC. A step by step process. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I see absolutely no problem with how Wikipedia:RSPS operates. "But it is an essay" is not a good excuse for using one of these sources listed. Similarly, "It's listed at RSPS" is not an automatic license to use/exclude the source. Rather, we must consider all sources used on a case-by-case basis. Deprecation != banning which is done through the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Rather, deprecated sources should not be used with very few exceptions. As for "generally unreliable" I interpret that as "if there is a more reliable source use it", and for "generally reliable" I interpret that as "use it unless if what the article is saying is obviously a joke or not true". Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the Deprecation concern. I've generally opposed deprecations in part because it seems people are trying to apply them too readily and because I'm not sure it's a needed solution since we have the RSP list. Since the list was created almost any red source is basically not allowed as a source for anything other than about self type claims. I believe even deprecated sources can be used in that way. Deprecation with a spam listing probably made sense when we didn't have a centralized list for people to review. Now we do (for better and worse). Thus my view is deprecation is almost redundant. My view was further cemented when, in a recent discussion, editors weren't able to agree when it's appropriate to deprecate a source vs just declaring a source unreliable.

While editors are correct to say RSP is "just an essay", it clearly has some weight since editors will threaten you with tbans if you argue in favor of using sources in ways they feel are not compatible with the color ratings. In practice it is treated as something like an guideline in support of WP:RS. For that reason we really should have some tight controls on how it is used and how "consensus" about a source is established etc. I would argue if there hasn't been a RfC about a source then it should not be assigned a color. Additionally, for a RfC to establish a color editor first have to show the source has been a repeated discussion topic (what "repeated" means might need more definition). I'm also wondering if we should have something like a default assumption that most sources should be treated more like yellow. That is, in most cases we don't assume a source is grossly wrong but we also don't assume they are always correct, even sources we generally see as "green". Too often I see people say, in effect, "this is a green source thus their claim is good". While I would generally treat green sources as good for straight factual reporting, I think we should be far more suspicious when a green source engages in any form of investigation or analysis of facts/events/evidence as well as when they make claims without providing evidence (Mr BLP is known to make racist comments [no evidence/examples provided]). Springee (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

That RSPS list is basically a compilation of community consensus provided for convenience. To go against consensus is to be pushing into Wikipedia:Disruptive editing point #4, failing to engage in consensus. Of course, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules exists but there has got to be good reason to "ignore all rules" and include/exclude a unreliable/reliable source. Just because you can cite some random Reddit post by someone who claims to be a doctor does not mean you should. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 03:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

But if there wasn't a closed RfC are we certain it really is a consensus summary? Not all the RSP entries are based on RFCs. Some just reference a few past discussions and the summary is the view of of one or two editors trying to summarize what others have said. But more to my point, if, as some say, this is just an essay, then going against and it's color chart (something not assigned by normal RSN discussions) shouldn't be seen as anything more than ignoring an essay. Clearly it is treated as more than just an essay since treating a "red" source as "yellow", even if there is no RfC backing the color selection, will be seen as treating an unreliable source as reliable instead of a case where editor descension is still acceptable. Springee (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

If there's something on there that looks wrong, you should edit it to reflect the accurate consensus. If it is reverted, discuss, and start a new RFC. RFCs, or noticeboards, or talk threads, are all just tools - what matters is the consensus of editors. This random hand-wringing and doubt-casting is not productive. Andre🚐 04:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That is true, but we establish the level of consensus as well. Such as "there is rough consensus that The Daily $1 is reliable"/"there is strong consensus that The $1 Times is unreliable"/etc. Essays can describe consensus, but I wonder if RSPS is more of an information page than an essay. It is not a policy but it describes consensus nonetheless. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• Replace it with WP:Tiers of reliability. Levivich 02:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  No offense, but that needs a lot of work just in terms of basic presumptions: peer-reviewed publications cannot be top tier by any means next to reviews and meta-analyses, rigorous professional guidelines, etc.; international journalism should not be categorized higher than metropolitan journalism by default (it mostly depends on who's actually on the ground -- and lol The Economist); also why is the standard by which a publication source like Britannica is ranked conflated with the standard by which a secondary publication or a primary publication is ranked? I'm not saying it can't be improved, but right now it's in no shape to be usable. RSP for all its problems at least limits itself (mostly) to secondary news and analysis media. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• The best approach has already been suggested here by Alexbrn, whose arguments have been quite convincing throughout this discussion. A similar suggestion was made by SamuelRiv at the start of this break, and his arguments are also convincingly strong. Those 2 suggestions if adopted will prove far more productive for the project than what we are dealing with now. RSP was created without community-wide consensus, or official adoption as a guideline. It's actually amazing that it lasted this long considering it is equivalent to an essay. The problem is that not all editors know how to use it properly, and major problems arise as a result. Jayron32 nailed it with this comment in Arb brk 1. Springee presented an excellent detail of the issues with RSP in this comment. NadVolum made an excellent point relative to color coding. These are unbiased, PAG compliant, common sense suggestions based on very strong, highly convincing arguments. I agree with them 100%. OTH, the arguments by the opposing views in support of RSP are weak, and open the door to WP:POV creep and political bias, inadvertent or otherwise. It has already proven to have failed, or we would not be having this discussion. Atsme 💬 📧 12:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would support these suggestions. Alaexis_¿question? 13:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  What exactly is the failure or problem with RSP/RSN? Someone tried to downgrade a satire site? Who cares? The system was running, and it continues to run. The RFC format might be a little too stringent? Some users want to play games? This entire thread has been solutions in search of problems and FUD-fest. Andre🚐 00:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd ask that we make it a policy vote, to make it official or no. That's not something I know how to do here. Many of these essays are essentially useless, "try to do it this way, but if not we can't really do anything about it". I'd prefer if it was in black and white somewhere, but that's not the case for many things on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Short of blacklisting those "in-between" sites, I don't really see how it can change. Education is the best weapon at this point. Try using these really good, ok sites and not those in-between iffy sites... Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Xhufi., Pëllumb (2017). Arbërit e Jonit (eng: The Albanians of the Ionian Sea). Onufri.

Can the above work, author and publisher (Onufri) be considered reliable for use in the article Epirus revolt of 1611? This author has made a number of controversial claims, such as claiming that the current Greek foreign minister Nikos Dendias is Albanian because of some random coincidence between his last name and an Albanian word [18]. Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The author seems like the main event, and his Albanian article notes criticism of his (and others) inability to keep nationalism out of their scholarship (with operative examples). The first 3 citations of Xhufi are also attributed to Vranousis, and while I haven't seen criticism in English of the latter I haven't searched the Greek spelling yet, though he's a mainstream academic while I'm not sure what people think of Xhufi's research credentials (since academia was not his primary career). Ref 14 currently is a sentence attributed solely to Xhufi, with a quote from p.784 of his book in the citation. None of it seems controversial, but the academic criticism of Xhufi wasn't that he was advocating nationalist causes in his work, but that he was making conscious choices of detail (in this case translation decisions) that were clearly significantly skewed by nationalism, whether he was aware of the bias or not. But that criticism was about a different book, a translation, not an original historical work.

I'd say it needs attention from a subject expert to tell you if the passages in particular might be significantly influenced by nationalistic bias, or have the potential to be so, and for events of the time in general. Based on the prior review of Xhufi, such a bias if it's there might be pretty obvious to a subject matter expert, so hopefully it just takes a quick look. I don't know if WikiProject Tirana is a biased place to ask by default but WikiProject Military History should be helpful. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

He's not saying such a thing in the video, but video or no video, RS has nothing to do with it. Xhufi is a medievalist who is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania. Arbërit e Jonit was published by Onufri, a leading academic publishing house which has received many excellence awards and it has been positively reviewed in Studime Historike, Albania's leading historical journal by medievalist Ardian Muhaj. It checks all boxes for RS. There's been a previous discussion about Xhufi[19] which didn't conclude anything different about his reliability as a historian. SamuelRiv you can read about the translation debate which was held in a non-academic space in the previous discussion. The issue didn't deal with his reliability as a historian or his academic credentials,it just debated whether the ethnonym of medieval Albanians should be translated "arbereshë" (archaic term) or "shqiptarë" (popular since the 18th century) in modern Albanian.Alltan (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv Xhufi has written a book together with Oliver Schmitt, a well-known critic of Balkan nationalist historiography and narratives. In another book, Xhufi wrote together with prominent historians invited by University of Toulouse in honour of one of the most well-known historians of Albania and the Byzantine Empire, Alain Ducellier. Alltan (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't make a firm judgement in part because I just saw the one critic, quoted from a translation, in a field and subject and language I do not know. But not just for this, but from seeing other threads raising issues regarding the possible biases in the work of 20th-century Balkans, Greek, and Turkish historians regarding the region, I am suggesting seeking a general review from someone who knows a bit more about the region, its history, and WP policies to give some these articles a brief check if any of these historians seem to be getting a little controversial or if something they say could be have its interpretation significantly changed by, say, a known translation controversy. Nothing this reviewer says has to be binding, but hopefully their informed observations, in a public thread, will at least help move these issues forward more than any advice we can give here. (How is anyone at RSN who is not well knowledgeable of this subject area supposed to judge which of these credentialed historians (I compare Xhufi and Vranousis not because I suspect they might both be biased, but because they both are credentialed, from different regions, and are cited in the article on most of the same facts) in these multilingual multiethnic regions is the least nationally biased?) SamuelRiv (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Having been involved in editing the Epirus revolt of 1611 article, I think it's worth mentioning here that there is a group of Albanian editors who appear to be colluding to impose the Albanian nationalist perspective by edit-warring across a range of Balkan-related articles. These editors include Çerçok (talk · contribs), Maleschreiber (talk · contribs) and Alltan (talk · contribs), who has commented above. I have been reverted by each of them whenever I have attempted to improve the article (including edits unrelated to the ethnic controversy) and restore the long-standing consensus version, supported by international historians like Richard Clogg, a leading authority on modern Greek history, regarding the Greek character of the revolt.[20][21][22] These editors are attempting to erase the perspective of international scholars in favor of two Albanian authors, Xhufi and Doja, who promote the idea of an exclusively Albanian uprising. I doubt that this is in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia. •ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ• 16:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Theodoros has to understand that it's not "two Albanian authors" vs. a consensus. Theodoros is trying to cite a passing comment in what is a tertiary source and contrast it with historians who have written detailed works which focus on this subject. There is no contradiction in bibliography among modern Greek and Albanian historians. The two works which I have used are: an article written by Albert Doja, professor at the University of Lille for Nationalities Papers (CUP)(Doja, Albert (2022). "Ecclesiastical Pressures and Language Politics: The Boundary Work of Albanian Language in the 17th-18th Centuries". Nationalities Papers. 50 (4). doi:10.1017/nps.2021.55.) and a textbook study by Vaso Psimouli(Ψιμούλη, Βάσω Δ. (2006). Σούλι και Σουλιώτες. Ιστορία και Πολιτική (4th ed.). Athens: Βιβλιοπωλείον της Εστίας.), vice director of the General Archives of Greece. Both sources agree that the peasants who rebelled were Albanians who were defeated by the combined interested of Albanian landlords, Greek merchants and the Greek Orthodox clergy. In both sources, the ethnicity of the rebels isn't considered the main aspect of this revolt, which was fueled by economic and political class interests. That the peasants were Albanians isn't a POV, it's exactly how primary sources describe them and how contemporary specialist bibliography views them. Hence, the article about Dionysios Skylosophos at Greek wikipedia which is exclusively based on Greek sources says exactly the same thing about them.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The forum for substantive disputes on the nature of an academic discipline are the relevant WikiProjects: Wikiproject History, Wikiproject Military History, its Balkan military history task force, and/or WikiProject Yugoslavia (semi-active). Please make a thread on one of those project forums, post notification links on the other forums (and in this thread), and continue your discussion there. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of GB News as a source for citations

1. Source in question: https://www.gbnews.uk/
2. Article: GB News

Requesting a consensus be formed with the source being added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with the appropriate Legend upon a consensus being formed. Helper201 (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe that this request is malformed. Please retract this request, read Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief, and then submit a request that is neutral. Also, include what you want to use from the source, and now you want to use it. - Donald Albury 20:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Donald Albury, with all due respect I don't see how I have not already done that. That being said I am open to doing as such if you'd recommend a new wording. Helper201 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm requesting the source be valued as a whole/generally in regards to its suitable as a source of evidence for citations. It seems to be mainly politically focused so I'm guessing that will be the primary subject matter it will be used for. But it’s a news platform so I assume it will have a range of content. Helper201 (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I have not used the source and don't plan on doing so, it’s just I've seen someone else use it for a citation and wanted the source to be evaluated before its use becomes more widespread. Helper201 (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Please read the notice displayed at the top of this page, which gives instructions on how to ask for a consensus on reliability. Context is important. - Donald Albury 20:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I have done so but I honestly don't see what you think is the problem. Please just say exactly and specifically what the issue is and how you want me to change the request or wording to fix it. Helper201 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for barging in, the following information is missing (see the instruction above):

“

Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: Article name.

Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes.

”

Alaexis_¿question? 06:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Regardless of how this is formatted, I think we can be fairly clear that a "news" channel that includes a section called "Wokewatch" [23] is probably going to be generally unreliable for anything to do with politics. Not to mention the presence of Neil Oliver, Darren Grimes, Mark Dolan et al. British version of Fox, effectively. See also the anti-vax fake news links in my post below which suggests to me it should probably be deprecated. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Black Kite Comment If this is a section of a commentary show on the channel – like the commentary shows on Fox, CNN and other American outlets – and not part of its actual news content, then it doesn't necessarily indicate the reliability of the channel's reporting. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  That said, it is presumably at least a rung below more established sources such as the BBC and newspapers such as the Economist and Guardian. thorpewilliam (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable, but its really going to depend on the context. Which is what exactly? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Multiple sources are listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as either "generally unreliable" or "deprecated" without any specific context being given, e.g. Daily Mail, Daily Express etc. Helper201 (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
    • The context is in the linked discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• partisan source, generally unreliable, any syndicated content it carries could maybe be considered on a case by case basis. Acousmana 21:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: A cursory search on Full Fact reveals a number of failed fact checks for GB News (source: https://fullfact.org/search/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%22GB%20News%22). --Minoa (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Minoa, searching for "The Guardian" on Full Facts produces more than 500 results, many of which are also failed fact checks [24]. I don't think that the Guardian is unreliable, so this is not a good way to gauge unreliability. Alaexis_¿question? 07:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  And there are 300+ entries for the Times and Telegraph too. Also, don't forget that a number of fact checks support the news source (indeed the first four Guardian ones that came up for me did). You'd really have to analyse them one by one. However, the noticeable thing about the 42 GB News entries (for a news source that's only been going a year) is that large number of them include fake news being peddled, including dangerous anti-vax stuff i.e. [25] [26] [27] [28] Black Kite (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, this is exactly the kind of analysis that needs to be made to make conclusions. Alaexis_¿question? 08:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I just wanted to try and get the analysis running instead of the RFC being bogged down with whether the request is malformed or not. --Minoa (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable: when a news source is created with the sole intention of "telling you what the mainstream media won’t" or something similar, then that’s an immediate red flag that within hours of launch they’ll go straight to the fake news well (c.f. the Corbynista blogs who tried to argue that February has over 2,000 days, because Steve Walker couldn’t read a WHOIS record properly). The hiring of Andrew Neil was, out of the gate, an attempt to bring some legitimacy to the new channel; once he resigned, the channel quickly devolved into basically the British version of Newsmax. Sceptre (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable: Sources are seemingly about its TV station rather than its website, but: described as "opinion-led" and as "[challenging] to traditional notions of impartial and objective news" by the Reuters Institute (1,2). Also, has been compared to Fox News (1). In fact according to the NYT it was staffed with alumni from Murdoch media ventures (1) around its launch date. --Chillabit (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Impartiality and objectivity are about bias rather than reliability. Do your sources say that they are unreliable? Alaexis_¿question? 07:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  You have a point, though, if a news org is lead too strongly by its own bias it can affect reliability. The comparison to Fox is not doing any favors for them, either, as Fox are known for that sort of coverage. --Chillabit (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable As it seems (and seems to be regarded as) as a TV version of tabloid churnalism. As to the comnlp;arsion to (sayh) the guardian, GB news has been around for a year, the Guardian fact check page goes back 8 years, of course they will have made more mistakes, 10 a year (as opposed to 70 in its first year). Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, and other sources should be used in preference to it. However, it may be useful within certain contexts - e.g. direct quotes where X said Y on the programme, but even these should be covered by other RS. QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable GBNEWS is a largely opaquely structured and financed, purpose launched station to deliver specific alternative facts against a range of perspectives. As Sceptre states above - it's an OAN and Newsmax, much the way TalkTV is. Most of the noteworthy content it produces will be opinion, which is appropriate for their opinion only but unlikely to carry any significant weight in any serious topic compared to actual reliable sources, and notable experts in those fields. Koncorde (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose classifying as unreliable on procedural grounds. There were 6 !votes and only three sources have been brought up. Of these three, two (Reuters report and Stephen Jukes's book) do not discuss the reliability of GB News and one (Full Fact) requires analysis to understand if the source is better or worse than the average (How many failed fact checks are there? Is the frequency higher or lower than that of other outlets? Were retractions issues? etc.). I don't think I've ever used GB News as a source and I would happily reconsider my vote if there is good evidence of their unreliability. Alaexis_¿question? 07:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Does it matter if some of the fact checks "fail" if a significant number clearly show the station peddling fake news? This isn't just "stories that turned out to be false", it's actively pushing a POV based on lies. Black Kite (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  Other outlets' publications have also failed fact checks, e.g. The Telegraph. This is insufficient to declare all of them unreliable. If you are basing your argument on fact checks, you should at least demonstrate that GBNews are significantly worse than others. Also, it would be good to see the breakdown between the news and opinion as the latter "are rarely reliable for statements of fact" per WP:NEWSORG. Alaexis_¿question? 08:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• You're missing the point. There is a massive difference between a news source that prints/broadcasts a story that is later found to be untrue (and retracts it), and one that regularly prints/broadcasts them knowing them to be false for an ulterior motive. The latter is why the Daily Mail is deprecated, and why GBNews needs to go the same way. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  I understand it very well, however no evidence has been presented in this thread that it "regularly prints/broadcasts [untrue stories] knowing them to be false." Alaexis_¿question? 10:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. Seriously? Anti-knowledge channel of zero use to Wikipedia. Anybody wanting to use this drivel probably needs banning for WP:CIR issues or as a WP:POVPUSHER. Alexbrn (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• GB News is generally unreliable as it is a biased or opiniated source. AKK700 01:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, the channel is a TV version of a tabloid newspaper. No evidence of editorial oversight, it markets itself as opinion led and telling the stories/opinions you don't get to hear. POVpushing. Just because you tell a story or have an opinion not listed elsewhere doesn't mean its correct. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. The television reporting is more or less talk shows and opinions. The network kinda flopped in terms of quality and it doesn’t appear to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It might be reliable for non-political reporting on events that take place in the UK; and the vast majority of this conversation appears to be focused on political reporting. But generally we don’t carve out those sorts of exceptions for less-established news organizations. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose classifying as unreliable insofar as no sources have been provided that demonstrate that it "regularly prints/broadcasts [untrue stories] knowing them to be false." It stands to reason that any opinion articles are opinion and should be treated as such but blanket blacklisting the whole medium based on editor perceptions and absent objective proof would be unencyclopaedic. XavierItzm (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Unreliable. I'd even go so far as to blacklist. Disinformation has no place in an encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable both due to editorial policies and age. It takes years of good editorial practice to earn the badge of a reputable source, and they haven't yet started. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable at absolute best, for all the reasons stated above - David Gerard (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable per above. Andrevan@ 18:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose classifying as unreliable OFCOM hasn't sanctioned GB News for anything yet alone false or misleading stories. Dougal18 (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose classifying as unreliable on procedural grounds. The relevant policy for assessing the reliability of sources is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and I don't see any compelling reasons to make sweeping classifications like this. It should be determined on a case-by-case basis. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Chris Turner's Snooker Archive

Chris Turner's Snooker Archive is used as a source for many snooker-related articles. At GA or FAC review, the site's validity as a source is often questioned but then accepted. (Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4.) I think it would be useful to establish a consensus. Turner died in 2011 and the site has not been updated since. He worked for Eurosport and had articles published on their site.

Previous discussions (from 2011):

• Snooker sites - WWW Snooker / snooker.org and Chris Turner’s Snooker Archive
• Chris Turner's Snooker Archive

For consideration:

• Blog post from David Hendon (assistant editor of Snooker Scene and a snooker commentator for Eurosport) link
• Turner had a brief obituary in Snooker Scene for December 2011, which mentions that he "collated billiards and snooker statistics for many years and ran a very useful website ... in which key facts and figures were recorded."
• The site is included in The UK Web Archive
• Sample articles by Turner for Eurosport: 1, 2

I think that Chris Turner's Snooker Archive should be regarded as generally reliable for statistical and historical information about snooker tournaments and statistics. What do others think? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok? What's the problem? Excelsior and all that. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems like there's a reasonable case that Turner counts as an expert on snooker in WP:SPS terms – my understanding is that Eurosport is widely respected as reliable for its sports reporting. The main considerations in assessing particular uses would seem to therefore be: (1) self-published sources cannot be used as sources about living people and (2) snooker is a reasonably major sport, so if nobody has published some claim in an independent reliable source, is it important enough to include? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I've always made the argument that this is suitably reliable, and far surpasses WP:SPS. It is as Benny says something that often gets challenged so getting additional eyes is a good idea. As Turner has been identified by reliable organisations as a subject matter expert, his statistical website should also be deemed reliable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Clearly a subject-matter expert published in independent reliable secondary sources within the scope of his expertise. It's a narrow category, so I don't think it merits listing in RSP, but a reliable source by all reasonable measures. Banks Irk (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this website is suitable for reliability?

I want to know like this website reliability. It seems has information about celebrity personal life and professional career whenever you search. The Supermind (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

No. Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Why does not suitable for Wikipedia? I want to know the reason please. The Supermind (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I cringed the moment I saw the domain datingcelebs.com, and I am happy to report finding the following text on the site: All dating histories are fact-checked and confirmed by our users. This leads us directly to policy section Wikipedia:Reliable sources#User-generated content. That makes it a slam-dunk no-and-begone-ye-demons. Who's-dating-who is unencyclopedic, unacceptably transient, and excessively privacy-intrusive for inclusion in Wikipedia. As for any non-dating information also present on that the site, I see little chance would be deemed significantly more Reliable than the site's primary content. Alsee (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Your assessment about User-gen is correct. However, "Who's-dating-who is unencyclopedic, unacceptably transient, and excessively privacy-intrusive for inclusion in Wikipedia" has no basis in policy. These are all fine arguments, but this is about the extent of BLP discussion on dating gossip. Whether it should be stated explicitly that most dating gossip should be excluded from BLPs in general is a discussion to raise at BLP. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

In general, the day to day gossip for celebs is covered by both WP:NOT and BLP. We want info about celebs to be about their endurance, and gossip like thus fails that completely Masem (t) 13:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:GOSSIP is a thing, WP is not a tabloid. Selfstudier (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

GOSSIP is about gossip, not dating. If dating is verifiable, then it's not under GOSSIP. The only thing in there that applies is NOTGOSSIP: "Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." Arguably, in the case of Indian celebrities in the discussion prior, an editor can claim there is both notability and interest in a great many cases. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Dating "news" is gossip, doesn't matter if for certain fields. Yes, readers may be interested in these tidbits but we have stricter requirements Masem (t) 15:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, read the GOSSIP policy. It has nothing to do with what "certain fields", only that it restricts info that isn't verifiable. Nor am I saying this is restricted to certain fields when I give an example of where this has come up. If we have stricter requirements, you should bring them up at BLP, because they're not written down and have not been in any RfC or substantive discussion there. That's my point. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Notgossip says to only cover "only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." While not written down, this has long included who is dating who, particularly if the other person involved is not a public figure. Also BLP is about minimizing potential harm to how we present bios, and that has included one's love life. Just because dating information is not explicitly defined in policy, it is well understood by practice to fall within it Masem (t) 18:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I hate to belabor this conversation, but I was the one who quoted notgossip, and in the example thread I brought up (and the only valid examples) are those who are notable public figures. How is writing who one dates a potential harm, especially if it's verified? If you're saying it's a norm, then I agree it's a norm, but don't then say it's policy.

And this brings up a greater point. Does it have to be policy? Plenty of legal systems rely explicitly on norms (notably much of international humanitarian law), so do we need something like this to be spelled out in policy? If not, why tell another editor that it's policy? Why make your interaction with an editor one of untruth? SamuelRiv (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO. Policies are not meant to spell out every rule to the letter, and are to applied with common sense. Masem (t) 23:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I hate to belabor this conversation... and yet you go on to do precisely that. If a "Person X was seen at Club Y with Person Z" story only appears in a low-quality source like a gossip blog or a tabloid magazine, then it is beneath the interest of a person reasonably likely to be reading a Wikipedia article. Or at least, beneath the type of reader we should strive to retain. When or if the story appears in a reputable source, then it becomes a more noteworthy aspect of the BLP, and thus likelier to be included. Zaathras (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Does not look reliable to me...yellow pages website with user generated content...totally against WP:RS Abrvagl (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Clearly Unreliable Website grossly fails basic criteria of WP:RS. "Gossip noun casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true."[29] This is so obviously incompatible with WP:PG including BLP that I am astonished it is the subject of serious discussion. Anyone suggesting that gossip is not incompatible with BLP would cause me to question their basic competence to edit on any BLP related topic. See WP:CIR. See also WP:NOTGOSSIP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Unreliable Gossipy tabloid, no indication that they are a track record of accuracy an fact-checking. Zaathras (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Tamils Against Genocide

• Source – https://pptsrilanka.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/tag_model_indictment.pdf

• Article – List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces

• Content -

[30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]

The Tamils Against Genocide (TAG) hired a lawyer to compile a report containing alleged crimes of Sri Lankan government forces during the Sri lankan civil war, in order to submit to the the U.S. Justice Department . This source has been used to add content to this article List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces in multiple occasions. International Crisis Group has stated that the TAG lacks credibility because of the overt political bias of TAG. Furthermore, according to the International Crisis Group, a U.S. official familiar with the report published by TAG has stated that its hard to take TAG seriously because of their political bias. I started a discussion in the article talk page with the other Wikipedia user who added these content from this source regarding the reliability of content in the the source but couldn't reach a consensus yet.

Can this report published by TAG be used as a reliable source for the article List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces? JohnWiki159 (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It's an advocacy organization report and a think tank report. Let's pretend I know nothing about Sri Lanka's civl war. The ICG report takes issue with TAG's political bias and lack of judicial rigor, but does not take issue with their facts (which they presumably reviewed). Seeing no other reason to flat-out distrust the advocacy org or, more importantly, the person they hired to write their report, it seems like an RS to add items to a list whose criteria only seem to be "attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces". Other criticisms of TAG and their report are that it unduly ignores the LTTE. Well, yeah. But again, it's a list of attacks by the Sri Lankan government. We don't have a "List of attacks by the U.S. in Africa" appending each entry with "but they were hunting terrorists and remember 9/11?" Ugh, stupid list articles. Just find an academic study that attempts to catalog all acts of violence under some fixed set of metrics during fixed some time period, say that that's your only criteria for given segments of a list, and print that, no ifs ands or buts. We don't let List of Countries by GDP get usurped every time an individual central bank releases numbers, or an independent researcher audits a single country. Now, if I were to incorporate what I do know about the Sri Lankan civil war into this evaluation, then I would not be talking about the substantive details of the reporting about and events of a specific war on RSN but rather on the Talk page of the article in question, or WikiProject Sri Lanka, or perhaps WikiProject Military History.

All that said, I recommend you also discuss on the Wikiproject changing the criteria of the list and all its cousin lists regarding crimes in Sri Lanka. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I already started a discussion in the article talk page before posting here. I decided to bring this to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard as a consensus couldn't be reached in the article talk page. As per my understanding, the problem here is that TAG is the only source used here to talk about these alleged attacks added to this article. No other secondary reliable sources have been provided for these content added from the report. Independent sources such as Human Rights Watch reports, Amnesty reports, reputed news paper articles etc were used wherever possible when editing articles revolving around the Sri lankan civil war. When using sources which are biased towards one party, the in-text attribution was used to highlight were it was taken from to maintain the Neutral Point of View. If using this source, I believe if possible, that same procedure can be used in this article List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces to maintain the NPOV. Thank you for the recommendations as well. Also, I feel this Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law) is somewhat similar to what we are discussing now. It says "Law sources that are written by authoritative experts in law, such as legal scholars, and published by respected independent publishing houses are normally reliable sources." Can TAG be considered a "respected independent publishing house" in this context? Thank you. JohnWiki159 (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Just because it's the only RS being used to cite an event, does not disqualify it. There is no rule saying that you absolutely need to have two separate reliable sources corroborating each other, in order to cite one. Secondly, the identifying reliable sources for law is irrelevant here, it's not an article about precise legal matters. Oz346 (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources for party lists in Israeli elections

I've started adding the lists for Israeli elections in older election rounds (before I started we only had back to 2009). Unfortunately, the official sites don't go back to before the 2003 elections. Can I count on the reliability of https://www.idi.org.il/policy/parties-and-elections/ to get older data, since they go all the way back to Israel's first elections? Animal lover |666| 08:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

For the purpose of faithfully reproducing data from past elections, the Israel Democracy Institute looks to me to be trustworthy to do so reliably. If official government sources or contemporaneous reliable news accounts from the time period don't exist to reproduce that data, the IDI looks to be reliable towards that end. It doesn't to me look like the kind of data that is likely to be controversial, and the IDI doesn't have a reputation for inventing such banal facts out of whole cloth. --Jayron32 16:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I was once looking to add to Meimad and remember that the IDI was a pretty commonly cited resource for this exact sort of thing.

E.G. here: 1, 2, 3 Chillabit (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

autobiography of former al Qaeda member, third hand claim

Is an autobiography by a captured member of al Qaeda, selling a self-serving story that they became an international "Top Spy", a reliable source for a third-hand claim of responsibility for an incident of mass murder?

Article: Russian apartment bombings

Content:
Aimen Dean, a Western spy within the al-Qaeda, wrote that he had a phone call in 1999 with Abu Said al-Kurdi—a logistics chief for Chechen jihadis in which Al-Kurdi said that the apartment bombings were perpetrated by the Islamic Emirate to revenge the atrocities committed by the Moscow OMON in the Caucasus.

References

I believe it fails our RS standards, especially when a questionable autobiography is putting such claims in someone else's mouth. Alsee (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not reliable as it is a claim that may have been made to boost book sales, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The article discussion thread was opened specifically to respond to you. We edited the paragraph in question for weight. You have not commented in it. Why don't you raise your objections there? SamuelRiv (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv trimming the content makes no difference when the problem is the source. I removed the content twice, with edit summaries that it was an unreliable source. I was not encouraged by the article-talk request that I supply an RS saying this source was not Reliable. That's not how Reliability works.

Perhaps I was mistaken, but my impression was that it was unlikely to be productive to again say A self-serving autobiography by a terrorist promoting themselves as a super-spy, is far from a Reliable Source under Wikipedia guidelines. If you do agree that this is not sufficiently Reliable Source, we can swiftly wrap up this discussion. Alsee (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a book with a reputable publisher by a guy who was a legitimate CIA source, coauthored with an RS on terrorism and an RS journalist (on editorial policies), with third party book reviews from RS publications, and here's the coauthors' statement on the verification process. For the purposes of this board, it is indisputably an RS. As for whether including it in the article, and to what extent, is WP:DUE, or for matters relating to whether we can reasonably believe that this particular claim from this source should be considered credible, that belongs on the article Talk page, not here. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The book was co-authored by Paul Cruickshank and Tim Lister and published by a reputable publisher, Simon and Shuster. [62] is probably a terrorism expert, while Lister is a journalist and contributor to CNN. Whether or not Cruikshank is an expert, the fact the book was published by a reputable non-academic publisher makes it pass rs.

So it meets rs, but several things must be kept in mind. Claims by Dean are not reliable unless Cruickshank says they are. Is the murder reported as a fact or an assumption? If the latter, does it have weight? Also, per weight, original claims made in the book lack weight for inclusion unless they are reported in reliable secondary sources.

The best approach is to avoid it as a source. Writers who were close to events may not be that reliable and we should filter their views through expert analysis in secondary sources. The relevant policy is primary sources, which applies whether or not the source is reliable.

They may be used, but only with care. But why bother at all?

TFD (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• A source like this (an admittedly sensationalist autobiography that is nonetheless published by a reputable publisher and with decent names on it) is an WP:RS, but it is important to be cautious about whether and how to use it. First of all, these are fairly WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims cited only to a single source. Attribution isn't a cure-all in this situation either, since if we're framing it as one person's opinion we have to ask why his opinion is so significant. But there's a much, much more serious problem (which makes me wonder if anyone on the talk page there has actually read the source) - it does not accurately reflect Dean's views. To the extent that he expresses any, Dean very unequivocally does not believe Al-Kurdi. Just a few excerpts from that section (which was a call with Al-Kurdi):

• Perhaps he could sense the doubt in the silence at the other end.
• Putin may not have ordered or even been aware of the plan to bomb Moscow. But it was a gift – whoever wrapped it – to the new hard man of Russian politics. Footnote: Just how the bombings occurred and who was responsible will probably never be known for sure.
• That night, against normal protocol, I scribbled down everything I had heard on the call. I had to get this right because al-Kurdi’s information flew in the face of a widespread perception that the Moscow bombings were a false-flag operation staged by Putin.

Using the source without making that context clear is blatantly misusing it. The current version gives the impression that Aimen Dean uncritically accepted Al-Kurdi's assertion, which is not the case. More generally, though, I would take a step back and look for secondary coverage beyond just Dean's own biography before including it at all. Also, I particularly object to placing it in the "criticism" section - it is not criticism. Dean goes out of his way to highlight his own skepticism of Al-Kurdi's assertions and to make it clear that he does not consider them definitive. A criticism section should be citing secondary sources making arguments from primary sources, not the primary sources directly; as it is, it feels like this source is being used by an editor to make an argument or criticism in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Aquillion. I tried to access the pages online, but I was only able to get an insignificant fragment. Did you access a physical copy, or could you share any tip on how you accessed it online?

I still say we shouldn't be using this source. However if this source is accepted, then based on your quotes we would need to severely change the text in the article. The current text does not reasonably reflect the full context. Alsee (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I haven't checked the source myself and this is indeed important. If you don't mind I suggest we continue the discussion at the article's talk page. Alaexis_¿question? 11:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

More responses would be welcome. By my count 4 people say we shouldn't be using this source. (Myself, Atlantic306 "Not reliable", TFD "The best approach is to avoid it as a source", and at articletalk Aquillion says "prefer to omit entirely"[63].) The two original editors supporting the content at the article, Aquillion and SamuelRiv, have: Been unhappy about me bringing this here and attempted to avoid discussion at this Noticeboard,[64] made a second attempt to avoid discussion at this Noticeboard,[65] made a third attempt to avoid discussion at this Noticeboard,[66] and restored the source&content at the article[67] despite 4v2 saying we shouldn't be using this source. Alsee (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The noticeboard is for the merits of the source as an RS in general. That question, I think you'll agree, has been answered. In terms of its substantive merits for inclusion in relation to the article as a whole, that discussion should be contained on the article Talk page (if not least for our sanity). If you are concerned that this is becoming or has become an edit war, you should look into further steps on dispute resolution. If you can pose a well-formed neutral question to be asked, you can make a Request for comment. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The noticeboard is for the merits of the source as an RS in general. That's definitely not true, the banner of the noticeboard states This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• I do not think autobiographies in general meet the definition of RS except in the ABOUTSELF sense, even if they have co-authors. Memoirs and autobiographies don't get fact checked the way other sources do, and indeed, they can't be fact checked, because so much is just the author sharing their memories and personal feelings. As for the specific claim, it's the author's recollection of something he overheard. This is not a good source for the claim (which is exceptional and so requires exceptional sourcing), and the fact that the author claims it, is not DUE simply because it's in his autobiography. (We'd need multiple independent sources making the same claim.) Autobiographies are too promotional to be reliable. I would not use this source for this claim. Levivich 15:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• It appears the source is being used to cite a paraphrase of something that Dean said. The fact at Wikipedia we are citing is "Did Dean say this thing that we are saying Dean said". The source does infact verify that Dean made that statement. For that purpose, it is reliable. It verifies what Wikipedia is saying in Wikipedia's voice quite well. Dean did say it, the source confirms that Dean did say it. Whether it is relevant that Dean made such a statement in the article where it is being written and in the manner in which it is being used is a matter of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and numerous other policy questions, and NOT the domain of this venue. However, on the matter of "Does the source reliably verify what Wikipedia is saying", yes it does. Dean's autobiography does reliably confirm what Dean's autobiography says. --Jayron32 15:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah that's true, every source is an RS for its own attributed statements, and whether to include attributed statements is more about DUE than RS. Levivich 16:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  Jayron32 Reliability is conditional not just on the source itself, but also the article and purpose it is being used. Are you sure you intend in-text-attribution to be a complete and open backdoor exemption from Reliability? If I write an autbiography in my userspace saying Obama told me that the FBI was responsible for killing JFK, it may be Reliable to cite that (with in text attribution) in a Wikipedia article about me for the purpose of showing my fringe views. However do you really intend to say the same source and same text would would be Reliable in the JFK article, for the propose of discrediting the Oswald-killed-JFK narrative? That's exactly what we have here. Dean claims a living-person claimed group responsibility for mass murder. Should it it really be necessary to transfer this to the BLP board to say that a captured terrorists's self promotional autobiography is not Reliable for the purpose of casting blame in the bombing article? Alsee (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  But Wikipedia is not casting blame. We're saying Dean is casting the blame. He is. We can verify that. I mean, we could be saying it to call him a "liar liar pants on fire" for that matter, but he still made the claim. This board is for determining if what Wikipedia is saying is verified by a source fit to the purpose. For the purpose of paraphrasing Dean's own opinions, the source works. Is Dean's opinion WP:UNDUE? Maybe, maybe not. But this isn't the general "article has problems, help me get consensus to fix them" board. It defeats the purpose of having separate noticeboards for different purposes like WP:NPOVN and WP:BLPN and WP:RSN and all the others if we just pick a random board and ask for feedback on something unrelated to that noticeboard's remit. That's my only point... Make sure that reliability issues are discussed here, which is really narrowly defined as "Can this source be trusted to verify this Wikipedia statement". The statement is verifiable as written. Whether it should have been written at all is a different matter. --Jayron32 17:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Is Blue News an RS?

@IceWelder: @Masem: @JimmyBlackwing: In Talk:Serious Sam: Tormental/GA1, I'm iffy if Blue News is an RS. The site is focused on video games (see WP:VG/RS, where it's listed as generally reliable), but IMHO a discussion here could have more input. The site is dated, without any about us or editorial policies whatsoever. Its FAQ is written by a single person, with a lot of info on forum comments: [there] are very few hard and fast rules, it also has a link where you can... send news (not sure what's the subsequent review process)? A mention has to significant and/or newsworthy in some area, along with other standards for news articles, but there's little info on any policies except this. Its news is apparently written by Stephen Heaslip per IceWelder, I'm not sure if that there're some user-generated parts news written by anon users, like Wikipedia, IMdB, or BoardGameGeek, to think a few. IMHO, it's situational (I couldn't see editorial policies, and did the author appear in any other RS?) or generally unreliable, would you consider it to be generally reliable, situational, or generally unreliable? Pinging GA nom and previous participants in discussion, which seems to rely on that a few RS cite it: IceWelder, Masem, and JimmyBlackwing. Thanks for your input! VickKiang (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

In the gaming sphere, Blue's News was a pretty reliable and widely-referenced outlet on the early web. It's hard to research games from that era without bumping into it. As one example, the newspaper The Republic named it a "weekly web wonder" in 2003, and called it "a great resource for gaming stuff." The Modesto Bee highlighted it as one of the "popular news blogs" in 2005. Plus, the LA Times recommended it to readers in 1998. There's more along those lines, especially once you dig into gaming magazines from the period. It was all over the place, and cited by reliable outlets like GameSpot in their news stories (see here). I don't know anything about the site's recent work, so I can't vouch for that, but Blue's News was an invaluable source back in the day. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that all news items are written by Stephen Heaslip, the site's creator. The only user-driven content are comments on articles, which are found in the forum linked above. IceWelder [✉] 10:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@IceWelder: Thanks, corrected and updated. Though, if only all work is done by a single person, is he appearing in other RS and considered to be a subject-matter-expert? VickKiang (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't JimmyBlackwing's analysis directly answer your question already? Their work has been cited and directly commended by other reliable sources for their reliability and quality. Other sources cite them, and directly comment on the quality of the work. That sounds like RSes consider them a subject-matter expert, doesn't it? I do agree that SPSes always present a special challenge, and if sources on a higher rung of the reliability ladder do exist, we should use those, perhaps preferentially, but as noted where no other sources exist from this time frame and on this subject, legitimately reliable sources all cosign the work, at least for the time frame noted. --Jayron32 15:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed answer! VickKiang (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Docstoc.com

There was a previous discussion back in February 2009 regarding this(I've checked). But it's been a long time and the site shutdown in 2015. Archives remain via the Wayback Machine. I've only used the site a few times years ago, using files for articles ZeniMax Media and 4Kids Entertainment.(one for each). Can the site be used more here and can be considered reliable? Using legal documents is tricky and the site by the looks of it hasn't been used much. I've wondering what others think and whether a consensus can be reached because I want to start using this as a source. Timur9008 (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I will have a look, but can you give us an example of how you'd like to use it? That might be helpful. Dumuzid (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I've used these files for those articles I've mentioned.[68] and [69].

It depends really what I find there but incorporation dates for companies, Private Equity reports, stuff like that. Timur9008 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

KiHa 80 series

In reviewing the Good Article nomination for the article above, Mike Christie expressed concerns with the following sources:

• https://hobbycom.jp/workshop/library/tetsudomeiressha/95.html
• http://homepage3.nifty.com/EF57/lastday/lastday.htm

Would these be reliable or not? MiasmaEternal☎ 08:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

As I am Japanese-less, I will do my best with Google Translate, so take quotations I interpret from the site skeptically. Regarding the hobbycom article, it has a date and refers to its original source material: This article is based on the weekly "Railway Data File" (published by Deastini Japan). [※この記事は、週刊『鉄道データファイル』（デアスティーニ・ジャパン刊）を基に構成したものです] The site "Library" pages as a whole are described as Regularly updated articles of interest for enthusiasts who are useful for model making. DeAgostini editorial department cooperates fully. [模型製作に役立つマニア注目の記事を定期更新] The English DeAgostini site does not have versions of any of these pages as far as I can tell, and navigating their Japanese site for the original article material is beyond my capabilities in reasonable -- however, an editor with some basic command of Japanese should consider finding the original article and seeing if DeAgostini provides its own sources. If nothing else, it's worth linking as a secondary citation once you find it: "hobbycom, adapted from deagostini.jp". Is DeAgostini an RS? In the context of the fact being cited, which is not controversial and should be decently recorded, but is quite old, I'd want to see if deagostini.jp's article has endnotes first. It's "good enough", but the article you're writing seems to want to be better than that, so if deagostini.jp doesn't have sources, you'll probably want to look elsewhere for more details on the early history.

The second source you site is a personal blog (your link is dead and archived, but the blog is live and moved to coocan.jp) whose homepage -- Japan Steam Locomotives at the Wayback Machine (archived 2014-04-19) -- has copyright information for ants, but at least it credits the photographer in full, though the blog's author is not given a full name. It would seem that the only information you appear to want to attribute to the blog are the numbers and dates like a peak of 5958 steam locomotives in 1948. That's a very precise number which should be easy to confirm elsewhere with a search (page 2 of google, after a lot of misses, though Retirement of steam locomotives by country repeats the blog cite, here's an RS: Tanaka, Fumio (June 2002) [First presented at the September 2001 New York conference "Slow Train Coming: Heritage Railways in the 21st Century"]. "Umekoji Steam Locomotive Museum and Steam Operations on the Yamaguchi Line". Japan Railway & Transport Review. Heritage Railways (part 2) (31): 24–27. Retrieved 2022-08-26. "The rapid growth of domestic industry after the turn of the century also saw a rapid increase in the number of SLs with the number peaking at 5958 in 1946."). Because Toki S.'s blog references many precise numbers and direct quotations -- she just usually omits proper citation -- the blog can still be an excellent research material, since finding attribution for anything useful on there should be rather simply (scratch that, I just realized many of the quotes are probably translations from Japanese sources, which will make cross-referencing much much harder. Still, you can easily search by numbers, key words, and date.)

Hope this helps you make progress. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Libs of TikTok

A discussion on the talk page of Libs of TikTok seems to be going nowhere, so I invite other editors to participate so we can hopefully overcome the current deadlock in discussion: Talk:Libs of TikTok/Archive 4#OR and Boston Hospital X-Editor (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Film review Source

Are these websites considered reliable for film reviews? ( [70] I haven't got the answer. And my question has been removed. don't remove it till i get the answer)

• indiaglitz.com
• nowrunning.com
• filmibeat.com
• chitraloka.com
• www.viggy.com
• mirchi9.com
• Greatandhra.com
• daijiworld.com PravinGanechari (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions for using this noticeboard. Also, please search this noticeboard for past discussions on these sources.

• Nowrunning: probably not given past discussions at this noticeboard.
• Filmibeat: last I looked at it, it appeared to be scraping content from other sources, so unlikely to be reliable.

I've not noted any of the others. I'm not sure if I'll have time to look further. --Hipal (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• For what are you intending to cite these film review sites? Absent any context, we cannot tell you whether or not they are useful here at Wikipedia. If you have some specific examples of the type of things you intend to cite them to, that would help. Context is everything. --Jayron32 13:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

That is precisely the problem with this question. What exactly are these sources proposed to be used for? Without knowing that context, the question is meaningless. The query references film reviews. If you want to say that "reviewer X gave a good/bad/middle review of Y film published by Z website", Z is obviously a reliable source for the statement. But that poses another issue entirely. What makes X's opinion on Y film published on Z website notable enough to be cited in an article on a film? While it is common to cite websites that aggregate film reviews, like Rotten Tomatoes, individual reviews are only cited where the critic is prominent. Banks Irk (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• indiaglitz.com - I can find no information about them that suggests they should be treated as a reliable publisher. --Hipal (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)