Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: Difference between revisions

Discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard To discuss the reliability of a source, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). Discussions on the noticeboard will be added to this list. This talk page is for discussing the maintenance of the list itself, and arguments posted here will not be taken into consideration.

Controversially classified sources Fox News (RSP entry) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) (RSP entry) are the most controversially classified sources in this list. The most recent Fox News RfC is from 2010, and there has never been an RfC for the SPLC. If you disagree with the classifications of these sources, please start an RfC (request for comment) on the reliable sources noticeboard to determine the current consensus instead of directly editing your preferred classification into the list. If you are unfamiliar with RfCs, please ask here, and other editors will be glad to assist.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:RSP

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Reliability This page is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability articles Wikipedia Help This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles

This project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Samantha Cole (2 October 2018). "Wikipedia Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts". Vice. Retrieved 8 September 2019. Omer Benjakob (9 January 2020). "Why Wikipedia Is Much More Effective Than Facebook at Fighting Fake News". Haaretz. Retrieved 10 January 2020.

Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

I had a look for inaccuracies myself hoping to decide if the ban on them as a reputable source (when sources that deliberately mislead the US public leading up to the war in Iraq and similar were still treated as such) and found none. The opposition to them seems opinion based on inaccurate assumptions at best.

I believe in revealing my biases so I'm an old 70%ish white guy who remembers what the Democratic party used to be before Bill Clinton and the [neocon]/[neoliberal] (same thing) [third way] alliance.

WikiLeaks was loved for exposing corruption until it was "centrist" corruption and I think there is a strong possibility that those most opposing it's inclusion in this site are being paid to do so.

I am aware of my biases however, and wait with baited breath for actual examples of WikiLeaks "getting it wrong." They should exist if the negative reputation is more than the results of a coordinated smear campaign. ~~ TheGrinningViking (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheGrinningViking, the place to raise this concern is the reliable sources noticeboard. That having been said, from reading our entry for it here, it seems that the primary concern with WikiLeaks isn't that it's inaccurate, it's that it is a primary source. Per our policies against original research, it would thus be inappropriate to cite them for claims directly (although it would be permissible to cite WikiLeaks for say, a verbatim quote from a document provided that a reliable secondary source has published content on it). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current summary says: "Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended."

The actual RFC doesn't say that at all - there's a line in the analysis "I also note that many have noted that any uncontroversial information which can be sourced to the Sun (sports score-lines et al) can almost-always be sourced to another source of repute." The comments in the RFC include:

I can appreciate a counter-argument that The Sun is good for up to date sports results, and that those are pretty reliable - however, WP:BLPSOURCES correctly states, "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

That's the only mention of sports.

I note this because some editors seem to think that line in the RSP summary means it's a green-rated sure fire RS as long as the subject matter vaguely relates to sports. (There was a long row about this that ended up at WP:ARCA a short time ago.) And that's not what the summary, nor the comments in the RFC, said or meant - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ping Winged Blades of Godric who closed the RFC, Feminist who first added the sports carveout, and Newslinger who amended it, for clarity - David Gerard (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's saddens me to think that people detest all of the Sun newspaper, for some reason you included The Irish Sun, and Scottish Sun together when they are in fact different papers with different editorials. Reliability is questioned for every article? I really don't understand why other sources are needed for basic fact reporting. Govvy (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why a broad RFC was run on the issue. My question here is about how to correctly describe the deprecation, if you want to change consensus on the question then you want WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether The Sun can be used for reception sections regarding sporting events. Wondering if anyone can clear this up for me exactly.--WillC 23:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even the RFC resolution, as quoted above, says not to if you possibly can - David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hence I noted that it was only "some editors" who considered the Sun to be OK for sports reporting, not that it was a consensus between participants at the discussions. Perhaps I should remove the mention of "for sports", because a sizeable minority at the RfC thought that the Sun is OK for opinion etc. without necessarily limiting it to sports. feminist (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest removing that line entirely - it wasn't in the RFC text or in the RFC finding, and is observably being misinterpreted as a free-for-all because there are editors who really want to use the bad source cos it's convenient - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a sizeable minority at the RfC thought that the Sun is OK for opinion etc I don't see that present at all in the RFC text - there's nothing in it to support that as a summary either. What are you thinking of here? - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't there be a moratorium on a thing like this? Isn't there a point where The Sun was reliable and then a point where it ceased being as such. Because I would figure in 2008 it would have been fine. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not deeply familiar with the source outside or occasional use.--WillC 01:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun has literally always been trash since its inception, decades back. From The_Sun_(United_Kingdom)#Early_Murdoch_years: The tabloid Sun was first published on 17 November 1969, with a front page headlined "HORSE DOPE SENSATION", an ephemeral "exclusive". And read on from there. It hasn't improved - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problems I see is you are limiting the amount of sources being able to be used on wikipedia. You will end up with articles sourced from a limited amount of news services. Sometimes what The Sun reports on can have a domino effect, with this stupid RfC disregards the first instance of who reported the story and that can be just as important to the story itself. Articles should be primary sourced as well as secondary sourced and The Sun can at times be the primary source and I've seen people removing that primary source. Govvy (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not at all about improving WP. It's about a handful of editors finding an excuse to make themselves feel powerful over the Sun or the Daily Mail. It's ego, not accuracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The place to argue this point is WP:RSN, not here, if you want to argue and change the consensus achieved in the RFC - David Gerard (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is Andy Dingley going on about?? How is that constructive to the conversation ? Govvy (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least allow The Sun to remain as source for old articles like SummerSlam (2009). At that time it was very reliable, and it had been considered that way for 10 years. It has been cited unreliable in recent time so it should not be used for recent articles. But removing all the information from the older articles destroys the quality of the articles and some of the articles you removed the Sun as a source from had broken links, you do not do any thing about broken links. Are administrators supposed to start calling sources unreliable anytime they want? Just saying, I respect your decision, but please take into account the quality of the older articles which are affected by removing the Sun as source and their recent unreliability is not associated with the Sun being considered an extremely reliable source back in 2009, and the contents were the 2009 contents of the Sun not the present day "unreliable Sun's" contents. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun was never at any time "extremely reliable". The place to argue that The Sun is "extremely reliable" is WP:RSN, as I've pointed out a few times. The present discussion is purely about how to accurately represent the consensus that was reached on WP:RSN previously - David Gerard (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See this is what I don't get, the sports section of the paper, basically tells you how a game went down, gives some analysis, etc. To say that every part of the paper is unreliable? I think that's the wrong way to go about it. Wikipedia is just getting political, neutrality of articles will end up being one sided! Besides, I don't know why I bother editing this thing sometimes, half the articles are written so poorly, feels like a robot wrote the articles! Govvy (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've learnt from bitter experience not to even trust the analysis in the Sun. They make stuff up that can't be verified anywhere else, because they're the Sun. There's a reason they're deprecated, and it's because they're long-term habitual liars who can't be trusted - David Gerard (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sports section of The Sun then is redundant if that is all it does, and there are more reliable sources that can be used for basic reporting of facts and figures? If The Sun was the sole source for a particular claim, or insight into the game, then you would have to wonder how significant that view is.

However The Sun is still The Sun. So its objectivity and segregation of its editorial policies from day to day news (including sports) are unclear and always have been. Their content is general loaded with hyperbole, and sensationalised titles even for sports, or sports related content (for instance Raheem Sterling a few years ago with the 'gun tattoo') and they have not been above letting responses to front page news influence their back page sports writing (see Ashley Cole and the whole allegation of homosexual acts, for which he sued them). In short, The Sun is a tabloid newspaper of little to no merit. Koncorde (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder: since this talk page only receives a fraction of the pageviews as the noticeboard, discussions on this page aren't factored into the list entries. If any editor wishes to introduce new arguments, WP:RSN is the correct venue where those arguments can be thoroughly examined by the community.

Responding to David Gerard's original question: I think the sentence in the entry's summary ("Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended.") is an acceptable interpretation of the bullet point in the RfC's closing summary ("I also note that many have noted that any uncontroversial information which can be sourced to the Sun (sports score-lines et al) can almost-always be sourced to another source of repute.") However, it's debatable whether the sentence needs to be in the entry. Over 50 editors commented in the survey section of the RfC, while only 2 editors made positive remarks about The Sun's sport coverage. — Newslinger talk 16:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any substantive objections to removing the sentence, anyone? - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I see no problem with using it for non-controversial sports coverage. While only two may have supported its use for sports coverage then, this thread has already shown more than two users in support (with a sample size of far less than 50). Removing it from "controversial" (?) claims like "This event happened before, but this was the first time it was broadcast on pay-per-view" is ridiculous. You might not like it based on some of your experiences, but a blanket condemnation doesn't seem to be in order. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard if you want new arguments to be taken into account. Descriptions of sources in the list only factor in consensus from past discussions that are indexed in the corresponding entry. — Newslinger talk 03:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is only about existing consensus in the RFC and the past discussions - present status is that The Sun is generally prohibited, and this discussion is about the description of the RFC and the past discussions. If you propose a change to The Sun's status, as you are proposing, then the place to get that through is at WP:RSN - we can't do a do-over here - David Gerard (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one proposing changing things. Currently, it indicates that some use for sports can be acceptable. If you're asking to remove that sentence, you should take the discussion to RSN. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You show little sign of understanding what we're saying here. That sentence is decided here, 'cos this is the talk page for the summary page. The summary page doesn't set the consensus, that's set at RSN. Just going WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and repeating yourself isn't helpful or going to change the consensus - David Gerard (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let's talk about the summary. It clearly doesn't reflect the RfC, where a substantial amount of the support was for deprecation of The Sun with the clarification that they would not support an outright ban. Since it's being enforced as an outright ban, a more accurate summary is needed to reflect that, while discouraged, use of The Sun is permitted, and editors should not remove links to it en masse. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing I'm editing according to the RFC conclusion, then - David Gerard (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Unix it used to be never go anywhere without your aliases, on enwiki it apparently is never add sources on a BLP without checking WP:RS/P first. Minor difficulty, tons of details at the top of the page only relevant for editors of this project age, the all important A…Z index for users (read/only) should be shown near the top before the details. –84.46.52.173 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right - I've just added "Click here to check the list of sources" clearly right up the top. (Let's see how long it stays near the top ...) - David Gerard (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – by David Gerard, two clicks.^[1] –84.46.53.117 (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the Vox entry to remove "It is often considered a partisan source, particularly regarding American politics." which is not supported by the three linked discussions. - MrX 🖋 13:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partisanship and bias should not be mentioned unless they cause content to be counterfactual. Mentioning bias just becomes a slur made by editors against a source, and that's not good, especially on a policy/guideline page.

It's perfectly possible for those left- and right-wing sources which are fairly close to center to be biased and still be factual. Bias is only a problem when they get further from center and their bias causes them to ignore facts or actually make false statements. Only then should we mention bias in a policy page. (Mentioning it in an article is often proper because RS do it.)

As usual, opinions should generally be attributed, unless they are identical to facts. Then facts sourced to an opinion article need no attribution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources, including websites operated by advocacy groups, are expected to be used with in-text attribution per WP:BIASED – a section of the reliable sources guideline. This list aims to inform editors of the expectations around using a source, and I see no reason to exclude this information when it is supported by the listed discussions. — Newslinger talk 22:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. There is no disagreement between what I wrote and WP:BIASED. There is no requirement for bias to be mentioned on this project page (although perfectly fine on this talk page), but mention of the bias of a source is appropriate in our article about that source since RS do it all the time. Biased opinions should also be attributed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vox is a perfectly reasonable news site, though, not an advocacy source - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I have no objection to MrX's changes, but wanted to emphasize the importance of describing all sources on the list in a consistent way. — Newslinger talk 23:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent RS and resource:

• Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts

Search that page for various websites and sources. Try Fox. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There have been quite a few discussion on The New American (TNA) as a RS (a surprising number compared to the number of remaining uses of the source), and I'm interested in seeing whether it would make sense to make some general statement about it through either the RSN/P or some other method. Discussions so far:

- 2009 RSN conversation: This came clearly to the idea that, at minimum, TNA is a POV source, and every member except one agreed that the source could only be used for statements about the John Birch Society. (5 users)

- 2010 RSN conversation: Unrelated conversation that wound up talking about RS. Every user but one (the same one from the 2009 conversation) who made a comment on the RS determination agreed that TNA is not an RS based on extremist views. (~10 users)

- 2010 RSN conversation: Three users argue for non-RS, and one (the same supporter from the previous conversations) argues for limited usage (4 users)

- 2012 RSN conversation: One user doesn't make a clear statement, one says "at minimum POV," and one says not a RS regarding anything except the John Birch Society(3 users)

- 2014 RSN conversation: Several users say it must be sourced as POV or opinion piece. Two state that it is inadmissible, since it makes false claims. (~5 users)

- 2016 RSN conversation: Off-hand mention that TNA is not RS (mostly about another source). No one disputes the idea that it's non-RS (3 users)

This seems to be pretty consistent opinions: a minority who argue for POV status at a minimum, and a majority who argue that it should not be RS.

I'm new to this territory, so I'm unsure of the next steps. Any recommendations on what the best next step is? Thanks! Jusadi (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusadi: Thanks for your input; I'll definitely see to it that it's added to the list. Feel free to tweak the description I write for it if you feel that it's inaccurate in some way or another. ToThAc (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Thanks for putting it up. Jusadi (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed just now [2] that we have more than I thought of these, WP:BREITBART, WP:WND etc. Should we try to include these as Shortcuts-boxes in the list? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could do, I'd probably use them! Is there room in the list layout? Will it get mangled on mobile?

I'd generally put WP:DAILYMAIL as the relevant one for the Daily Mail - it's the most commonly-used link, and it's a deprecation that made worldwide news at the time - David Gerard (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could add both with some sort of explanatory note? It's an unusual situation.

On placement, I edit from a laptop, so from that perspective I could see them added (for example) in the "uses" column if it's made a little wider. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tried one:[3]. David Gerard, ToThAc, Newslinger and other interested, what do you think? Perhaps even better under "Source". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Workable on desktop :-) - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I hear no opposition as of now. I may add a few more. Right side seems traditional. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It would be more elegant if they were centered in their column, is there an easy way to do that? Also, see what you think of the Daily Mail "solution", [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got inspired and created 2 new ones: WP:RSPYT and WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Slight glitch with RSPSCRIPTURE, I don't know how to properly get it into the empty Uses-column. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. These short cut templates expand the column with wasted white space. Use in a table is not what they were designed for. - MrX 🖋 13:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what purpose do they serve? If someone is reading this list, a shortcut to what they are already reading is useless. If they are not reading the list, they can't see the shortcut template, so again, useless. - MrX 🖋 13:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The shortcut is for the use of an editor who wants to tell another editor: Look at this. Like all such templates. You have to know they exist before you can use them. I know that the shortcut WP:RSP exists because this page tells me so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but we have anchors for each entry. If an editor hovers over the wikilink in the first column, the anchor is displayed. I know it's not as simple as a shortcut. Maybe there is a compromise in something like this:

Source
Ancestry.com WP:ANCESTRY.COM📌
Breitbart News WP:BREITBART📌
Daily Mail (MailOnline) WP:DAILYMAIL📌 (2017 RfC) WP:RSPDM📌 (This page)

The div could be turned into a template. The benefit is that it does not expand the column width and squeeze other columns. - MrX 🖋 14:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks equally useful to me. Slightly less obvious that it's a shortcut. I have no grasp of how the coding works, but if you do, that's not important. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's see what Newslinger, David Gerard, and ToThAc think of this approach. - MrX 🖋 15:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all opposed to this. ToThAc (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's visibly listed, it'll be useful and convenient - David Gerard (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a generally good idea, although I'd want to see a fuller mockup before giving my thumbs up. And only have the obvious shortcuts use, not obscure ones like WP:RSPDM. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, half the value is when the shortcut name is the paper name, as with WP:DAILYMAIL - this is why I made WP:THESUN, 'cos WP:RSP#The_Sun looks more obscure - David Gerard (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, WP:RSPDM is a new creation of mine, I wanted a DM shortcut that goes to this page (and shorter than existing WP:Citing Daily Mail) since WP:DAILYMAIL links to the 2017 Rfc per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_26#Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. In this particular case I'd like both included, with efns like [5]. Similarly I created WP:RSPYT since WP:YT was taken for WP:EL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also made WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, I didn't feel comfortable "claiming" WP:SCRIPTURE, but maybe I should have. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take it - I can't see anything better that would use it, e.g. in the MOS - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No new column, please, but putting a shortcut at the begin of the summary would work for me. –84.46.52.200 (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IP, nobody has so far suggested putting them in a new column. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants David GerardMrXHeadbombToThAc (I'm told IP:s can't be pinged).

It's been a few days, and I'm reading the comments as being neutral to positive to MrX suggestion. I'm ok with them implementing it, it can always be reverted at need. If they want to do a fuller mockup per Headbomb's request that's ok too. Is it best to use wikitext or should a new template be created? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, go for it. I'd do it in wikitext first to minimise faff with fine-tuning it - David Gerard (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we use a (local) template, it will be easier to fine tune the styling than if we use the HTML/CSS markup for each entry. I can put a template together a little later today if that will help. Is everyone fine with using the push pin emoji? - MrX 🖋 12:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems at worst harmless. Also, I'd like something like this [6] included for clarity, and we may run into other such cases. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've implemented a template and invoked it on the live page for Ancestry.com, Breitbart, and DailyMail. The template will need a bit more tweeking, but the results are more or less as expected. - MrX 🖋 14:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That [7] works too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great. The template and documentation are kind of hobbled together so if anyone would like to improve them, please do. - MrX 🖋 15:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ToThAc, it's a bit weird having a source listed as a green- rated subject-area RS that also excludes a whole group of writers on the site - surely that would be yellow at best - and does it connote notability? - David Gerard (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: It is listed as reliable at WP:VGRS, so... ToThAc (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ehh fair enough - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but we're kind of doing different things. VGRS includes some carve outs that we don't. I think it should be listed on VGRS as reliable. It should also be listed here as additional considerations apply. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: What kinds of discussions were you thinking of that establishes the "marginally reliable" consensus? ToThAc (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mmm, looking at that it says Because the fields of video game journalism, research, criticism, and commentary are relatively new compared to similar coverage of traditional media, traditional means of sourcing can be somewhat rare. which is uncomfortably close to an ill-sourced area trying to create a special carveout for itself - though the rest of the essay does try to set out sensible ways to judge gaming sources - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of "Scriptural texts", which I think was a good idea, was unusual for this page since it's more a group of sources. Based on that, would an entry for obituaries be helpful? It pops up now and then:[8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then and now, but OBITUARY is taken. –84.46.52.25 (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If necessary, we can always create WP:RSPOBIT or somesuch. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2nd thoughts, the "Scriptural Texts" already violate POLA for a list of perennial sources. Adding "Obituaries" would make it worse, when that actually depends on the newspaper, paid vs. voluntary, and private data of minors in "published" obituaries.
Some weasels claim that RS/P is basically some form of essay covered by no community consensus to speak of. Others could claim that a NOTHERE CIR requires a WMF ban. Whatever might be a TRUE TRUTH, unclear new features can backfire. –84.46.53.231 (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the point of the entry, it would say "it depends" in some form (like [9][10]). And I have to disagree that RSP:s "Scriptural texts"-text would shock, surprise, or confuse the average reader. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A shortcut to a place where this is explained, e.g., on RS/P outside of the alphabetically sorted table, or as an annotation of NOTOBITUARY, makes sense. No bible row under B, because it's scripture under S, is MEH. Admittedly I'd never look for it in RS/P, POLA was exaggerated. –84.46.53.117 (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a reply to "Are obituaries RS on WP?", WP:NOTOBITUARY is not very helpful. It's outside the topic of RS, and doesn't even mention obituaries. Come to think of it, inserting "Bible" and "Quran" (and possibly others like Torah and Hadith) in the RSP-list (as "See Scriptural texts" ) could be helpful to readers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Hedge Permanently Suspended From Twitter for ‘Harassment’

• "A Twitter spokesperson said in an email to Bloomberg that the @zerohedge account, which had more than 670,000 followers, “was permanently suspended for violating our platform manipulation policy.”"

Zero Hedge should be deprecated completely. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could discuss it at RSN. (I'd consider it a great candidate, fwiw.) 61 uses in article space - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does "depreciation" mean that we can still use it as a reference in its own article (which would be important)? Zero Hedge is an odd one, because on one hand it should not be used as a source (and usually it quotes other sources, so they can be used), as it is a source of wilder theories. One the other hand, it has produced some of the most accurate and insightful analyses of financial markets ever published on the internet. Walk into any trading room (there are still a few left), and almost every screen will have a window open to Zero Hedge. Bloomberg, Reuters, and all the strongest financial RS/P will cover this story because they themselves all read ZH, daily. ZH lives in two worlds – the non-financial conspiratorial alt-right etc. world (not an RS), and a hedge fund/wall street trading world, where it is read daily. Financial stories that appear on ZH move share prices; and in the world of trading, a US-based company like ZH would be shut down and imprisoned, if their financial stories were false/misleading. ZH financial stories do get carried in the major financial RS, per the WP article on ZH. Britishfinance (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britishfinance, the word is "deprecated", and yes, it can still be used in its own article, but nowhere else. Even blacklisted sources can be used in that manner.

What happens at Twitter and here has little effect, and it is their political, not financial, stories which get them in trouble. They are wildly and extremely partisan to the point of being nonfactual. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Hedge is not encyclopediac (I don't even think that Zero Hedge would disagree with that). I also note that this bogus Wuhan Institute of Virology story that led to Zero Hedge being suspended on Twitter, began at the Washington Times and The Daily Mail (as per The Guardian and The Washington Post). At least Zero Hedge is a blog, however, RS like the Washington Times is an even more dangerous RS imho, as it tried to masquerade as a WPO, but is really no better than ZH? Britishfinance (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both The Washington Times and Washington Examiner are unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Daily Mail, should they not also be deprecated? They seem to be very similar publications? Britishfinance (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's my opinion, but not everyone agrees. Because they occasionally get it right, their serious problems with accuracy are ignored. I don't get it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the original Buzzfeed article: [11].

I've argued in the past that Zero Hedge can be shown, in reliable sources, to have an avid and notable following, and should at the least be usable with attribution [12]. Perhaps that remains true.

I must say that the referenced ZH article [13] seems to me beyond the pale. Bats are major carriers for pathogens, coronavirus included, and southern China has long struggled with epidemics due to population density, tropical climate, and other factors. Pointing at a researcher who studies these things and accusing them of starting an epidemic is awful and dangerous, since people are dying, clearly upset, and will have difficulty evaluating the veracity of the ZH allegations.

All this said, I don't think we would ever use ZH as a source of fact, even without this event. Instead, it would be used with attribution, as notable for its own opinion and the attention people give the blog. Given this, I don't think deprecating ZH would help readers or Wikipedia. I'm sorry to have to argue this, but outrage is probably the last thing that will lead to good policy. -Darouet (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should definitely move this to WP:RSN at this stage - David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no entry on this list, despite the fact that it's one of the major news sources for one of the largest countries in the world. On RSN many editors seem to think it's reliable. Is there enough consensus or should an RFC be started on it? Thanks. buidhe 16:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, I have encountered the Times of India on clearly paid-for articles so often that I think a closer look on whether the ToI separates editorial and advertising content is warranted. It's clearly an important newspaper, but I'm not at all convinced that it is trustworthy. The lifestyle section is particularly problematic. The examples have all been used as sources in recently created articles: [14], [15], [16], [17]. I' not sure how many of these kinds of sources we have, they are hard to keep track of because the articles where they're used get deleted, but it would be interesting to do some research into what exactly our "least reliable" sources are. I have a hunch that the ToI would make the list. Vexations (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a test to see if my claim that the ToI would make the list. It did. I made a list of all the biographies at currently at AfD, downloaded the articles, and generated a list of all the online sources and sorted them by how often they were used. The top 10 is:

66 youtube.com

24 amazon.com

14 theguardian.com

13 imdb.com

12 nytimes.com

12 discogs.com

11 timesofindia.indiatimes.com

11 sungazette.com

10 thehindu.com

10 books.google.com

The sources used are [18], [19], [20], [21], [22],

[23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] It's worth noting that none of them are obviously advertising or advertorials. Vexations (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]