Wikipedia talk:Deprecated sources

Discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard
To discuss the reliability of specific sources, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deprecated sources page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:DEPS

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 12 months

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 Start‑class Mid‑importance

	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
Start	This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This page has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Omer Benjakob (9 January 2020). "Why Wikipedia Is Much More Effective Than Facebook at Fighting Fake News". Haaretz. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
Caitlin Thompson (30 July 2020). "Enter the Grayzone: fringe leftists deny the scale of China's Uyghur oppression". Coda Media. Retrieved 19 October 2022. In March 2020, Wikipedia marked The Grayzone as a "deprecated source" and discouraged editors from linking to it — a designation shared with RT, the far-right TV channel One America News Network and Alex Jones' conspiracy theory site InfoWars.
Asawin Suebsaeng, Adam Rawnsley (4 August 2021). "Website Run by 'Dumbest Man on the Internet' Helped Fuel Trump's Effort to Cancel Democracy". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 8 August 2022. In November 2019, Wikipedia included the site in its list of untrustworthy sources which editors should not rely on.

Archives: 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

5pillarsUK

Wikipedia's requirement for writing articles is "verifiability, not truth.", in this article, https://5pillarsuk.com/2023/12/29/east-london-jewish-charity-is-raising-funds-for-idf/, the site says The IDF has been widely accused of committing war crimes, and even genocide, by human rights organisations. Without providing any proof for the spurious claims. It should therefore be deprecated if it hasn't already. Steveonsi (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That specific article does not appear to be cited in any Wikipedia articles at the moment. If anyone would like to inquire about the reliability of 5Pillars, which is currently cited in 43 articles

, a new discussion would need to be started on the reliable sources noticeboard.

However, please be aware that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a contentious topic with an extended confirmed restriction, which means that your Wikipedia account does not yet have enough activity to participate in this topic area, with the exception of making edit requests. Please see the messages I have posted on your user talk page for more information. — Newslinger talk 04:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medium (website)

I recently ran into a problem when I tried to save some notes in a userspace page of mine. I was notified that a deprecated link was on the page, and only when I deactivated the link to Medium (website)'s website was I allowed to save the page. I didn't even have any intention of ever using the link in an article. What's going on? Why get a warning for Medium? It isn't deprecated at all. It should just be used very cautiously. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Discussion at RSP talk page) Sunrise (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are right wing sources more predominately depricated/restricted?

Title says it all. Just for fun I compiled a list of 55 sources of American media which have bias ratings from AllSides. 36 of the sources are left wing. Of these, only one is rated as unreliable (Alternet). 19 of the sources are rated as right wing. Only one of these is considered reliable (ReasonTV)! Seven are rated as unreliable, and six more are completely depricated. Just curious how you justify this? 209.171.85.237 (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bias is not a reason for deprecation (see WP:BIASED). A source may be biased but if it's reliable we can use it balancing it with other sources having different biases. If there are specific "left wing" sources that have published falsehoods, I suggest you check the archives of WP:RSN and raise this issue there. Alaexis_¿question? 21:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You missed Occupy Democrats (RSP entry), which is a deprecated American left-wing source. AllSides has yet to rate other American far-left sources that have been deprecated, including The Grayzone (RSP entry) and MintPress News (RSP entry).

Also, AllSides only rates bias on the left–right political spectrum and does not rate reliability. If you check a media rater that also classifies media outlets for reliability, such as Ad Fontes Media, you'll find that Wikipedia editors and media raters tend to identify the same sources as unreliable. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-11-29/Op-Ed for details.

Finally, keep in mind that AllSides's media bias ratings are from the perspective of American politics. The Wikipedia community is international and has a much broader range of political perspectives that frequently differs from American political discourse. — Newslinger talk 02:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed RfC deprecating Tasnim

This closed RfC on Tasnim News Agency should probably be added here by an uninvolved editor. Thanks. - Amigao (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated Sources - Actual Wikipedia vs Current Description

Actual wikipedia seems so very different to what is written in this article. In reality, a deprecated source has a de-facto ban, completely unlike what is currently described.

"Acceptable uses of deprecated sources Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation, contrary to what has been reported in media headlines. In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. While some deprecated sources have been completely eliminated as references, others have not."

In reality, using a deprecated source means facing a challenge when posting, then being flagged by a bot, then having editors reject the source. There is no corresponding check whether the use is as a primary source, an opinion, or whether the criteria of factual sourcing apply. There seems no way to have an 'acceptable use' be accepted.

My experience is wiki/User_talk:Amigao#Wall_Street_Journal,_reference_from_Global_Times 14.201.39.78 (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This seems to be a rather straightforward case in which there can be no reliability issues. I cannot comment whether the content is due in that article. Alaexis_¿question? 19:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having read other topics on this page, I just wanted to highlight that my point is that it is confusing for new users to have the documentation so very different from the practice. Also, if the aim is for the documentation to be followed then there needs to be some balance against the zealous deletions based on source and not reliability. I appreciate comments on my own edit, but prefer they be added to the discussion here. 14.201.39.78 (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "depreciated" source

More heat than light

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The word is "deprecated", not "depreciated". Please get it right and fix any misspellings. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be civil and assume good faith, I know for my own part the autocorrect that came standard on my system would change deprecated to depreciated (deprecated would be underlined in red too, was not in the short dictionary) because almost nobody in the world uses the word deprecated anymore. I would almost hazard a guess that its use as a wikipedia term of art is its most significant current use. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think depreciated is more often associated with loss of value whereas deprecated is as in less important (or out of date, coding). I still use deprecated in the sense of disapproval. Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

??? Horse Eye's Back, I am being civil. I wasn't replying to anyone. I was just providing general information to help editors. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not general information and it doesn't seem designed to help anyone, it appears to be a passive aggressive complaint at best. It is not civil to use talk pages to complain about what you see as the general shortcomings of your fellow editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. PackMecEng (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly didn't intend to offend anyone and was surprised that anyone would take offense. Color me so clueless I could not have predicted this reaction. Since this thread is now generating more heat than light, I'll hat it. There is nothing constructive happening here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm here to help. PackMecEng (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Wen Wei Po

Should the outcome of this RfC, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306#RfC:_Wen_Wei_Po, be reflected on WP:DEPSOURCES? - Amigao (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There may be issues with considering it formally deprecated, since the RfC was never formally closed. You could explain the issue at WP:CR and request a closure, and perhaps someone would be willing to close it despite the time elapsed. If not, a new discussion might be necessary.

That said, the source can certainly be considered to be generally unreliable at minimum, as long as there isn't any reason to think that the situation may have changed. Since that's generally enough to remove the source from articles, that may be sufficient for your purposes. There would only be an issue if e.g. you think the source should also be edit-filtered. Sunrise (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sunrise. A CR has been tried. Not sure what the course of action should be now. Amigao (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would say to either start a new RfC (if you think it's important to deprecate), or proceed with the understanding that the source is generally unreliable. Both approaches can be justified given the circumstances.

If you start an RfC, I would recommend explaining the full sequence of events, particularly the denied closure request. If you decide to remove sources based on general unreliability, the RfC would still be a fallback option if there are any objections (there shouldn't be, except perhaps for specific uses being argued to be exceptions). In that case, it might be a reasonable precaution to only do a few at a time, and resolve any issues each time before continuing. Sunrise (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]