Wikipedia talk:Deprecated sources/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Behavioral guidance

In the currently active RfC for The Sun, Andy Dingley shared some concerns regarding editor behavior when deprecated sources are used. A section on this page that provides behavioral guidance to other editors would be welcome. Specifically, the section should address:

1. How to respond to an editor who uses a deprecated source in violation of restrictions set by community consensus
2. How to respond to an editor who inappropriately reverts a citation of a deprecated source that is covered under one of the exceptions

New user warnings with appropriate messages may be helpful. — Newslinger talk 12:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Integration of alternate version

I was actually writing my own version of this essay at the same time. :-) I have added my text in its original form and will do the integration next. Please give me some time to finish editing, and afterwards please feel free to modify/revert/etc. Sunrise (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Done (also pinging Newslinger). I tried my best not to privilege either version when removing duplicated material (although I imagine I may have been biased in favor of myself despite that). I did make a few other adjustments as I edited, the biggest one being that the idea of being more reliable historically was actually specific to the Daily Mail. Using it as a primary source about itself is fairly easily extrapolated to other cases, but historical reliability was a specific counterargument advanced by a few editors in the RfC who commented that the Daily Mail had a better reputation in the past. Anyways, I ended up merging the exceptions into the next section to keep everything together. Sunrise (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

​This looks great! I like how your version gives detailed advice for handling deprecated sources in general, instead of relying too heavily on the 2017 Daily Mail RfC. The "Acceptable uses..." section also provides some behavioral guidance, which should be useful. Thanks for merging this in! — Newslinger talk 18:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources that relates to this page. Please feel free to participate if you are interested. — Newslinger talk 08:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The Irish Sun

Would it be alright to add The Irish Sun (without the link) under The Sun (UK) in the same box in the sources section of the project page? The Irish Sun is part of The Sun as can be seen on that page and The Irish Sun links to The Sun (United Kingdom)'s page. Its just that the way it is curently stated does not make it clear from looking at the table alone that this includes the Ireland addition, as the Repbulic of Ireland is a different country to the United Kingdom. Helper201 (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's centralize this discussion at WT:RSP § The Irish Sun. — Newslinger talk 14:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Missing information (kind of)

Hello, There are a few other sources that I believe are also deprecated but are not mentioned on the list. Is this list updated or how can we update it? As far as I know, there are two sources in my knowledge that are blocked but are not available here. They include The American Reporter and Thrive Global. Can someone please look into this? Moreover, can someone tell me if there is a place where I can check what sources are deprecated and about whom there are discussions going on? This can be of significant help when working on edits and new articles establishing if a subject meets WP:GNG or not. Thanks. NotJuggerNot (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone look into this, maybe?NotJuggerNot (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi NotJuggerNot, this page only lists the sources that have undergone a request for comment on the reliable sources noticeboard that found consensus for deprecation. I wasn't able to find any discussions of American Reporter or Thrive Global on the noticeboard, and neither of these sites are on the spam blacklist. Thus, neither of these sites are deprecated or blacklisted. However, Thrive Global is a consulting firm and their company website is almost certainly not considered a reliable source for notability purposes. American Reporter (american-reporter.com) has been defunct since its founder passed away in 2016; archived versions of the site are still usable, although I'm not entirely sure it's considered a reliable source and you may want to double-check on the noticeboard. Please note that theamericanreporter.com is an entirely different site – one looks like a content farm, which is considered self-published. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Is deprecation just for "ongoing" (continuously published) news sources?

The list seems to indicate as much, but is this just an accident of history? I ask because, over three years before the Daily Mail RFC, I opened a discussion at RSN about the Japan Encyclopedia, and there was an (admittedly weak) consensus that it was sub-optimal, should probably not be used going forward, and should probably be replaced where it is currently in use. The book's usage has apparently declined at a rate of around 100 articles annually since then (in 2013 I said it was used in around 1,000, and now the number is down to 426), despite my not having done much heavy lifting in removing it, so it may not be worth discussing, but I'm wondering if an RFC for deprecation would be worthwhile for future instances of similar sources. But are field-specific works too "niche" to be formally deprecated by RFC? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

There isn't any inherent requirement for a particular publication status or source type. I would say that the list's current composition in this respect reflects the fact that continuously published sources are more likely to have new citations added to WP, and therefore naturally tend to be greater concerns for editors to deal with. Similarly, there are fewer field-specific sources included only because they're less likely to be widely cited, making the deprecation of other sources more likely to be a priority. One of the key points here is that deprecated sources aren't "special" in any way that isn't already established by the existing content policies, with the related element that just because a poor source isn't deprecated it doesn't mean that it isn't just as unreliable as those that are. So I'd still want to mention that you don't need deprecation in order to remove sources for being generally unreliable (using the term as defined at WP:RSP), and that could resolved at RSP without needing a full RfC. Otherwise, to decide on whether to hold an RfC, I'd ask about whether you think there's any particular benefit to formalizing a consensus: e.g. if the status of the source is unclear, if it keeps coming up in discussions, if you think it should be edit-filtered, or if you're planning to review a large number of the existing uses. Or, if you're confident that any RfC would lead to a consensus for deprecation, then there is also the option of treating the source as de facto deprecated and therefore cutting out the bureaucracy. Sunrise (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'd say it's more that depreciation is generally reserved for sources that are both unreliable and which have people that constantly try to use them regardless. "Dead" sources rarely meet the latter criteria because they don't tend to have a strong audience or fanbase, so it's rarely necessary to take the step of depreciating them. --Aquillion (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent Changes

SashiRolls, can you explain you recent changes here? More so the most recent change, as it wasn’t clear from the edit summary. As far as the one before that, I wouldn’t mind an explanation, but it’s not necessary. I’m fairly sure that wouldn’t be an acceptable edit for most people. Honestly, I’m just confused about the most recent partial-revert. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

A block is an automatic procedure governed by regex at the global spamlist, which is indeed different from a ban. Technically speaking, it is physically possible to click through the machine-run edit filter and enter a deprecated source as a source about itself, unless of course it's not considered a reliable source about itself, in which case you really aren't supposed to. ^^ -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I see that the word "block" was removed again. I have restored it since the mediawiki page describing blacklisting process uses the term "block" eleven times. I see no reason to avoid straightforward description using the same terms as on the page describing the process. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

​On the English Wikipedia, blocks are applied to users, not to sources or domains. Blacklisting refers to disallowing the use of a domain. The term block is also imprecise, because it does not consider the fact that parts of the domain can be whitelisted. This page draws a comparison between deprecation and banning, not blocking, because the term ban was used by media sources. Finally, why does your edit in Special:Diff/959743328 add "deprecated" in scare quotes when this page is called Wikipedia:Deprecated sources? — Newslinger talk 11:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Newslinger:. I think we should be rigorous. You did not comment on the fact that the page describing the blacklisting process calls it a "block" not a "ban", which is correct, as it is based on reg-ex matching, not on human intervention. The use of the specialized term "deprecate" should be explained on this page. To "deprecate" means to criticize (cf. merriam-webster), or to replace an old syntax or function with a new one... e.g. <font> tags being replaced. Reliable sources agree that a prohibition is a ban. The most common "support" vote in the 2017 RFC was "support prohibition". It is for this reason that the use of scarequotes around the term "ban" is dubious. Your argument about whitelisting seems to me a red herring, because white-listing (where it exists -- you would need to provide examples) only allows for exceptions to a more general machine "block". -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not equate blacklisting to a "ban", and both blocks (WP:BLOCK) and bans (WP:BAN) are most frequently associated with users (not domains or sources) on the English Wikipedia, regardless of how MediaWiki's manual describes the SpamBlacklist extension. In this context, deprecation is defined in "Effects of deprecation" and has nothing to do with syntax. The "About Us" pages of notable blacklisted sites are frequently whitelisted for use in the articles on the sites. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests § General exceptions for details. I've opened an RfC to invite opinions from other editors. — Newslinger talk 12:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The page itself equated blacklisting with banning until 11:28 30 May 2020. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now that the {{Citation needed}} tag is removed, I consider this matter settled. — Newslinger talk 05:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Acceptable uses of deprecated sources

Which of the following should be used as the first sentence in Wikipedia:Deprecated sources § Acceptable uses of deprecated sources? — Newslinger talk 12:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

See #Recent Changes for context. — Newslinger talk 12:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Option 1: (from Special:Permalink/959750864)

Although deprecated sources are considered generally unreliable, there are rare situations in which they can be used.

Option 2: (from Special:Permalink/959751455)

Deprecation is not a ban on using the source, despite having been reported as such in the media.

References

• Option 1. The sentence is consistent with the rest of the page. The previous section, "Effects of deprecation", explains that deprecated sources are considered generally unreliable, and the remainder of the "Acceptable uses of deprecated sources" section elaborates on the rare situations in which they can be used (including under the WP:ABOUTSELF policy). Since this page is not in article space, there is no need to include citations to external sources. The {{Citation needed}} tag in option 2, recently added in Special:Diff/959750231, does not improve the page. — Newslinger talk 12:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Since this page is not in article space, (Sorry, but this is technically not true: cf. Deprecated sources). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

My point is that Wikipedia:Deprecated sources is not in the Wikipedia mainspace, and is exempt from WP:V ("All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable"). Wikipedia:Deprecated sources does not need to cite reliable sources, nor does it need to have a {{Citation needed}} tag on claims not cited to reliable sources. Redirects to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources are not relevant. — Newslinger talk 01:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that a page which redirects from mainspace into Wikipedia namespace does not need any references. Moreover, it cannot say, in Wikipedia's voice, what this page said prior to my edit. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on this matter at WT:V § Applicability to pages in project space. — Newslinger talk 02:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As a result of this discussion, the redirect was removed and is now being considered for deletion. I had originally noticed it because it made the page easier to find. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Option 2 without the {{Citation needed}} tag is also fine, in my opinion. — Newslinger talk 13:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Neither. However, longstanding content (since 9 December 2018) including RS should not be summarily deleted, as was done here. If en.wp wishes to make a distinction between "ban" and "deprecate" which is not simply the distinction between "ban"/"deprecate" and "block" then RS should be cited to support the distinction, since RS overwhelmingly do not accept that distinction between "deprecate" and "ban". Further, the dictionary definition of "deprecate" does not list "ban" as a synonym. Moreover, the most common support vote in the 2017 RfC was "support prohibition". Prohibition is indeed a synonym for ban. Also, creating an RfC which tries to mandate the inclusion of a "citation needed" template is silly. Supplying a reference would be considerably more straightforward.

  tldr;: have the courage of your convictions: call a ban a ban & a prohibition a prohibition. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  Regarding "creating an RfC which tries to mandate the inclusion of a 'citation needed' template", your comment misrepresents my intent. You added the {{Citation needed}} tag in Special:Diff/959750231 (option 2), and when I replaced the sentence with alternative wording in Special:Diff/959750864 (option 1), you reverted my edit in Special:Diff/959751455 which restored the {{Citation needed}} tag. I started this RfC with the intention of eliminating the {{Citation needed}} tag, not to "mandate the inclusion" of the tag. — Newslinger talk 01:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  I eliminated the CN template ten hours before you wrote this. Is your intention to eliminate the references present in the article since December 2018? My apologies, but I don't understand why you created an RfC 21 minutes after my restoration of the references you deleted. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  No, my intention is to eliminate the {{Citation needed}} tag. I am indifferent about the citations. — Newslinger talk 02:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

   Done at 16:41, 30 May 2020. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. This RfC was started before that edit. Since editors in this discussion have proposed other wordings, this RfC will determine whether there is consensus for any other changes. — Newslinger talk 03:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability. — Newslinger talk 13:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Neither As 1 seems to just be an enabler of "but its reliable in this instance" style arguments. And option 2 really does not tell us anything (This also have been used as an excuse to use a deprecated source). Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 if we have to choose between them; it's better wording in that it integrates this with our other policies by mentioning "generally unreliable" specifically. I dislike the wording of option 2 because there's something a bit passive-aggressive about the way it talks about the media; additionally, the argument that it is a functional ban even if some limited uses exist is reasonable (ie. 'ban' doesn't necessarily mean 'banned in absolutely all cases', which makes the nitpicking argument that that sentence is trying to pick with the media a bit dubious.) I agree with the people above saying that even better wording might be possible, but between these two I definitely prefer 1. As far as the "it encourages people to use them!" thing goes, there have always been (very) limited acceptable usages, which the section in question goes into more detail on. Edit: Option 3 below has all the problems of option 2; I'm strenuously opposed to any version that includes the "contrary to the media" wording or anything to that effect. Additionally, option 1 is preferable in that it establishes that using the source should be rare, while 2 and 3 seem like they're worded more to hedge the concept of depreciation by saying "but it's tots not a ban, guys." Focusing on what depreciation is rather than what it isn't makes far more sense, especially avoiding the unduly confrontational "it's not what the media told you it is" framing. --Aquillion (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  You do not mention "option 3". Could you comment on that option please? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  I'll move it here:

Option 3: English Wikipedia does not consider deprecation to be a blanket "ban" on using the source in (absolutely) every situation, contrary to what has been reported in the media.

because:

• reason (e.g. a source may sometimes be used as a source about itself if it is considered reliable about itself.)
• reason (e.g. a source may have once been considered reliable (start-date, end-date))
• reason (?)

References

ps: I'm not "absolutely" attached to the adverb "absolutely", but it might be best to describe the reality...-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• So, the real issue here is that fans of a given deprecated source will use any excuse whatsoever to claim an exception for their particular favourite source or particular favourite usage of it.

In the course of removing usages of The Sun or the Daily Mail - almost every usage of which is bad or should be presumed bad, by the clear wording of the RFC conclusions - I have frequently been told that the mere fact that a source is "generally prohibited" means there are exceptions, therefore the particular usage in question should be allowed, and that's the whole excuse. I recently had a demand to prove from first principles that the Mail is bad, despite two general RFCs. I have had two editors in the past week claim that removing WP:DAILYMAIL usages violates WP:NOTCENSORED. Last year there was a user (who turned out to be a defrocked ex-admin) literally following my edits around, restoring usages of The Sun. The same user insisted and edit-warred a controversial claim on a BLP sourced to a no-longer-available page on thesun.co.uk back into the article, on the excuse that it was about a sportsman and WP:RSP said some editors thought the Sun was OK for sports. I have a talk page full of similar nonsense, which is a catalogue of bad and weird excuses for using sourcing that absolutely shouldn't be in Wikipedia.

So - whatever wording is used here will be used as an excuse by the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT squad. That's what I'd like to see a new wording use as its threat model.

I would suggest something that stresses that, although there are exceptions, they are extremely rare. If you're looking for excuses to use a source, you're doing Wikipedia sourcing wrong.

Any advocate's desired exception almost certainly isn't one - The Sun used to have over 8,000 usages, and now has five. (And I'm very sceptical that The Sun was as involved in unmasking László Csatáry as they claim, but I'd have to research that one a lot more to knock it off.) Even quite a lot of WP:BLP "permissible" WP:SPS or WP:BLPSELFPUB usages shouldn't be there, and if the claims in them are noteworthy for a BLP then they would have been noted elsewhere.

We don't need an explanation to tell sensible people that they shouldn't use sewage-quality sources - we need a stick for the ones that insist on it anyway - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

All that is fine. What I think is needed is straightforward transparency, not saying things like "it's not really a ban coz' the software doesn't automatically block every use and zap the offending would-be editor's keyboard with however many volts." :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"Deprecation is not a blanket ban - although deprecated sources are "generally prohibited", there may be acceptable uses for a deprecated source, e.g., permissible WP:SPS or WP:BLPSELFPUB usages. But, although there are exceptions, they are extremely rare. In almost all cases, the deprecated source should not be used at all, even where technically permissible." How's that? - David Gerard (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I would change possibly permissible to technically permissible, but otherwise I like it. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right - just changed it to "technically" :-D - David Gerard (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, there's an edit filter. The filter warning is as follows:

An automated filter has detected that you are adding a link to a deprecated source, considered generally unreliable after discussion by the community. References to these sources are generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. Please cite a more reliable source instead. If the only source you can find for the claims is one of these deprecated sources then you should not add the content in question.

Note: There are limited exceptions to this rule (such as when the source itself is the topic being discussed).

If you have checked the policy on Wikipedia:Reliable sources and the deprecated source guidance (or checked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) and verified that your edit is one of the limited exceptions, then you may resubmit it by clicking "Publish changes" again. Please do not do this unless you have first verified that this specific use of the deprecated source has broad support, especially for biographical articles: deprecated sources are liable to be removed on sight and persistent addition can lead to editing restrictions.

Your proposals are not in line with this, and also not in line with the multiple RSN discussions that have shown majority or supermajority support for removing deprecated sources. The Daily Mail is in fact an edge case: a more representative onw ould be something like VDARE, which should never have been used in the first place. Guy (help!) 10:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think a lot of y'all may be misjudging my intent. I'm listening to what you've said and have incorporated suggestions in the latest edits, which you are more than welcome to improve upon. I think periodically tightening info pages up can never hurt. The wishy-washiest language on the page is legacy text. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Support David Gerard's wording. See above. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard's wording looks good to me. It is consistent with policy and practice, and does not include an unnecessary {{Citation needed}} tag. — Newslinger talk 01:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Since you continue referring to the CN tag, I have struck "Option 2" above since nobody is or was arguing for it. It was added at the same time as "ban" in scarequotes was rewritten without scarequotes. It was restored once because you deleted 3 independent references from the page in the next edit. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(Not serious comment) we could always use my version of ^{[Citation Needed]} ... Note: click on the "Citation Needed" in the previous sentence for a surprise!) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

glad to see you're feeling peppery again, Guy. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Reject Added wording in which WP:SPS or WP:BLPSELFPUB are mentioned. WP:ABOUTSELF (already mentioned in the article) is relevant. The above do not seem to be. (i.e. for RT, Breitbart, The Sun, The Daily Mail, etc. it is silly to talk about self-published sources or BLP self-pub)... The rest is fine... I would also like to see the references to reliable sources maintained. Feel free to edit the entry directly David. This RfC was started to eliminate a CN template. That has been done. Perhaps we could close this as a successful RfC?-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:ABOUTSELF is fine for what I mean here - David Gerard (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I ended up adding it as a cf. I'm not very clear on the reasons for mentioning it, though I suppose exclusive press releases type things are possible. In any case, it does no harm to link to them, it boils down to the same thing.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned it because something like it is a frequent excuse for DM usages - David Gerard (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support something like the David Gerard version, don't have strong opinion about WP:ABOUTSELF vs BLPSEFPUB ... buidhe 01:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• David Gerard's wording is correct. Adamantly oppose Options 2 and 3 as both offer an open invitation to drama and POV-pushing - it could, for example, be used to resist removval of clearly inappropriate fake news sites, things like WorldNetDaily and so on. Guy (help!) 10:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support on Option 3 with the wording that I see David has suggested of why. In addition, a case that has been discussed is related to the idea of established experts in their field (as determined by external sourcing and consensus) that publish their recognized opinions on notable topics in the deprecated source - eg the most common being the UK media critics that are regulars and other sources. This is an extension of RSOPINION, which has been discussed at WT:RS and VPP but without unfortunately getting too many external voices to provide input. We don't need to add that now, but I do agree leaving placeholders for exceptions like this. --Masem (t) 00:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "that has been discussed" is a weasel phrasing here - what you mean is that you've brought it up at WP:RSN and been unable to get consensus to carve out an exception for that specifically. So no, I don't think adding your desired carveout is good - David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Option 3, but without the bit about Media reports, which is reeally not relevant here. Option 3 makes mcleaer the limited scope of exceptions when deprecated sources may be used. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Lenta.ru, 112 Ukraine and Veterans Today

It seems like these sources were deprecated through a larger RfC on sites identified by RS as state-sponsored fake news / disinfo. It might be wise to add an asterisk to these sources on the list and to add a note that state-sponsored fake news / disinfo has been deprecated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Disputed wording

SashiRolls added the following in Special:Diff/960143466:

Deprecating a source is also a weaker measure than deploying a bot to replace every instance of the source with a citation needed tag.

I am disputing this wording under WP:BRD, as I do not think it improves the page. I am not aware of any bot that does what is suggested here. — Newslinger talk 10:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That's fine and inessential. I tried to incorporate some of David Gerard's version into the text, divide legacy sourcing from future sourcing and add a bit of etymology... really "pray against" should be "preach against"... ^^ -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, deprecation is deprecation. What people do to remove the deprecated source is a matter for discussion ona source by source basis. A fake news site will be nuked faster than a source that is merely crap, after all. Guy (help!) 23:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Certain sources

I have serious issues with the deprecation of The Grayzone, Mint Press News, Occupy Democrats, RT, TeleSur, and Sputnik. Why not Fox News and Newsmax? I also think anything The New York Times says about the Israel-Palestine situation is untrustworthy (it would take too long to go into details, but somehow I think nothing The New York Times could do would ever get them deprecated. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Scottandrewhutchins, check the archives of WP:RSN and the linked debates. RSN is where we discuss individual entries. Guy (help!) 23:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

In regards to grayzone -so far, I found one archive that is mostly about Max Blumenthal and his alleged polotical ties. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#RfC:_Grayzone The summary - "There is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information." Like what exactly? With what proof? It seems like a very small group of us military hawks busy on wikipedia, can create a consensus to call anything as fake news if they don't like it. But no specific compelling proof were ever given that he was making fake news. Unless writing negatively about america's role in libya, etc are deemed lies by editors?

American media has been caught in many lies and biaaes, yet are called reliable? Hpw does that make sense?https://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-k-parliament-report-details-how-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/

Granted I am still new to this media but been reading it for a day, and noticed that it has a solid tendency to call out US MEDIA misinformation many months before it is recognised as such. Like with ie. Bolivia - Nyt very recently confessed that its many reports of election rigging were fundamentally flawed. But who had alone criticised them for that months ago, and were proven correct? Not mainstream media but the independant media Grayzone seem to publicly point out how NYT had misled months before NYT finally admitted their reports were flawed and when things are now too late to change. They appear to be the anti-fake news to me, based on bolivia alone. https://thegrayzone.com/2019/11/14/oas-us-coup-bolivia-evo-morales/#more-16684 If measured by number of disinformation, NYT would deserve to be called a depreciated source. Not grayzone who were the ones who had called them out correctedly. https://theintercept.com/2020/06/08/the-nyt-admits-key-falsehoods-that-drove-last-years-coup-in-bolivia-falsehoods-peddled-by-the-u-s-its-media-and-the-nyt/ MangoTareeface9 (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The WP:DEPSOURCES list is just an index of deprecated sources, and discussions on this talk page are not considered in evaluations of the sources. You are free to discuss specific sources, like The Grayzone, on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 16:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Mail on Sunday

The Mail on Sunday just got deprecated - see WP:MAILONSUNDAY. I also added it to the deprecation warning filter. Anyone want to add it to the table? - David Gerard (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)