Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

CJR review important enough to downgrade news media

OP requested to close thread. Clearly no consensus to use CJR article to downgrade news media. Andre🚐 18:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

Those of us who attempted to bring objectivity to the table, and were castigated as a result, now have the benefit of a professional and trustworthy retrospective in the Columbia Journalism Review. Read it for yourselves as the result is an encyclopedic look at one of the most consequential moments in American media history. Those of us who knew better at the time, and tried to explain under duress what was really going on were being attacked, castigated, and punished. Factual journalism was downgraded and ridiculed, despite their ratings. CJR's 4-part report is the only vindication I need in light of what those of us had to endure for trying to bring objectivity and neutrality to the table. It is time for a closer look at WP's systemic bias, the objectivity and neutrality of its editors, and the real value of this noticeboard, which to me should be eliminated in its entirety. We need to return to WP:RSN process, and discuss each case individually with objectivity and neutrality. Atsme 💬 📧 12:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Not my area, but from a quick look isn't this just a set of opinion pieces by Jeff Gerth, so WP:ARSEHOLES applies? (And indeed the "$X said $thing, sourced to $X" phenomenon is already in evidence at Gerth's bio.) Sheesh. Bon courage (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
You're right - it is not your area. Atsme 💬 📧 14:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I mean, if you're hunting for ghosts, you're going to find them. You were already convinced everyone who thinks differently than you is basically evil, and you've treated them as such for years. Now you've found what you think is justification for that assessment, (I'll leave the discussion for whether or not your assessment of Gareth's research and analysis means what you assert it means) and are now claiming that all points of view other than yours have always been invalid, and now you get to "Win" and just on your say so, you now get to singularly tear down all of Wikipedia and rebuild it in your own image of what is right and just. Good luck with that. I'm absolutely sure this will all go exactly as you plan. The rest of us will be busy doing useful things, but you keep hunting those ghosts. --Jayron32 15:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Wow!!! And you're an admin. You just stated, "You were already convinced everyone who thinks differently than you is basically evil, and you've treated them as such for years." That is a big enough lie and a big enough aspersion for you to lose your tools. Atsme 💬 📧 16:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
That was rude and uncalled for, I should not have said that. I apologize for doing so, and have stricken that part of my post. I apologize fully for saying that, and have no excuse or justification, just an apology, because you certainly didn't deserve that. I am sorry. --Jayron32 19:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I accept your apology and thank you for your consideration. I have never known you to be that person, and was momentarily shocked by it, but I'm old enough to know we all have those moments, Jayron32, so don't beat yourself up over it. It's already forgotten on my end. Atsme 💬 📧 22:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Given this has an editor's leading, I can't see this being just one's opinion piece, but a serious look at the mainstream press and the bias they create and wear on their arms. It collaborates other articles about the press and their wholesale adoption of accountability journalism. I don't think it is cause to change anything on RSP, but I think it does support the idea that we should not be blindly trust everything printed by mainstream media is a fact. That filters into things like UNDUE, YESPOV, and other neutrality policies that J have argued about in the past. (Eg wrote from the ten year PPV, and not like a newspaper) Masem (t) 19:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The idea that knowledge gets updated with better data is an unsurprising thing, though, and not particularly about "the news" versus "history books". In general, we should go with the best we have now, and then update when it gets better. I'm sure your not seriously proposing that Wikipedia is silent on all matters for a minimum of 10 years. Being blindly critical of all news sources is no better than being blindly accepting of them. Yes, we do need to take a critical eye, but there's also a throwing out the baby with the bathwater thing going on; much of what is written in the news is not particularly wrong, and as long as we accept that when it gets corrected, we correct it here, then there's not really any need for handwringing. We do the best we can with what we have available, and when it becomes better, we become better. This is true in general, and not particularly limited to the news. I'm sure Gareth's expose is a fascinating work of media studies, but I also don't think it means we need to stop updating all Wikipedia articles on all topics until after historians get ahold of it. --Jayron32 21:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
What I've proposed (informally) several times is that we do not blindly accept the media reporting on something current as necessarily factually correct. Of course there is much reported that us fact (such as how the Turkey Syria quakes and aftereffects) where there is very little room for opinion including ideological biases. But as soon as the topic turns to anything in the political/ideologic/ethical realm, that's where we need to watch for the injection of opinions and bias from the media and separate that from fact. Eg, reading the news about the State if the Union address, you can tell most papers are cheering for Biden and ridiculing the GOP response. We have to remain objective and thus cannot take the press's stance as fact...we can state the topics Biden covered and his proposed solutions, but should go very very light on commentary until the dust settles and then figure out how to include the public perception via the media.
Just that right now, far too editors on high profile articles are blindly following the media in wikivoice without question. What this CRJ report and others indicate is that blind faith is absolutely misplaced, and we need to be aware of how we write neutrally and dispassionate from these sources. Masem (t) 15:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I see this as an issue with the rampant labeling of BLPs as well, as we're often using half a dozen mentions of journalists who are ideological opponents of the politician they're labeling and not taking the weight of that description across sources into account. After all, the NYT is as good as it gets for sources, right? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
The reality is journalists have to make money for their publishers, but which industry doesn't do this? Even the richest people in the world spend a lot of time working. Sure, it may be a "passion project" of some sort, but I'd wager it makes them more money at the end of the day, even if it is more or less a byproduct. It is extremely dubious to assume that editors are always too gullible, naive or opportunistic to be able to discriminate and filter out the bias, as a justification for downgrading an RS without technical cause. Even more dubious to do it simply over an opinion from another journalistic source. As far as putting blind faith into "mainstream media", I empathize with that worry, we see it every day from both right and left wing sources, but how does this do anything to solve that? We have basic policies and rules that are already in place. For example, consensus is supposed to act as a part of the many fail-safe mechanisms that are supposed to help WP maintain it's integrity. Editors that fail to apply and adhere to basic Wiki fundamentals are supposed to be sorted out by admins and committees etc. I do not envy their jobs. If anything, we should be spending more time and energy on making it easier for them to do said jobs more effectively and with more clarity and speed, not spending all this energy and time in pursuit of whatever this is. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I think this is a good point, and is not limited to domestic politics. Many of the sources we often cite have a tendency towards cheering for the US and ridiculing, vilifying, or at least othering the countries the US sees as adversaries. Writing neutral articles is hard, especially when they're about contentious political topics. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Gerth expresses concern that journalists failed to include facts running counter to the prevailing narrative, failed to seek and reflect comment from persons seriously criticized, and were insufficiently transparent. While this suggests that the reporting did not follow best practices, it does not seem to me to be sufficient to put the reliability of sources in question. John M Baker (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
In particular, if the editor is seeking to downgrade the reliability rating of news media in general, a discussion in the talk page of a an information page that summarises other discussions is unlikely to be the correct place to achieve consensus on such a wide-ranging change - David Gerard (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, that's kinda the point... Gareth's discussion is a very very birds-eye-view of the media coverage of one specific thing; and it isn't really even about whether the reporting was factual or not; per se, it's about the perverse relationship between Trump and the Media, and how that relationship affected each; how Trump's treatment of media caused them to report things a certain way, how the media's treatment of Trump caused him to run his government differently than he otherwise might have. But when it comes down to understanding a simple question we might have, if we have some Wikipedia text that says "Trump did X", I'm not sure how Gareth's study helps us understand whether to trust the sources that show Trump did X. I mean, most of the criticism is going to be focused on things like "why the media reported on X but was silent on Y", of course media and their bias will drive narrative by selecting which stories to dedicate resources on (this always happens, by the way, resources are finite, and decisions need to be made on where to apply them); but it doesn't mean that "X" was a falsehood, which is what we care about. That's why bias is not the same thing as reliability. A news source can be reliably correct on all of the facts for that reason. I'm not sure Gareth's story changes that; per se. I find it a fascinating story, but I'm not sure it has the ability to allow us to play "Gotcha" with the totality of Wikipedia's coverage, nor is it justification as the OP says to delete the whole thing and start over. --Jayron32 12:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I think I've got it straight in my mind after following this discussion. We downgraded sources that reported Russiagate correctly, but are hesitant to downgrade the sources that misrepresented the facts? None of it was objective reporting which means we are feeding WP's systemic bias by downgrading and completely eliminating sources that we don't agree with - and we're doing it under the guise that WP:RSP, which is nothing more than an essay, represents wide-spread community consensus. It is mind–boggling to think we downgraded sources that were factually correct in their reporting while citing partisan misinformation by left leaning media we consider reliable. How is that encyclopedic? We are not choosing our sources objectively, much less based on context. I will quote an article in Reason: And it's especially true of those members of the press who shed credibility by committing to a narrative that didn't pan out. It didn't pan out. The latter is where WP is failing its readers. Just read our articles related to Russiagate. We are continuing the status quo; i.e. mirroring left and far left media, (considering the NYTimes and Mother Jones reliable while downgrading center and center-right sources), and it also includes government funded Al Jazeera, and communist controlled South China Morning Post that are rated at the top of our RSP list as reliable sources. One last quote: "Americans' trust in the media remains sharply polarized along partisan lines, with 70 percent of Democrats, 14 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of independents saying they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence," according to Gallup polling in October 2022. My views align with Independent, but then I am a resident of Bonaire. If the WP community has decided that we should identify as a left-wing encyclopedia, then so be it, but we should at least openly admit it. We are neither an objective source, nor a trustworthy source for accuracy, the latter of which we openly admit while we ignore the former. Interesting. Atsme 💬 📧 13:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
If you really want to swing your proposed general downgrade of the news media, you would need to start at WP:RSN, and not on this out-of-the-way talk page. This discussion should be moved or restarted there if you're serious. If not, then it should be hatted for being in completely the wrong venue - David Gerard (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
But David - this is an RSP issue; i.e., PERENNIAL. RSN is a noticeboard which is used (or supposed to be used) for inclusion or deletion of specific material from a particular source (presented in CONTEXT), which is supposed to be done on an individual basis – not to condemn an entire source as unreliable or the reverse – and that is exactly what we have here. To my knowledge, the wider community never approved rating entire sources in that manner, (unless I overlooked that RfC at VP), but here we are. Worse yet, we now have User scripts that grade sources based on these biased accountings (and I have actually promoted those scripts). It is not only unrealistic, it is in conflict with WP:PAG, so in that regard, I am guilty of adherence to local consensus. If you intend to start a discussion at VP:Policy to change NPOV, or perhaps are considering taking it to ArbCom, then I will use this discussion and WP:RSP to demonstrate how editors have strayed from NPOV, which is a core content policy that even consensus cannot change...or so it reads. That is my perspective as a retired journalist (former CNN Headline News field producer), but what do I know? It was a long time ago that CNN was doing objective reporting or what I perceived to be objective because we actually presented all significant views in a news voice, very much unlike the opinionated, emotional journalists of today. Times, they are a changing. j/s Atsme 💬 📧 17:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
David's point, which is well taken IMHO, is that this is a talk page for discussing this noticeboard. This topic does not appear to be about the noticeboard. It is about how much weight to give the CJR article versus how much weight to give articles you claim to be discredited by CJR's assessment. These are content issues and not about this noticeboard or the process in general. Furthermore, you raise an NPOV issue - this, again, is a content question and you are instead on the talk page of the reliable sources noticeboard. CJR is a reliable source, as is Mother Jones. Andre🚐 21:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Regarding We downgraded sources that reported Russiagate correctly, but are hesitant to downgrade the sources that misrepresented the facts? So, you're asserting that, but you've provided no evidence for such a statement. I mean, you can say anything, but if you want a proposal to be taken seriously, especially one as serious as that, the evidence to support such an assertion better be just as serious. I mean, there's a lot to unpack in a few words, but lets take it bit by bit. We downgraded sources that reported Russiagate correctly Which source? How do you know they reported Russiagate correctly? Downgrade the sources that misrepresented the facts? Which source? Which fact? How do you know they misrepresented that fact? What is your source? Again, be specific on this. Also, I have similar concerns to David Gerard regarding venue. Presumably, you have some specific text in a specific Wikipedia article that you wish to see changed. Use that article's talk page. Presumably, you have a source that you'd like to make a case needs to have its reliability assessed. Be specific, and use WP:RSN to start a thread to discuss it, and present your evidence. Vaguely waving your hand at Gareth's expose and saying "It's all in there" and claiming that is sufficient is unlikely to get the changes you want. --Jayron32 17:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Got to agree 100% with Atsme above. It is time for Wikipedia to come out of the Left-wing closet. I whole-heartedly support moving this section of dialogue to RSN. I mean, why hide it anymore. Either we're proud of our bias or our neutrality. Which is it? GenQuest "scribble" 17:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, again, you've made assertions that "Wikipedia" is in a "left wing closet". What is your evidence for that? I mean, just saying it out loud doesn't make it true. --Jayron32 17:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you Jayron32 – we are not in a left wing closet – we are in denial. And it goes back a loooong way. See the 2014 Harvard Business Review article. And there are so many sources that ring the same bell, that it would inundate this TP discussion. Atsme 💬 📧 17:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Every year or so you suggest we downgrade WaPo and the NYT and upgrade Fox. Here you claim Wikipedia is a “left-wing encyclopedia”. What people call extreme left-wing these days astounds and frightens me. Allowing To kill a Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men in high school libraries is considered left-wing. Mentioning slavery is left-wing. Requiring a background check for purchase of an AK-47. Consider the possibility that you are the one looking through biased glasses. “If The Times were really the Fox News of the left, how could you explain the investigative reporting that brought down Eliot Spitzer, New York’s Democratic governor; derailed the election campaign of his Democratic successor, David Paterson; got Charles Rangel, the Harlem Democrat who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, in ethics trouble; and exposed the falsehoods that Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, another Democrat, was telling about his service record in the Vietnam era?” We base sources on their ability to verify and correct. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
It is not just about RSes being those that verify and correct, but also how little they mix editorialization with factual reporting. For example, we (as Wikipedia the entity) cannot really take a front at the book banning happening in Florida, but go to most sources covering it and the book banning is already taken as the "wrong" position. (Mind you, I am also furious at the nonsense in Florida). Because the media are opting this anti-rught stance, the bulk of coverage us on the outage from both those involved like teachers, and those not involved, like journalists. We should be very wary of how such stories are reported, digging out the facts from the vitriol being lobbed around. Masem (t) 20:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I would think being against censorship is neutral, not left-wing. So, yes the media is generally against it and considers it the “wrong” position. The media is also generally against genocide. I don’t see not looking favorably on such as bias. As for the OP’s comments: Those of us who knew better at the time, and tried to explain under duress what was really going on were being attacked, castigated, and punished. Factual journalism was downgraded and ridiculed, despite their ratings, linking to her TBan four years back; and that we scrap all of RS/PS – to me, that suggests the TBan was correct and that she did not take it to heart. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Objective3000, You're making a straw man argument, and an intimidating one at that. And I think you know it. No one here has said anything like supporting any of that. Are you suggesting Atsme has implied anything like support for that? If so, a strike through and apology is really called for. (Or do you have the diffs?) GenQuest "scribble" 06:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Do not ever tell another person what they know. And, did you read the OP? She said this noticeboard should be eliminated. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
O3000, stop. You are bullying and casting aspersions in violation of WMF:ToU. Please stay away from me. It is quite obvious that our history is not conducive to you being involved in collegial discussions where I am involved, especially when it is as blatantly obvious that your only purpose for joining this discussion is to bully, belittle and discredit me as an editor. I'd rather you stay away from me voluntarily than forcing me to file for an iBan against you. You have not made one comment since you arrived here without attempting to belittle or discredit me. Your focus should be on the Columbia Journalism Review, not me. We cannot reach a fair and reasonable consensus with you here bullying and belittling editors with whom you disagree. My responses will probably always be different from yours because I happen to be a highly ethical, objective journalist from the old school of journalism, now retired after a long and highly successful career. Objective writing is second nature with me. Your arguments don't rise above strawman, not to mention your prejudice against me, and the ideologically biases you have demonstrated here. It is time for you to move along, and stop bullying and casting aspersions. Atsme 💬 📧 15:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Seriously? You started this section by insulting a broad swatch of editors and claiming that you were right and they were wrong all along. Indeed you claimed that we attacked, castigated, and punished you simply for being "right" based on an article you agree with. If you don't want responses to such screeds, don't make them. I suggest you reread your own OP and strike large portions that do nothing to aide collaboration. Meanwhile, I will respond to such broad attacks against Wikipedia and its volunteers. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I am absolutely serious, and I am pinging Barkeep49 now because he needs to review this entire discussion to see first hand your bullying and aspersions before it advances to the point of tl;dr. Since none of the admins in this discussion can/should be providing an evaluation, I feel that it is in my best interests to summon non-involved, unbiased and non-prejudiced admins to make a decision here because I refuse to be baited by you. I wear the scars of a female editor who has been relentlessly bullied by editors like you. Your behavior is unchanged dating back to when you HOUNDED and BULLIED me back in 2018 & possibly before. I still have those diffs. They date back to the gangbang days of exaggerated lies and misinformation before I invested over a decade of helping to build this encyclopedia with FA quality articles and NPP training. I'm not going to do to you what you have done to me. I have asked you to stop, and you refused. It is out of my hands now. Atsme 💬 📧 21:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
You don't get to attack someone and demand they not respond. Indeed, you claim I bullied you; and yet you are the one who threatened me with a filing. And now you make absurd claims of "gangbang days of exaggerated lies and misinformation". I in no way bullied you. I didn't threaten to have you removed from this discussion as you are doing. As far as you being bullied in 2018, reread the 2018 ARCA filing you linked to resulted in your TBan. Also, please reread your OP and further posts in this thread. Atsme, I have said on multiple occasions that you are an excellent editor, better than I -- as long as you stay away from politics. Drmies said the same in the ARCA filing you linked to. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Suggest WP:BOOMERANG Andre🚐 21:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@Atsme as an uninvolved administrator I am always reluctant to intervene in some new topic area after a direct request for my help (whether through a ping or talk page message). I don't suddenly become WP:INVOLVED just because I'm sought out but it's likely to leave a bad taste if I take actions that support the person who sought me out.
That preface out of the way in this circumstance I don't know that there's anything that is in my remit anyway as an individual admin. I see some statements by Objective3000 that would be a lot better if they had a diff to support (e.g. Every year or so you suggest we downgrade WaPo and the NYT and upgrade Fox.) and think O3000 could have do a better job making clear what they're attributing to you (Atsme) and what they're attributing to some nebulous people. And I do agree that people with bad pasts should take extra caution when engaging in a thread with each other, caution O3000 has not shown. But having read the the thread the comment that stood out to me is the one that has been struck and apologized for. Beyond that it feels like a situation where any sanctions that might be appropriate are ones that would have to be made by the community (or ArbCom). Barkeep49 (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Anti-censorship I would consider as a "not conservative" (not simply left but likely shared by the middle), but that highlights that being objective and neutral means we should even take a position on the political meter. But presently, a government actually engaging in censorship as Florida has isn't a crime, so we shouldn't treat it in Wikivoice as objectively bad, but we can reflect with attribution why Florida's law is heavily criticized by teachers and free speech advocates. On the other hand, genocide is treated as a crime the world over (an objective position), so we can speak in Wikivoice in opposition to that. Masem (t) 13:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I mean, it's a thing, it doesn't mean what you assert that it means. It just categorized the language used in articles based on whether or not the same language is likely to be used by Republicans or Democrats, which presupposes that such differences are entirely in balance already; which is to say that both parties are equidistant from reality; that there is some ideal way to describe things, some ideal language to use, and that the two parties lie equidistant from that ideal. I'm not sure we can presume that. I mean, on its face it seems rather fanciful that both parties would remain equidistant from the ideal in all things, and that it should all come out even. I mean, if one party or the other were less based in science, reason, and verifiable facts than the other, we would expect Wikipedia to reflect that difference than to pretend such difference didn't exist, wouldn't we? After all, WP:NPOV doesn't mean we grant equal weight, we grant due weight. And if the parties were not equidistant from ideal, then we would not expect the language we use to exactly reflect both parties equally, now would we? --Jayron32 18:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
UNDUE really needs a time factor in it, as the overall we are to an event, the more we should be focused on equal balance if viewpoints, and wait until enough time has passed that we can then assess things with more due weight. Of course, to avoid false balance, that means at the early stages, we should avoid the commentary and opinions of those that have no participation in the dispute (read, the media) and focus of sticking to objective facts. Masem (t) 20:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
But that's not happening. Check out the early Talk Page and article of this guy: Jared Lee Loughner. The systemic bias of these early sources and their inclusion here are undenialably biased. It was like trying to swat a cloud of mosquitoes to get the a neutral place over that guy, a process that took months. In the meantime, when the article was getting thousands of hits a day, the biased sources and rhetoric kept the article in an anti-conservative/Republican slant for months. But, of course he was an evil conservative, because he just had to be. GenQuest "scribble" 06:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm reading the article now, but it is long and I am having a hard time finding text in the article which is "undeniably biased" in any particular direction. Can you please let us know what article text is incorrect? --Jayron32 14:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Hot and bad take. Andre🚐 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Editors arguing for the downgrading of NYTimes and other US papers of record in hopes that this will lead to a more politically conservative Wikipedia are in for a rude awakening if they ever succeed. Print news media as a category, and particularly in the English-speaking world, tend to be more politically conservative than peer-reviewed RS. As for NYT in particular, here are the top relevant results I found on Google Scholar for "New York Times" "left wing": [1], [2], [3], [4] [5]--none of them support the perspective that NYT is a paper of the Left on the global stage, which is the stage that Wikipedia is written on. signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
    Peer reviewed sources close to events tend to be written from the social sciences, which I have found (can't prove or the like) tend to not fear about objective coverage of topics in contrast to peer reviews physical science journals that place objectivity as a requirement. That said, social science peer-reviewed works far out from events (including journals and books) tend to be more objective and report how history has crystallized around the event and thus are far better to use. This still comes down to recognizing the failings of how WP now traditionally covers current and very recent events, and from an RSP perspective, we should have cautions that nearly all sources that are green, for their works from 2010 onward, can be (not will be) suspect in a non-objective viewpoint in their news coverage. Masem (t) 03:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry, but that's an incredibly wild claim to make, and it would be helpful if you provided any amount of sourcing on that. Parabolist (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
    I can't provide any corroborating evidence, its just what I see to what I see when researching. There are certainly more objective social study papers that are comparable to physical science, typically because there is a scientific method involved (some type of quantifiable study like a survey as a point of basis), I've seen a fair handful that are all about trying to justify a specific POV rather than a theory, particularly in the areas of racism, feminism, extreme political ideologies. But I can't provide you with any evidence or RS that would support that as to the best of my knowledge, that type of evaluation of peer-reviewd sources is almost never done - eg we have sources like CRJ that cover the how well the media reports, but next to nothing on how the academic body reports and certainly not to that type of level.
    I think we just have to be aware that simply being a peer-reviewed paper in a journal is not automatically "right", particularly if there's some possible skin in the game involved. That's why its still better to wait out for more dis-interested historical views and commentary that are less likely to have a stance and will be more objective - media or academia. Masem (t) 14:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    I think the bigger problem with peer-reviewed journals is that they are a source of primary research. While what they say is likely reliably true, what we cannot say is that it is also relevant or that such primary sources place the facts in appropriate context. That's why Wikipedia favors the use of secondary sources. A secondary source takes information from primary sources and places it into context, so we know that the information is not just true, but also relevant and applicable to a particular context. That's why stuff like WP:MEDRS doesn't allow the use of primary source journal articles as the only sourcing. Context matters, and by definition, primary sources lack context. --Jayron32 15:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    Some years back, an editor attempted to use a peer-reviewed article in a respected psychology journal in the criticism of copyright article. I tried to remove it as the entire argument was based on a flawed understanding of copyright law. I was told it was peer-reviewed and would remain (despite the fact the student who wrote the article was the editor who added it.) I contacted the editor of the journal and asked if it was peer reviewed just for its psychology content or also legal as the psychological conclusions were based on law that didn’t exist. He said just psychology and they would contact a legal authority in the field. The law expert said the legal understanding was false and they said they would add a note in the next issue of the journal. Point is, as you say, context matters and relying on a primary source can be problematic. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC).
    This is probably going beyond what RSP can do, but the situation O3000 describes points to the need to avoid cherry picking when it comes to inclusion (eg UNDUE), as well. And in considering Jayron's point, that's why we'd want secondary sources that build up from multiple primary sources to summary them would be preferred when it comes to the inclusion of opinions and commentary - we want the broad opinions that can be easily observed for inclusion by DUE, which a good reviewing secondary source gives. Masem (t) 17:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    What the great threat is is the fact that right-wing sources in many cases have decided to ultimately deviate from consensus reality and portray "alternative facts," and they have a willing group of propagandists whether it is the Russian narrative on Ukraine or right-wing perspective on the Trump campaign's felony convictions and their long period of contacts and hand-in-glove coordination with Russian agents. These are all content issues, though. This thread proposes, as have other threads like the Twitter Files, that RS should be discredited by pieces in right-wing propaganda that urge discrediting of RS. That is very dangerous for Wikipedia because it recommends undermining the consensus treatment of the process that determines what is factual and what sources are pushing propaganda. Andre🚐 21:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    The ongoing problems we have with AP2 articles are related to WP:RECENTISM far more than bias in RS. We really need to learn to let the dust settle before adding info from sources while the ink is still wet. RS tend to be RS once time has allowed clearer pictures. Bad sources tend to get worse over time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Rosguill - here is a little reminder from our past as it relates to what the NYTimes "not covering a major story" can do. History repeats itself, and I'll be damned if it isn't happening again in various other forms, some of which may lead to war, and may already have. WP is globally huge, and as editors we have a responsibility to report factual information in an encyclopedic style, not a news style. Important, encyclopedic information is being excluded because of the non-objective way we choose our sources. Just look at the grading of the sources, and the obvious bias when making selections based on one's ideological preferences, or what an editor believes to be true. Most of what we are getting from mainstream media includes biased journalistic opinion from biased sources. CJR brought these issues to light with retrospective; that is what historians do, and why we hear so many politicians talk about how they will be remembered by historians. An encyclopedia is the documentation of actual history, not what the NYTimes thought about it. The NYTimes journalists want more money, and management is vying for click revenue & ads like all the other media. They are not professional/learned/academic historians. Just saying. Atsme 💬 📧 15:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
    Once again, you go back 80 years to find a flaw in the NYTimes, and accuse the NYT journalists of just wanting more money based on a one day strike. And you give a later example of exactly what I just posted. We should wait until the dust settles and the picture is clearer. Then, great sources like the NYTimes can provide the clearer picture for us. And, once again you provide a broad insult against Wikipedia editors of reacting with bias while failing to examine your own bias. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
    If we can use better sources than NYT there we can avoid the issue of whether some editors consider it a great source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
    Union bargaining efforts somehow make journalists less reliable. Unions, which actually make journalists more independent from their advertisers and management. Breathtaking logic. Parabolist (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    Right, because fighting for a better standard of living for themselves and their coworkers makes them unreliable. Bullshit. --Jayron32 13:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    Accusing editors of bias without evidence is a personal attack. Andre🚐 17:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Something worth considering to keep in mind, but alongside other things and not the sole judge. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  • NO. I haven't read the whole thread but I strongly oppose any changes from the CJR piece which is already being viewed critically. It is one piece and it is not any kind of indictment of any news media's reliability at all. In fact it will likely be that the CJR piece is castigated by RS as a partisan hack piece. See e.g. [6] Andre🚐 17:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    The source you linked looks like an opinion piece in a famously left-leaning publication. The fact that you're treating it as an arbiter of truth on questions of political bias seems like an example of the problem under discussion here. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    The source is considered green for facts, but biased. However, I see no new facts stated in the MJ article. What the MJ article does is pull together already known facts and show how many were ignored by the CJR article, creating a biased narrative. So, I disagree that the MJ article is part of the problem. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    Indeed. It's a reliable source per WP:MOTHERJONES. And many others have also weighed in. These POVs need to be balanced. The CJR story worked backward from the conclusion that Trump had been vindicated[7] the revisionists downplay and distort a very ugly story [8] Andre🚐 18:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
In any case, the press is both attacking and lauding the CJR article making it useless for our purposes. And the OP's conclusion that this noticeboard should be eliminated in its entirety is a nonstarter. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
An article, from a reputable source known for their studies on the media (CRJ), that is critical of the media, and further is getting criticized by the media definitely doesn't invalidate the article. That would be like saying that we should ignore what the SPLC says about a person or group when classified into one of their hate watch lists, and that person or group is critical of that placement. The SPLC placement is still absolutely something we consider, just like this CRJ should be considered in how we handle modern media sources. I fully agree that the CRJ does not support removing anything from RSP, but I do feel the CRJ article supports a broad caution that most RSes on RSP, since 2010, should be more carefully considered in how they are used. Masem (t) 18:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, I'd say it also supports caution in using the CRJ. The MJ article is quite damning. Ignoring that, the fact that there are many thumbs up and thumbs down means we cannot take it at face value. As for caution in using RSs, sure. But, the CRJ article certainly doesn't affect my opinion on that as it looks to me like a hack job. I won't be looking at this one article to determine use of sources. Let us use the policies and guidelines we have been using. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not saying that we should completely trust and treat as gospel the MJ article, but we shouldn't do that for the CRJ article. Both are biased and opinionated POVs that are questioned by other material. None of this suggests a major change on how we treat RS or RSP. Andre🚐 19:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with those saying that it would be inappropriate to base a mass downgrading on the basis of this source. I also agree that the venue for this discussion is wrong. RSN is meant for exactly this sort of discussion, and it has an order of magnitude more pageviews and watchlisters. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
In fact, the poster's refusal to bring it to that noticeboard discredits their claim - David Gerard (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
RSN is the wrong venue, David. The banner at the top of the RSN page clearly states: Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. I'm not questioning the CJR article - it is a RS. In light of your criticism about my claim being discredited, let's look at an action you took a relatively short time ago on this talk page, because it is relevant to my concerns about the flawed RSP process in general. You took the liberty to downgrade an entire source in the RSP table as unreliable, without consensus to do so. And I doubt that you're the only one who has taken such action. It's part of the reason I consider RSP a flawed process, along with the fact that it conflicts with the purpose of RSN and WP:RS per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
Steele dossier is one example of an article that is negatively affected by the RSP rating system. It has a few highlights of good writing, but there is far more noncompliance with WEIGHT, NPOV, and the citing of sources that may well be proven unreliable for the added material, but because they are shown as RS at WP:RSP, no one bothers to check. The Durham investigation, and CJR's recent review shined a bright light on some of those sources and the misinformation they published. More sources are corroborating CJR's exposé. The only way we can actually fix the noncompliant articles and avoid this fiasco in the future is to return to the original purpose of RSN, adhere to NOTNEWS, and avoid RECENTISM. We really need to put an end to the flawed process of downgrading sources that don't align with the political ideologies of whatever majority shows up to iVote. All one has to do is count the number of left-leaning sources cited in contentious articles vs the center/center-right sources, if there are any at all. The Steele dossier is entirely written from a left-leaning POV, and I think there may be 3 out of 520 cited sources that could be considered center or center-right. And it's all relative to the CJR article about Russiagate. That's it from me, folks. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 01:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
No to all of this. The Durham investigation was widely discredited and went down in flames.[9][10][11][12][13][14] Andre🚐 01:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I have no idea why a highly experienced editor like Atsme who claims to want to improve the encyclopedia would use imprecise slipshod slang terms like "Russiagate" when instead we could be discussing solid encyclopedic content like the Republican majority led Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election, a bipartisan 2019 - 2020 report that in summary concluded that the January 2017 intelligence community assessment alleging Russian interference was "coherent and well-constructed". The first volume also concluded that the assessment was "proper", learning from analysts that there was "no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions". The final and fifth volume, which was the result of three years of investigations, was released on August 18, 2020, ending one of the United States "highest-profile congressional inquiries." The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Donald Trump, which included assistance from some members of Trump's own advisers. Like the Mueller report that preceded it, the report does not find a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, but it does go further than the Mueller report in detailing the ties found between Trump campaign members and Russian individuals. In particular, it describes Paul Manafort as "a grave counterintelligence threat". According to the report, "some evidence suggests" that Konstantin Kilimnik, to whom Manafort provided polling data, was directly connected to the Russian theft of Clinton-campaign emails. In addition, while Trump's written testimony in the Mueller report stated that he did not recall speaking with Roger Stone about WikiLeaks, the Senate report concludes that "Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stone's access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions". In other words, the "Russiagate = hoax" narrative is entirely spurious and fixating on that as a reason to conclude that Trump and his team did nothing wrong is (struggling for the best word) ludicrous. Yes, the investigators made various mistakes as did the widely derided "lamestream media" to quote Sarah Palin, while looking into and reporting on these shocking developments concerning arguably the most corrupt and dishonest president in US history, in my humble opinion. What surprises me most about the last seven sordid years is not Trump's manifest and glaring character flaws, but instead the willingness of millions of people to enable this, in my opinion, deranged and corrupt megalomaniac. Throughout all those seven years, I have edited very little about Trump because my personal feelings made it difficult for me to edit neutrally. But I will not stand by idly when anybody tries to misrepresent history, and open the encyclopedia to far right disinformation operatives. Cullen328 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I would add that starting this thread may be a violation of the logged warning given by Awilley when reversing Bishonen's block of Atsme from DJT related articles (IIRC). In any case, this thread, starting with the Festivusian "airing of grievances" in the OP ought be collapsed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The very first sentence of the CJR report linked to above is by itself demonstrably false when it says The end of the long inquiry into whether Donald Trump was colluding with Russia came in July 2019, when Robert Mueller III, the special counsel, took seven, sometimes painful, hours to essentially say no. because it does not acknowledge the findings (and the reporting of the findings) of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee that I mentioned above that was released after the Mueller Report, the very report that William Barr told stone cold lies about on TV for the purpose of deceiving the American people about the countless severe ethical failings of Trump and his close coterie. Many of the Trumpist insiders have already been convicted, some since pardoned by Trump from the Oval Office, and 950 plus of his footsoldiers have been arrested and nearly 500 of them already convicted of crimes committed during the January 6 pro-Trump insurrection, including several Oath Keepers convicted of seditious conspiracy. Countless lives and families have been shattered by Trump's web of lies, in my opinion and according to a vast array of reliable sources. So sad. And yet far too many seem to accept and worship the lying house of cards. Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Whoa! How did we stray so far off-topic? It looks like we are now talking in 3rd person...ok, so...I can't believe a highly experienced administrator like Cullen has no idea why I would use imprecise slipshod slang terms like "Russiagate". Is it possible that Cullen did not read the CJR review which this entire discussion is about, and has somehow wandered off on a political tangent? The 2nd paragraph in the CJR article clearly states: No narrative did more to shape Trump’s relations with the press than Russiagate. O_O I'm not making this poop up. I figured if a former NYTimes journalist who won a Pulitzer was ok with using that term, it would be ok for this lowly WP editor to use it in a TP discussion. But hey, that was some impressive cherrypicking in Cullen's comment, despite its irrelevance to this discussion. I sure hope Cullen will carefully step down from his rather tall political soapbox, and figure out what this discussion is actually about. What I don't understand is what Cullen implied with his statement that he "will not stand by idly when anybody tries to misrepresent history, and open the encyclopedia to far right disinformation operatives." WHAT?! "far right disinformation operatives"? Now we are knee deep in LaLa Land. I just read an article by John Stossel which is more along the lines of Cullen's concerns about misrepresenting history, and it's not coming from far right disinformation operatives: While it excludes Fox, Wikipedia approves even hard left media like Vox, Slate, The Nation, Mother Jones, and Jacobin, a socialist publication. Until recently, Wikipedia’s “socialism” and “communism” pages made no mention of the millions of people killed by socialism and communism. Even now, deaths are “deep in the article,” says Weiss, “treated as an arcane academic debate. But we’re talking about mass murder!” The communism page even adds that we cannot ignore the “lives saved by communist modernization”! This is nuts.
What Jeff Gerth just exposed in a 4-part CJR article is also not coming from the far right (CJR leans left): But news outlets and watchdogs haven’t been as forthright in examining their own Trump-Russia coverage, which includes serious flaws. Bob Woodward, of the Post, told me that news coverage of the Russia inquiry ”wasn’t handled well” and that he thought viewers and readers had been “cheated.” He urged newsrooms to “walk down the painful road of introspection.” Folks need to read the CJR article, and cool their heels. I couldn't care less about American politics as a resident of Bonaire. But as a retired journalist, I'm quite confident that the left/far left media bubble became propagandized, and was spreading misinformation as evidenced by reliable reporting. For example, WSJ, June 2022: The acquittal of former Hillary Clinton lawyer Michael Sussmann—charged with lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation while acting on behalf of her 2016 campaign—leaves major questions unanswered about Mrs. Clinton’s role in her campaign’s effort to tie Donald Trump to Russia. It also provides new evidence that she personally directed the effort. Jeff Gerth, CJR article: Matt Taibbi, who spent time as a journalist in Russia, also grew uneasy about the Trump-Russia coverage. Eventually, he would compare the media’s performance to its failures during the run-up to the Iraq War. “It was a career-changing moment for me,” he said in an interview. The “more neutral approach” to reporting “went completely out the window once Trump got elected. Saying anything publicly about the story that did not align with the narrative—the repercussions were huge for any of us that did not go there. That is crazy.” This discussion is about the misinformation in reporting by NEWS MEDIA on the left, including NYTimes, and our flawed process of rating state-owned media, propagandized media and downright misinformation while downgrading center & center-right news sources that were actually reporting the facts correctly. Fox actually got some of it right, and so did the WSJ, and quite a few others. Atsme 💬 📧 06:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
A bunch of canards and right-wing talking points on whataboutism. Still nothing to do with the RSN/RSP process or anything germane to the reliability of outlets we consider reliable, or those we do not. Just more regurgitating of debunked opinion pieces and pseudo-journalism from hacks. It'd be great if someone would just close and hat this thread. Andre🚐 07:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Atsme, I noticed that you made no effort at all to respond to the conclusions of the Republican led Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and are doubling down on imprecise slang "Russiagate" terminology which is regularly trotted out by Trump and his followers for overt propaganda purposes. This is a pattern I see repeatedly among my friends on the right. An utter refusal to engage with the massive quantity of readily available evidence that Trump is a pernicious pathological liar, a bully, a con artist, a racist, sexist pig, an insurrectionist, a person who is utterly and manifestly unqualified to serve again as president, and a clear and present danger to freedom and democracy, in my sincere opinion. But liars are going to lie, and cheaters are going to cheat, and enablers are going to enable. Who the heck cares about Bonaire? Why does it matter at all to anyone that you have retired to the tropics? Cullen328 (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Cullen, I'm sorry but I am not going to engage in a political discussion with you, or anyone else - anywhere - especially when it involves a report written by politicians. Good lord!! No thank you! I've already inadvertently mentioned more than I originally intended, and have self-corrected. My focus is on the years of misinformation reported by media that CJR recently brought to light in a very thorough report. We now have other RS corroborating that report. Bob Woodward even admitted the reporting was problematic. Leave your political biases at login, and focus on the sources and the act of reporting because that is where I am focused. Our source grading system is as flawed as the media that CJR recently exposed. Unassuming editors have been citing those sources in good faith along with the material they published automatically believing the sources to be reliable per our flawed RSP. I am ignoring the ad hominem attacks, and aspersions against me that are in violation of our ToU. I have done nothing wrong to warrant the treatment I have endured for my good faith efforts, especially considering some of the worst insults have come from admins and a few of my longterm detractors, one of whom is retired but showed up purposely to attack me. Cullen, you are long way from being neutral, and as I have already explained, I. DO. NOT. CARE. ABOUT. THE. POLITICS, nor should you, but I feel your angst and forgive your outbursts. I sincerely worry more about Andre's health and mental well-being because he went through some hard times back in 2017-2018, and it was also Russia-related (how could I forget!!). You guys are the ones making this political because you are unable to separate the act of reporting inaccurate information from the politics, and I can because of my years of training and experience as a professional journalist - old school, not like the opinion journalism we're seeing today as I brought up in a prior SignPost Op-ed. You can guys can close this discussion because I'm removing it from my watchlist. When I get time, I will probably start an RfC at Village Pump regarding the method in which we are rating entire sources in conflict with our PAGs. I can already see that these localized noticeboards are dominated by the same few editors who are exposed their extreme biases in this discussion. What we really need is wider community input from neutral editors in order to achieve a more fair and balanced consensus. Enjoy what's left of the weekend. Atsme 💬 📧 14:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
showed up purposely to attack me. This is one of several personal attacks, indeed a lie, you have made in this thread. Much of your opening post was a gross attack against other editors linking to an ARCA discussion including many. I suggest you cease these WP:PAs and bullying (e.g. calling in an admin to attempt to keep me from responding to your attacks). O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Stop the aspersions and provide evidence/diffs that substantiates what you claim when the exact opposite is true. I provided diffs - you have not. Why are you here if you're retired? And why are the majority of your posts an attempt to discredit me? You are either retired or you're not. Make up your mind. Atsme 💬 📧 15:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Read you own edits, particularly the first, your own aspersions, and the orders for me to stop responding, your threat to make a filing against me, and calling in an admin to try to bully me off this thread. I've been nice compared to two admins in this thread. Further, your claims that you "DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE POLITICS" (your emphasis) when your claims have been blatantly political is....
As for why I am here, it is because your incredibly insulting opening post claimed that we attacked, castigated, and punished you for being the objective, neutral person who was right four years ago based on an article that agrees with you; and then said you believed this noticeboard should be eliminated in its entirety. Your link in that post showing how you were so wrongly punished I’ll repeat here[15],If you want diffs, It includes 89 of them. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Here is a detailed critique of Gerth's CJR piece by David Corn of Mother Jones. Cullen328 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2023 (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.

Is this system out of date? Needs redesign?

Am finding this Reliable Sources system in need of a redesign or massive overhaul. I was editing an article and someone was using the wikipedia described pundit Jonathan Chait as a source, which is reliable because he writes for New York Magazine. But Chait describes himself as a 'liberal hawk'. Maybe he doesn't anymore. This system needs more precision. Even the great New York Times has been wrong many times. There's even a wikipedia page for it.

It's difficult to even know where to go to update or suggest corrections here. I can see how it is used as a system of Gatekeeping for sources that may not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Am wondering why there are Chinese media sites that have higher ratings that American sites that have uncovered many stories that the New York Times hasn't?

I suggest an overhaul and new rating system that rates credibility of each journalist individually. Organized by the sites they work for or with. Just start over, this archive talk system is a mess. Eamesaguila (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we are in need of an overhaul, but instead of rating each individual journalist, I suggest we re-rate each and every website. Belregard (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Tennessee Star - reliable source

I'm leaning "no" because it's a right-wing website that tries to make itself look like a newspaper, but I wanted to seek additional input here. Wes sideman (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The proper place to ask this question is at WP:RSN. --Jayron32 13:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Wes sideman (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

More content and sourcing about CJR and Gerth's fringe opinions

On January 30, 2023, Gerth published in the Columbia Journalism Review what his editor called an "encyclopedic look at one of the most consequential moments in American media history," the U.S. media's coverage of Trump's alleged role in the proven Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. The four-part series was entitled "The press versus the president." After an introduction by Kyle Pope,[1] Gerth's coverage was published in four parts: "Introduction: 'I Realized Early On I Had Two Jobs'";[2] "Chapter 2: The Origins Of Fake News";[3] "Chapter 3: A Contested Pulitzer";[4] and "Chapter 4: Helsinki and the $3,000 Russian Disinformation Campaign."[5]

Multiple mainstream sources pushed back against Gerth's assertions, among them David Corn,[6] Joe Conason,[7] Jonathan Chait,[8] Rachel Maddow,[9] Cathy Young,[10] Dan Kennedy,[11] and Duncan Campbell.[12]

References

  1. ^ Pope, Kyle (January 30, 2023). "Looking back on the coverage of Trump". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
  2. ^ Gerth, Jeff (January 30, 2023). "The press versus the president, part one". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
  3. ^ Gerth, Jeff (January 30, 2023). "The press versus the president, part two". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
  4. ^ Gerth, Jeff (January 30, 2023). "The press versus the president, part three". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
  5. ^ Gerth, Jeff (January 30, 2023). "The press versus the president, part four". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
  6. ^ Corn, David (February 2, 2023). "Columbia Journalism Review's Big Fail: It Published 24,000 Words on Russiagate and Missed the Point". Mother Jones. Retrieved February 8, 2023. Gerth "missed the point" and bolstered "Trump's phony narrative...Ultimately Gerth does a disservice by failing to cast Russiagate accurately. Putin's attack succeeded, with help from Trump and his crew. That has always been the big story."
  7. ^ Conason, Joe (February 4, 2023). "The Reporter Who Hyped Whitewater Now Backs Trump On 'Russiagate'". The National Memo. Retrieved February 10, 2023. His former colleagues are said to be seething with fury at him...because Gerth has betrayed basic journalistic standards....Gerth is perpetuating the coverup....[Trump] helped an adversary sabotage an American election.
  8. ^ Chait, Jonathan (February 9, 2023). "Columbia Journalism Review Had a Different Russiagate Story - and Spiked It". New York. Retrieved February 10, 2023. This is a triumph of spin.... Yes, some of the reporting, as you would expect of a sprawling investigation, was wrong. And some expectations of where the scandal would go from opinion journalists were wrong, too...Still, the investigation produced extensive evidence of misconduct....In the main, the broad suspicion of the investigation — that Trump's pattern of oddly Russophilic statements might be explained by some hidden partnership — proved to be correct.
  9. ^ Maddow, Rachel (February 3, 2023). "Friday's Mini-Report, 2.3.23". MSNBC. Retrieved February 10, 2023. I wish I knew why the Columbia Journalism Review published such an unfortunate piece on such an important issue: "Misdirection, an essential tool for magicians, is not usually a component of media criticism. But in a lengthy critique of the coverage of the Trump-Russia scandal published this week by the Columbia Journalism Review, veteran investigative reporter Jeff Gerth deflects attention from the core components of Russiagate, mirroring Donald Trump's own efforts of the past six years to escape accountability for his profound betrayal of the nation.
  10. ^ Young, Cathy (February 9, 2023). "Why 'Russiagate' Skeptics Are Cackling—But Shouldn't Be". The Bulwark. Retrieved February 10, 2023. As Corn puts it: 'With this confab, Team Trump signaled to Moscow that it was willing to accept Putin's covert assistance. It did not report to the FBI or anyone else that the Kremlin was aiming to intervene in the election. This may not have been collusion; it was complicity.'
  11. ^ Kennedy, Dan (February 9, 2023). "The CJR's critique of 'Russia Russia Russia' coverage is all trees, no forest". Media Nation. Retrieved February 10, 2023. Gerth has shown that the press, and especially the Times, was not as careful as it should have been in reporting on Russia Russia Russia. And yes, details matter. But the notion that Trump was a victim of bad reporting with regard to Russia is just nonsense. In the end, Gerth has produced a report that's all trees, no forest.
  12. ^ Campbell, Duncan (February 7, 2023). "Who Watches the Watchdog? The CJR's Russia Problem". Byline Times. Retrieved February 10, 2023.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I concur with the above and find it informative, but I think this page is not the right place to post it. Andre🚐 20:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Upgrade text and process on this page to process guideline

In my opinion, the RSP board is widely used and represents a consensus part of the process of vetting reliable sources. The board itself is a convenient index of discussions which are binding by consensus, but the process text and this page are just an information page. I have occasionally seen users dispute the extent to which the RSP summaries reflect consensus, even though they are simply linking to consensus RFCs and discussions in an organized way. I think this is confusing both for new users, and for other users who may think that the usage of RSP is political or that it doesn't reflect a solid consensus of editors. Therefore, we should propose to make this page an official guideline to the process, or make whatever changes are necessary to workshop the text of this page to reflect the uncontroversial consensus, and then make it an official guideline. I recognize that some users may oppose this, which is exactly why it is important. The RSP/RSN process is very important for ensuring a high quality standard for fact-checking as the RS policy seeks to do. Andre🚐 23:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

People already take the labels on this list as gospel more than they should, acting like green means "always reliable" and red means "never reliable", when in fact reliability always depends on context. I worry that elevating the page to a guideline would make that tendency even worse. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it would make any difference in practice. This is an information and summary page, with the text being set by rough consensus and acceptance, depending on the case - e.g., mostly an editor writes up a source and it's just accepted (maybe with "how's this?"), but altering the Daily Mail entry took an RFC on RSN to add a sentence (about dailymail.co.uk not reliably reflecting the print paper). It's an accepted summary page of consensus discussions. Editors rules-lawyer over wording and changing its status wouldn't change that, I fear - David Gerard (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Your point is valid but I still think we could somehow point out on this page that the discussions themselves do have the binding power of consensus even if not every RSP listing went through a specific vetting process. I think some editors believe they can just ignore the community consensus on this board because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. In reality, context mattering doesn't mean the consensus of editors on this board doesn't matter. For example, a source with a consensus that it is marginally reliable or not generally reliable, that means if it's controversial it shouldn't be used and a better source should be used instead. That should be a guideline, but it's ambiguous right now as to whether that is a guideline per se. Andre🚐 20:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Fox News Knew It Was A Lie: Fox News Purposely Pushed Deception On 2020 Voting

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Fox News Knew It Was A Lie: Fox News Purposely Pushed Deception On 2020 Voting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


They Knew It Was A Lie: Fox News Purposely Pushed Deception On 2020 Voting[1]

As we have known for a long time, this is not an occasional glitch, but a feature of Fox News. For them, telling the uncomfortable truth in politics and science in the Trump age is only an occasional thing that gets the offender punished by their own colleagues and management. They must toe the party line.

That's just one of myriad RS posting about this expose of their own internal admissions. Isn't it about time we actually deprecate Fox News? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

While I certainly agree, this should go to WP:RSN, not here. Andre🚐 20:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I'll work toward that end by collecting more sources first. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Fox News hosts, execs privately doubted 2020 conspiracy claims shared on air - Washington Post[2]

Keep in mind that the Dominion defamation lawsuit, which this is attached, calls out specific hosts on Fox News as a problem --- the talk show ones, and less the news shows themselves. We already dismiss the talk show hosts as anything close to reliable. Also keep in mind this is only from collection of evidence in a case, so cannot be taken as fact as this point. --Masem (t) 02:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
One of the messages in the collection was an email from owner Rupert Murdoch to CEO Suzanne Scott saying that their priority needed to be on winning the Georgia Senate election. "Fair and balanced", indeed. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tulbert, Julie (February 17, 2023). "They Knew It Was A Lie: Fox News Purposely Pushed Deception On 2020 Voting". National Memo. Retrieved February 17, 2023.
  2. ^ Barr, Jeremy (February 17, 2023). "Fox News hosts, execs privately doubted 2020 conspiracy claims shared on air". Washington Post. Retrieved February 17, 2023.

Updating CNET's listing

Hi all. Per WP:RSN#Beware: CNet running AI-generated articles, byline "CNet Money", there is new consensus on the reliability of CNET. Can someone familiar with the template's code update the listing here accordingly? It will need to be split into three rows, akin to Newsweek and Forbes. Thanks in advance! InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I've updated it, see if this works. I didn't use three rows, an additional row for a one month period seems too much. Tayi Arajakate Talk 21:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, but it's actually two years and one month. CNET was acquired in October 2020, not 2022. I've tried updating the table myself, hope I didn't break anything. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Downgrade SBM

SBM's article here is thoroughly flawed and shows Gorski's clear inability to critically review literature.

He is making strong conclusions about a topic he has little to no expertise in.

Yet he is being used as an "expert" to push a certain narrative where his expertise is lacking.

So it makes sense to not use him as a reliable source given the demonstrable misuse that is happening right now. 2601:602:8200:4A10:B47C:AFAC:A6E5:95CE (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SBM. If you have an issue with some precise citation, raise it at the article's Talk page. Discussion at this page does not affect source status. Bon courage (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Science-Based Medicine was formed in 2008 with five editors: Mark Crislip, Harriet Hall, Kimball Atwood, Steven Novella and David Gorski. In the 2010s it expanded to include Wallace Sampson amd Paul Ingraham.
In the last few years, the editorial board has gradually dwindled to two: Novella and Gorski.
Atwood and Crislip retired. Sampson and Hall died. Ingram is no longer regularly involved in editing. In its current form, with fewer players, SBM is more prone to serving the views and opinions of the remaining two individuals without the potential for editorial disagreement. Cedar777 (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Please see the message at the top of this page:

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.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Should Dexerto be added?

I found two "significant" discussion on RSN. This source has also been listed at WP:VGRS. There is consensus that this source is unreliable.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 266#RfC: Dexerto

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 262#Dexerto 137a (talk • edits) 17:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It's primarily in the area of video games, so being listed at WP:VGRS should be sufficient. This page is for general purposes sources. Masem (t) 04:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

List of (un)reliable media, as given here, makes no sense

Let's start with the most basic Wikipedia rules

Reliability is an inquiry that takes place pursuant to the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline. Note that verifiability is only one of Wikipedia's core content policies, which also include neutral point of view and no original research.

Most of the deprecations and other types of the media disqualifications in the list are based on personal opinions of a small group of editors, recorded in some RfCs. These opinions are mostly not substantiated, or based on general disqualifications like "mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party", "Russian state owned" or based on selected and small number of examples tagged as false, invented, etc - found in a particular source and the same tags applied to completely disqualify the source.

This way the source reliability is not judged as it should be i.e. pursuant to the Wikipedia policy (verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research)

I'll give just one stricking example. The Forbes was reporting SVB as one of the best banks in the USA for over five consecutive years. Now, we learnt that SVB went bancrupt, 11 billion $ is wiped out i.e its customers were robbed. If I see an article in the Global Times about this bank, elaborating in details the root cause of the SVB bancruptcy, what is verifiable and reported by other media too, shall I then discard the Global Times as the not reliable one for it is owned by the CCP and prefer the Forbes which lied to us five consecutive years/times?

Bottom line. When approaching and judging any partial source of information we shall follow the Wikipedia policy (verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research) and not relay on in advance imposed opininions about rights and wrongs. 178.222.169.118 (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

RSPCRITERIA

  • WP:RSPCRITERIA: For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.

Anybody have a suggestion for new #s? Levivich (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

That the discussion must be about the reliability of the publication as a whole, not just about one specific article or writer? Schazjmd (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I think making it clearer that discussions on the entirety of the publication should be the determiner for entry into RSP is a good idea. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd suggest something like x qualifying discussions before having an RfC, with an RfC required to add to the list. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Requiring an obligatory RFC just seems likely to annoy people more than actually being useful. Remember that glut of RFCs at RSN a while back?
Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I do remember the glut of RfCs, though we may be remembering different gluts! I think my main frustration at the time was that the sources hadn't previously been discussed. The current criteria incentivize holding such RfCs, which by definition have not had any sort of WP:RFCBEFORE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I like Shazjmd's suggestion. I don't know if I agree with FFF that there should be a mandatory # of discussions or a mandatory RFC. Some discussions are obvious consensus without an RFC. I do think we should set the bar a bit higher, though. Perhaps 4 qualifying participants for any discussion ? The suggestion by Schaz should make the "in the section title" distinction a bit obsolete. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
For efficiency sake, I would prefer an objective criteria that allows editors to make bold changes to the list, and then only if the changes are reverted/challenged, does it go to RfC. There are too many sources to require RFCs for every change. Levivich (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Slate

Just noting that I've reverted two edits by Politrukki that downgraded Slate from GREL to MREL. The discussions don't support MREL; however, I agree that they don't really support GREL either, plus they're all quite stale, so I removed Slate from the list. I think it needs a new discussion before it's listed as anything. Levivich (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean "don't support MREL"? I left three discussion that satisfied RSPCRITERIA and they showed no consensus. Is there an option between "no consensus" and "generally reliable"? Politrukki (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Putting aside the fact that WP:RSPCRITERIA is a hilariously-low criteria for inclusion (a mere two discussions in which a mere two editors must make a mere single comment each about the source's reliability), those three discussions don't actually meet that criteria. Levivich (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Levivich. The three RSN linked discussions were not serious discussions about the reliability of Slate as a source: 2009 had a single comment about Slate as a reliable source; 2012 was solely about a single article in Slate and whether it was news or opinion; 2015 was only about a specific BLP claim in the magazine's The XX Factor section and reached no conclusion. Schazjmd (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Endorse removal from the list. There just haven't been enough discussions to consider it a "perennially discussed source". Also, as an aside, I agree that RSPCRITERIA probably needs to be revisited. Two discussions where two people each commented on reliability is probably FAR too low a bar to establish a reasonable inclusion criteria. --Jayron32 17:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral on the Slate entry, but I agree it's time to revisit the inclusion criteria. Maybe a new discussion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Sideswipe9th recently went through WP:DAILYDOT discussions and I think came to similar conclusions. I agree we should review the inclusion criteria and then perhaps review some of the entries. Levivich (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
    Can confirm. Earlier this week I went through all of the past discussions on WP:DAILYDOT trying to identify what areas editors consider it to be biased/opinionated to determine whether or not content cited to them needed to be attributed. At the end of that process I was more confused than when I started.
    Honestly I think there's several things we need to review here. RSPCRITERIA for sure, as the bar set by it is exceptionally low. I would also like to see us more clearly spell out or otherwise summarise the key areas where a source is considered biased or opinionated to the degree that caution or in-text attribution is advised. Just saying "some/many editors consider source to be biased or opinionated" doesn't really give any useful information to editors for how to actually use the source. If instead we were to say "some/many editors consider source to be biased or opinionated in their reporting on topic, alongside an inline wikilink to the discussion or RfC where a consensus around that baised was reached would make this list far more meaningful at a glance, and prevent discussions on article talk pages where one or more users argue a source can't be used because of a generic listed bias at RSP that doesn't actually apply in the context of the article.
    And after that, yeah a review of all of the entries, checking if they meet the inclusion criteria (new or old) and whether the entry text is actually helpful or not, makes sense. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks, I agree about the "biased or opinionated" language not being helpful without more specificity. Levivich (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
    The weird thing is, for some sources we actually do the specificity. Compare DAILYDOT's entry to Arab News, or Daily Telegraph. In both cases what editors consider to be the biases of the sources are spelled out in their RSP entries, making them far more useful.
    Maybe starting another section on adding a sentence or paragraph to WP:RSPIMPROVE, making specificity of language like this required, would be a good idea? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  • The main thing about RSPCRITERIA that we might want to elaborate on is the definition of significant discussions about the source's reliability. I think it's clear that these discussions don't qualify because they weren't actually discussions about a source's reliability and weren't significant discussions about Slate, but the bizarre "no fewer than two qualifying participants" language might reasonably confuse people into thinking that that's the only requirement. Obviously significant discussions about the source's reliability require more than two people, especially if none of those people are directly talking about the source's reliability! --Aquillion (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, all else aside these discussions don't support a MREL designation. Going over them:
This isn't enough discussion for an RSP entry, but on top of that, nobody in any of the discussions suggested that Slate may be biased or opinionated - it appears that Politrukki misinterpreted the second discussion, but they are very clearly talking only about whether that particular piece is news or opinion, not about Slate's reliability. Similarly, nobody in any of the three discussions suggests that Slate as a whole is unreliable or marginally reliable. It is not really correct to say that the first discussion failed to reach a consensus; a question was asked and answered, though with too few people involved to really conclude anything broader. The second one was laser-focused on a single piece to the exclusion of any sort of real discussion of Slate, and the third one only mentioned Slate in passing, with no real focus or discussion about it. All three discussions fail even WP:RSPCRITERIA's extremely loose criteria because they are not significant discussions of Slate's reliability - only one person, in one of the three, actually discusses that aspect. --Aquillion (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Also, as aside, Politrukki's summary of Some editors say it publishes analysis or opinions, and should be attributed is bizarre. First, analysis is not automatically attributed (I've seen people make this mistake before and I'm always baffled by it.) Performing analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of primary sources is one of the defining features of a WP:SECONDARY source, and when it is done by a high-quality source and is not contested by other sources, the results of that sort of interpretation and analysis should usually be stated in the article voice. In fact, as SECONDARY says, we must rely on that sort of interpretation and analysis to avoid WP:OR / WP:SYNTH - it isn't possible to write articles on complex topics using just a dry summary of datum (and in many cases there would be no way to present raw data that doesn't involve some degree of synthesis); we need to say (and cannot avoid implying) what it means, which requires secondary sources that can interpret and analyze it. Second, the discussion was over whether one particular piece was opinion. Obviously we label opinion, but it is completely inappropriate to interpret a people questioning whether one piece should be considered opinion as a general implication that everything Slate publishes is opinion and must be labeled, or even as a general tendency that belongs in a RSP entry. --Aquillion (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Reason Magazine

Why is Reason (Magazine) still listed as green? By my reading, a clear consensus in the most recent discussion favored "unclear or other considerations apply." --Aquillion (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you think that personal opinions of three or four people about reliability of this magazine is a consensus that shall be respected by anyone else? 178.222.169.118 (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Each discussion on Wikipedia is considered as an encapsulated unit, and then also in comparison to prior discussions on the topic. In doing so with this case, I agree with @Aquillion, the consensus clearly favors option 2. Note, that I participated in the discussion so would think an uninvolved user should be the one who makes that assessment and any necessary changes. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Is there a link to the discussion? Turns out that searching the archives for "reason" gives a lot of false returns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
[16][17][18] O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
So, Shibboletnik, an earlier consensus clearly favors 1! 178.222.169.118 (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Surely what is most relevant to the noticeboard entry is the most recent consensus? Newimpartial (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
The most recent discussion involved only a few editors. Springee (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't see a 2020 discussion involving 20 editors as having a higher WP:CONLEVEL than a 2021 discussion involving 10 editors. But perhaps what is actually needed is a 2023 discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Is the issue with regards to the analysis Reason offers or with the facts they offer? Why should Reason be treated differently than other source that a mixed fact and opinion? Adfonts media bias chart[19], while not the same as a consensus discussion is worth considering. It shows that Reason's bias and reliability scores (7.81, 36.73) are on average less biased than sources like the Washington Post (-8.96, 38.16), The Atlantic (-9.42, 38.42), MSNBC (-14.15, 35.14), Vanity (-14.45, 32.35) and DB (-12.70, 35.65). The reliability score which reflects the level of reporting of fact vs analysis typical in a source suggests it's not far behind the WashPo and The Atlantic and better than sources we call straight up green like MSNBC and Vanity. It's also consistent with how we treat other POV sources like Mother Jones and Pinknews. I think it would be better to enforce the context matters aspect of RS vs treating these colors as so binary. It stops the game of "my green card beats your yellow card" regardless of the specific content of the sources. Springee (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Looks like Adfonts shows Reason (7.81, 36.73) a bit more reliable and substantially more biased than The Daily Mail (2.97, 34.4) -- which we have deprecated. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
You are right, anything more biased or less reliable than the Daily Mail should be deprecated. /humor Springee (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
A more serious question associated with this discussion is what should yellow mean. Some people treat it as "this is a marginal source to generally be avoided". Others see it as, "generally good but more commentary/analysis than we might want in a general, factual source". I can see an argument for Reason being yellow but only if we move a large swath of sources into that same bucket. Basically most media sources that aren't doing factual reporting (which really should be decided on an article by article basis) would probably be yellow. However, so long as sources with clear biased are accepted as green, Reason should be as well. If nothing else this really points to the blunt nature of the RSP rankings. A list of prior discussions is good. The rankings and the games that result from these blunt rankings are not good. Springee (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Where are Ukrainian sources?

What happened - there is no Ukrainian sources mentioned, as if they didn't exist! Is this because you know there is no freedom of press in Ukraine at all - so you decided not to mention any sources to hide your own bias? Do us a favor and rank at least: korrespondent.net ukr.net etc. They all are "news" sites and disinformation agencies 2-in-1. 2601:8C0:900:EB10:5518:F1B3:2AEB:A088 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You got it backwards. WP:RSP is a list of sources that's been discussed several times at other WP-notice boards, with a summary of those discussions. We don't do "here's a source, rate it!" You can see if you can dig up any previous WP-discussions about that source, that would be a start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post

The Jerusalem Post has had multiple specific discussions or passing mentions as either generally reliable or generally unreliable:

Specific sponsored author unreliable for academic/scientific claims

"a high quality and high profile reliable source." by one editor

Used once as an example of a mainstream news source, but links were provided showing they publish articles with fake author profiles

Mentioned in passing as an RS

Mentioned as a biased, but not necessarily unreliable NEWSPORG


Is this enough to warrant listing on RSP? BhamBoi (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Slate question

Slate was recently removed from RSP. Is it proper procedure to remove it without discussion on this talk page (or on RSN as far as I could see), even though it is still often mentioned on RSN in passing [and occasionally directly] as reliable? Pinging @Levivich @LokiTheLiar (two editors involved before the removal).

Should it be re-added awaiting further discussion, or keep the status quo of not on the list? BhamBoi (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

See the discussion #Slate earlier on this board. (Changed this thread's title to avoid duplication.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I see it now, this thread is moot I suppose. BhamBoi (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of removing it outright. Loki (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Add JRank?

There has been a few past discussions this source. This source is considered generally unreliable and copyright violations have been found. I think JRank should be added here (and in WP:NPPSG) as generally unreliable 137a (talk • edits) 16:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Nobody has anything supportive to say about it. See linklinklinklink. Per their website on the bottom, the copyright to the site is owned by "Net Ideas, LLC". They apparently changed the company name to "Web Solutions LLC". On their website, also at the bottom, gives an address in Las Vegas. Note the address given has a "Suite 852". Yet if one looks at this address via google maps the building is a single floor that support maybe 2 or 3 offices. That address seems to be the home of many businesses including "EastBiz.com, Inc." (website) that is an "incorporation and registered agent" that can set you up with a Nevada corporation for cheap including the use of their address as your company address. This seems to be the epitome of a content farm. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

ZDNet

I noticed that CNet's reliability rating plummeted after being acquired by Red Ventures, to the point where it is no longer considered reliable at all as of November 2022. Since ZDNet is also owned by Red Ventures, are there any similar concerns over its editorial standards deteriorating? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Not that anyone's brought up, but if you spot anything as dodgy as the AI-writing they were using on CNet, definitely bring it to RSN - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

BuzzFeed News

BuzzFeed News is being shut down. Regarding recent edits to the table, I think the entry should remain for documentation for existing refs. Schazjmd (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I just left a similar comment on Kashmiri's talk page with a summary that said "Do what you will." I agree that the entry should remain for documentation but it should be noted that the division was shut down. JSFarman (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Please list a source that says that the division has been shut down. Hint: there's no such source, because it's not happened.
We can update the listing after the site has been shut down. — kashmīrī TALK 21:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Is the site going to be 404'ed or they simply aren't going to publish new stories? So long as the site is up and the articles are active I'm not sure why closing the business would impact what we record in the entry. Springee (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree -- its operational status doesn't impact what has already been recorded in the entry and the site is very unlikely to be 404'd. However, if BuzzFeed News does shut down (as the New York Times today reported) perhaps we should change "BuzzFeed News now operates separately from BuzzFeed" to "BuzzFeed News operated separately from BuzzFeed." That's all I have to say on the subject other than this: I find the loss of yet another news organization disheartening. JSFarman (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Note there is also a discussion on this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Buzzfeed News shutting_down - what_now?. Either way, the entry should remain, there are plenty of entries that are from shutdown new agencies. According the the article I read, BuzzFeed will be cutting 15% of employees across BuzzFeed News and other divisions and BuzzFeed will concentrate its news efforts in HuffPost. Those details may or may not be updated into entry when the shutdown official occurs. WikiVirusC(talk) 22:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Fox News rating: participate in poll

Feel free to voice your views at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: deprecate Fox News for politics?

The discussion thread Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Fox News summary judgment has been underway for two weeks. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Twitter

For the interested, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Twitter_and_WP:ABOUTSELF,_again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Add GB News?

GB News is a British right-wing news channel that is generally considered unreliable. Could this be added to let people know. This is their (website). Opok2021 (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The RSN discussion was near unanimous about its unreliability. It was listed here, but technically that discussion wasn't an RFC so it was removed. Should we put it back? I'd support doing so - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
+1 to putting it back. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Not an RfC! Who makes this stuff up? Bon courage (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The people who think WP:RSPCRITERIA/WP:RSPMISSING are good guidance? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The rule is "generally expect", but it's not a bad rule. We added Sky News UK after a discussion on this talk page because of confusion with Sky News Australia, so exceptions can be discussed here, but they'd have to be convincing I'd think - David Gerard (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Note, btw, that listing or not listing it here doesn't make GB News a more reliable news source. It's already into vaccine denialism, for example. But details like that are for RSN - David Gerard (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

TalkTV?

On a similar note, has TalkTV ever come up on WP:RSN? It's not even listed on WP:RSP, let alone its worthiness for inclusion established. Bobo. 02:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Not a lot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I've always wondered what the ratio of "news" to "opinion piece" actually needs to be for it to still justify itself as a "news" source. But then I suppose that's true of "news" v. actual news... I'm making the assumption nobody would actually include it as a credible source anyway. Bobo. 11:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Prior approval for removing (or using) a source is not required. If you see a source you think is unreliable being used, you can just remove it. If someone objects, discuss the matter with them, and if you can convince them of your position, then it doesn't have to go further. It really only should get to RSN state when there's some controversy insofar as people have reached an impasse regarding reliability of a source. --Jayron32 14:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
yeah. Trash sources can just be removed. RSN is if the talk page argument can't be resolved, really - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
User:Bobo192 - You can see that with the search at those talk pages. I think Reliable sources/Perennial sources would not have an entry summarising discussions unless it has had many cites and/or perennial discussions to be summarised, but odd entries do happen. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

i (newspaper)

Can we please add inews to the list? I don't much care whether it gets a green or yellow (or red) light, just that it would be nice to know whether to bother with links such as [20]. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussions of this nature need to happen at WP:RSN. Please bring the matter up for discussion there. I do want to note that the list was never meant to be comprehensive; it only deals with sources that have been points of contention or controversy over an extended period of time. If a source is not listed here, you're quite allowed to use your best judgement and decide, all by yourself, if it meets the standards set out at WP:RS. Permission is never needed to make Wikipedia better on your own. --Jayron32 17:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
It's a bog-standard reliable WP:NEWSORG, the fact the Daily Mail and General Trust owns it doesn't matter, as we treat the publications of News Corp on a case-by case basis too. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
the list was never meant to be comprehensive That may well have been the case initially. Now, however, it is so semi-comprehensive it makes no sense to not aim for near-completeness. Omission nowadays does not signal "uncontroversial", it signals "obscurity". (In today's infected discussion climate, no major news source is truly "uncontroversial") Thus, any news source that is reasonably mainstream is expected to be included. Thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it is semi-comprehensive, it just appears that way because it's long (and getting longer), and of course English-focused. But it only has a fraction of potentials like List of newspapers in India, List of law reviews in the United States and List of newspapers in the United Kingdom. Not to mention publishers like OUP, Yale University Press etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
A list of non-perennial sources might be useful, though, for sources that are cited quite frequently, but aren't controversial enough to get discussed at RSP. Though that should happen at a separate page, of course, and might run into issues around its level of authority. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Maybe the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Categories section can be improved. I'd like to see a mention of obituaries (like, sometimes it's an ordinary news-article, sometimes it's selfpub). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Maybe expanding that out to a larger page? Elli (talk | contribs) 21:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Omission nowadays does not signal "uncontroversial", it signals "obscurity". Sorry, you're just wrong there. Lots of non-obscure, highly reliable (and lots of unreliable too) sources aren't mentioned on the list at all. You are still allowed to edit Wikipedia without prior approval. Do whatever you think is best. we trust you and you don't need to ask for permission at all. Stop arguing with us demanding our approval. Approval was pre-granted by Wikipedia policy before you ever started this silly discussion. Nut up and get on with it. --Jayron32 12:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

RS that quote deprecated sources

What is the policy on using RS that quote a deprecated source like the DM. For example, the RS runs a story that was reported in the DM (and nowhere else) along the lines of "According to the Daily Mail..." or "So and so told the Daily Mail..." without any original reporting. I assume it's a no, because the source is essentially the DM. Thanks. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion on this very matter at WP:RSN, titled "Does WP:DAILYMAIL deprecate RSes reporting on interviews in Daily Mail?" It'd be best to keep the discussion in one place. --Jayron32 15:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Can you give a link? I can't find it. Alaexis¿question? 08:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Archived earlier today. TJRC (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, it was there when I mentioned it. That's all I'm saying. If you need to start a new discussion on the matter, WP:RSN is the appropriate place to do so, not here, anyways. --Jayron32 18:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Giant Freaking Robot

From what I can see, the site Giant Freaking Robot is of similar quality to We Got This Covered, yet it does not appear in this list at the present time. giftheck (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

As the paragraphs at the top of the page explain, the page summarizes past discussions and is not intended to be an exhaustive list of sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: Is there a more exhautive list of sources somewhere? An IP editor has pointed out to me that Bounding into Comics is of questionable reliability, citing this article at Media Bias/Fact Check as his basis for this. I can't recall the last time I might've cited that as a source. Such a list would be very useful.

Sportskeeda

I just got caught by Sportskeeda, which looks like an RS but is actually largely ill-edited UGC. There hasn't been an RFC, but there's been three RSN discussions and the opinion is it's obviously trash. 1 2 3 Is it worth adding? - David Gerard (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Add it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
It used to have an entry, but this was removed for some reason (maybe an edit conflict?) See [21] (sorry for mobilediff) imo the entry should never have been removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
adding back then! - David Gerard (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
er, was it always there and I missed it? anyway, added the discussion in archive 353. Crikey, 3,273 uses ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook

I see this source a lot, used for various different things, specifically things like religion and economics, and I am wondering if it is a reliable source. I don't see it on the list of valid/non-valid sources. Completely Random Guy (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It has been discussed on a few occasions - see for example here and here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Back in the early 2000s. Much of the content (esp. for state/country entries) was cribbed directly from the CIA World Factbook. As time went along, other sources were allowed including the own nation's agencies. Hence there's still templates to reference source of info being the U.S. CIA. CaribDigita (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Added details on Consortium News and Gray Zone

On this edit by Valjean - these are true, but do we need them added to RSP? Was there a controversy where they'd need noting? (I'm just generally cautious about adding detail after the fact to RSP entries.) - David Gerard (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't understand the purpose of these additions. Any content published in these outlets already falls under the classification, while for the content created by the mentioned individuals elsewhere the classification of Gray Zone and CN are irrelevant. Alaexis¿question? 19:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Content created by those authors is suspect and their connection to these dubious sources makes their contributions there doubly so. Just as Assange=WikiLeaks, so are these authors intimately connected with those sources, so they should be named. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
oh, I 100% agree they're both relentlessly terrible. I'm not sure it works as notes on the sources' usage - it certainly wasn't clear to me what you were going for here. Is there a better phrasing we can use? - David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Consensus

Sorry i'm new and trying to figure things out. How is concensus determined? Or is Where is consensus determined a better question? I just read the section for The Daily Beast where it says there is no concensus to its reliability yet immediately afterward it says that most editors consider it biased or opinionated. Why don't those two statements contradict each other? Most implies more then 50% correct? So why doesn't that mean that there is a consensus about its reliability? AlwaysLegitEdits (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The word is spelled "consensus". A source being biased/opinionated is separate from its reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Got it. A site being biased does not preclude it from being used as a reliable source then? AlwaysLegitEdits (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
As always, context matters, it depends on what's actually being used for, which would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
What is the best practice for that then? Suppose I want to make an edit to a page and the best source is reliable, but it is biased. Do I make the edit and assume someone will revert it later if my determination is wrong? Do I post about what I want to do on the talk page before making the edit? AlwaysLegitEdits (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

A site's bias is usually only a problem when it is extremely biased. Fanaticism and strong agendas do that. Extreme bias tends to make a source unreliable because it becomes "blind" to facts it doesn't like. It causes them to make sins of omission and even commission. Reliable sources only get it wrong by accident, not design. An example is Fox News, where the falsehoods are not a "bug", but a "feature". They have a strong agenda that ignores facts. Propaganda sources do that on purpose, so we can't use them.

Most sites, like all normal people, have a bias, and that isn't necessarily wrong. For example, it's a good thing to be biased for facts, kindness, honesty, etc. Wikipedia is innately, because of our RS policy, biased toward RS and what they say. We always take the side of RS over unreliable ones.

Totally neutral sites are often rather boring because nothing but straight facts is also boring. We love facts, but we also want opinions (and attribute those). Most sites will add interpretation and context, and that "flavor" is a good thing. It's more informative. Since our NPOV policy informs us that neither sources nor their content must be "neutral", and we must not allow editorial bias to influence our editing (IOW keep our opinions out of it), the content from such biased sources will also produce some bias in our articles, and that too is okay. It is editorial bias, not the bias from sources, that is problematic. So don't censor or neuter sources. Let their bias shine through in the content that uses them as a source, and never alter that bias. Don't use a source in a way contrary to the intention of the source. If an article is debunking something, don't use it to just document the existence of that "something", but use it to include the debunking of that something. That source is providing more info, so use it.

You can read much more about how to use biased sources in my essay: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That was very helpful. I will be sure to keep your essay in mind as a reference moving forward. AlwaysLegitEdits (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Anime News Network

Why is there no mention of Anime News Network its commonly seen on anime and manga articles and wondering if its reliable or not Qwv (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

See WP:ANIMENEWSNETWORK.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 01:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The Grayzone outing

I recently noticed how Breitbart's description mention its violation of the outing policy after its blacklist. When The Grayzone was deprecated, it also called out and exposed editors that participated in the related discussion in a long article complaining about the decision ("Wikipedia formally censors The Grayzone as regime-change advocates monopolize editing", which was followed by another article dedicated only to insult Jimmy Wales and Katherine Maher). I haven't found the discussion in which the changes was based on, and I don't know the extent of the outing (if it included the publication of real names, for instance), but considering similar circumstances I think it calls for a similar mention in the list. NoonIcarus (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that Breitbart outed editors. The first publication to be banned, the Daily Mail, also carried a commentary on Wikipedia and their banning was widely reported, which included what editors involved in the decision said. My username in fact was mentioned. Saying that publications disagree with bans is not exactly surprising. TFD (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I read the Breitbart article btw and they only mention the real name of one editor who in fact revealed their identity themself. TFD (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Grayzone's article mentions the usernames of at least five editors. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Usernames are public knowledge. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Issues with the year-old Wikileaks close

Due to the update to Wikileaks entry today to more closely match the language of the close, some issues with that close (by Eggishorn a bit over a year ago) come to my attention. The close states Since "no consensus" means the status quo before the RfC was created continues--this rule, which is necessary for article content and policy changes, has not historically applied to source-assessment discussions, which are updated to faithfully reflect the current state of the community's views on the source (see the 2020 Fox News RfC for a prominent example). If a discussion about a source's use writ-large results in no consensus, we mark it no consensus at RSP. Unlike article content and policies, which cannot exist in a no consensus limbo between the status quo and a proposed change, the purpose of RSP is to record the community's views on sources, which can and frequently do result in a lack of consensus and should be reported as such. A direct application of "no consensus means status quo" at RSP would mean that we'd have to deal with the absurdity that a source could only be considered to have no consensus regarding its reliability if that is the result of the first (and each subsequent) discussion, and would result in artificially listing sources as either generally reliable or generally unreliable despite significant disagreement, with the listing only being "corrected" to list the diametrically opposed result long after the community's views on it have changed.

I otherwise don't have any issues with the close's reasoning, so I'm uncertain whether it would be better to actually go through the motions of a formal close challenge, or just to adjust the RSP text accordingly. signed, Rosguill talk 08:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I updated the entry with the text from the close, but do not know a lot about the RSP RfC rules. If it is different from other RfC and other editors think it should be reverted, I dont object. If it is reverted I think the icon needs to update too because I saw that didnt match and that was when I looked at the RfC Softlemonades (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with User:Rosguill – in this context, no consensus means no consensus. The RSP text should be reverted to reflect this. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I made a self revert for now [22] Maybe good to make a note on the RfC and update the icon on the RSP page Softlemonades (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Too bad. I thought your wording was good. Now we've left an opening for fringe POV pushers to exploit. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I just copied the RfC close, they were not my words
I think the issue should be talked about here. And if someone wants to restore my edit thats good. But I dont know this RSP RfC rule and I thought self revert for now might help avoid 3RR or edit war
What ever other editors think is best while there is discussion is good, and whatever this decides is ok Softlemonades (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The result of the RfC was explicit "No consensus" Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_348#RfC:_WikiLeaks. Arguing that it means that the previous status (Generally unreliable) should stay strikes me as wikilawyering and thus runs counter to WP:NOTBURO policy. (Full disclosure: I !voted for No consensus in the RfC in question) Alaexis¿question? 18:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The RfC wording was very specific and limiting: "Is WikiLeaks per se reliable for publication of genuine government documents?" There was no consensus about that full wording. It was not a "no consensus" with no qualifications, so the full wording should be appended. There was no consensus to change the status quo, so the close by Eggishorn was accurate, and the arguments above are, contrarily, a liberalization and real change of that status quo, and that is wrong. The status quo should be restored as an attempted change failed. I will AGF that this was not a sneaky attempt to liberalize and change the status quo, but the effect is the same. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:CGTN

A well-enough-meaning editor removed a helpful CGTN citation from Footwear specifically pointing out the way China mythologizes the suffering of its straw-shoed soldiers during WWII and the Chinese Civil War, pointing out this "policy". There may be hidden context but neither currently linked discussion actually supports the idea that CGTN is worse than (e.g.) China Daily. No, you can't trust it for facts that benefit the Communist Party or lionize China. Yes, it is a record of the way they'd like history and themselves to be perceived.

That's what the cite I used was doing; it's what the actual linked discussions were saying; and it's not at all the way you're currently presenting it on this page with its IST VERBOTTEN coloration and hotlink. Kindly fix it or fix the links to point to the actual general consensus to never use it in any context whatsoever. — LlywelynII 08:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It has been formally deprecated, which de facto means that it should almost never be used. CGTN has broadcast peoples forced confessions, and produces little of value in original content anyway. Can you find any other sources that discuss this topic? If not then it's probably undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Having looked at the article, it was a redundant citation anyway, so all this huffing was pretty much over nothing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The New Republic RFC

The New Republic is listed generally reliable per the 2020 RFC. The entry was added to RSP after the RFC. According to the close, "There is a clear consensus that Option 1 or Option 2 applies. ... In the absence of an RfC, the status quo would be to treat this source as "normal", or as in Option 1. Taking this together with the strength of the arguments below makes it clear that a rough consensus for Option 1 has been expressed in this RfC." I'm unable to follow that logic. If there was no specific consensus before the RFC, the status quo would be "no consensus".

I would have asked a clarification from the closer, but they have been inactive for more than a year. I thought it could be useful to receive comments here before posting a formal close challenge to WP:AN. Thanks, Politrukki (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I think Taking this together with the strength of the arguments below makes it clear that a rough consensus for Option 1 has been expressed in this RfC is pretty clear and unambiguous; I don't see what fails logic there. You can certainly run another RFC if you think you have good cause to, e.g. if TNR has some new actionable problem - David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The closer first says there is "clear consus" for option 1 or option 2, but then finds "rough consensus" for option 1 based on dubious criterion that option 1 is the "normal" position. My reading is that "the strength of the arguments" refers to both 1 and 2 against others. Otherwise there can be no "clear consensus" that option 2 applies. Many participants picked both 1 and 2. It is not clear whether they had the stengthest arguments, but if they all had, it is unclear why they argued better for option 1 than option 2. Politrukki (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
There is no way it will be overturned without a new RfC. If you think that it's warranted, go for it at WP:RSN. Alaexis¿question? 22:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Stone as a source for politics

WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS says not to use Rolling Stone as a source for "politics and societally sensitive issues". User:Fred Zepelin did it anyway using nonsensical reasoning and stating that "this is a film article", when its obviously not: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Underground_Railroad&diff=prev&oldid=1168305820 Could someone please revert? The user is known for his edit warring and i dont want to get dragged into another ANI --FMSky (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's an article about an organization that films its activities for the purpose of publicity, distributing them on a wide number of platforms, and it is the subject of a top box office film this summer. And nowadays, I'd be hard-pressed to say that an executive "leaving" an organization under a cloud of allegations from employees is hardly a societally sensitive issue. One would hope it's pretty much the opposite. The edit has nothing to do with politics. Risker (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This is an anti-sex trafficking organization. Sex trafficking is an obvious societally sensitive issue --FMSky (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Allmovie

I sometimes come across this being used as a source for bio details such as WP:DOB, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on whether or not it's reliable, however I did some digging and it has the incorrect DOBs listed for other actors which makes it's credibility when it comes to WP:DOB questionable. Because it seems it just took the DOBs that many other sites had.

Here's John Leguizamo's bio whose true birth year was revealed to be 1960 but they have 1964.[23]

Here's Tanya Roberts' bio whose true birth year was revealed to be 1949 when she passed, but they have 1955.[24]

Here's Judith Hoag bio and she herself revealed in a Youtube video she uploaded last year that she'd be turning 60 in 2023.[25]

Here's actress Edie McMlurg's bio[26] Now her true DOB hasn't actually been revealed, Allmovie has 1953, however a few months ago I posted on her talk page about her high school yearbook being on classmates and having her as being a senior in 1962. And last summer there was an article that listed her age as 77.

The real kicker is that it has 1984 as Laverne Cox's birth year when her true birth year(1972) was revealed about 7 years ago.[27]

They're a couple other sites like this that I'm questioning the reliability of because of the same incorrect info. However they aren't listed on the perennial board, so I may start a discussion about them at WP:RSN. I thought I could at least point this out about Allmovie since it's operated by RhythmOne. Kcj5062 (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

AllMovie's FAQ says "Errors to written content like reviews and biographies, tagged metadata like Genres, Styles, Moods, Themes and Similar Movies, as well as information about credits, movie posters and trailers are on the end of our data provider, Tivo... Please do not contact AllMovie about the status of data corrections; we don't control which data is corrected or how long it takes to apply corrections...." AllMusic's FAQ indicates basically the same ("Album reviews, musician biographies, factual information about credits, birthdates and birthplaces, charts and album covers come from our data provider, Xperi (formerly known as TiVo).") So they don't appear to have any independent control of the data on their sites, with editorial control/independence being limited to review text. (Also this seems to be a tip-off that the AllMovie FAQ has not been updated since the TiVo/Xperi merger, in 2020.)
Where Xperi gets its data from is unclear, but I've encountered enough errors on these websites (errors in things like birthdates, birth locations, album release dates, wrong or missing album covers, mis-identified artists, etc) that I suspect it's just scraped from the web, and looked over cursorily, if at all, by the company's employees. In practice, it seems to be less reliable than a run of the mill user-generated site, as errors like those noted in the OP would likely be swiftly fixed on a user-generated site, while on the RhythmOne sites such fixes are contingent on users submitting corrections to an opaque, and probably understaffed, system (that FAQ is notably defensive about how fast corrections get made), while the sites' commercial nature and name recognition kinda give the data an unearned imprimatur.
Subjective stuff like the reviews and star ratings these sites provide are usable, of course, but I wouldn't trust these sites on matters of fact (dates, birthplaces, birth names, etc) without corroboration from other RSes- and the presence of other RSes confirming the data would make citing the RhythmOne sites superfluous, anyway. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The New Indian Express

Please add information about, "The New Indian Express", an Indian newspaper to this list.2406:7400:98:B549:5DB:E017:FB6E:EDC3 (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Dexerto

There isn't any info regarding Dexerto, would it be considered reliable? Grave8890 (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

there is an ongoing RFC at WP:RSN discussing it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Open wikis are deprecated by default, not just generally unreliable

Per this RfC, it appears that consensus is that open wikis are "automatically deprecated as a matter of policy," and that proposing to deprecate an open wiki is "asking us to confirm the status quo." Shouldn't this be reflected on this page? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 16:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not what the close says at all. It would seem rather onerous to implement this, given that there are numberous open wiki websites on the internet that would have to be added to the list. I think that opening a RfC to deprecate fandom wouldn't be a bad idea though, given its ubiquity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
The close states "Open wikis are not reliable sources, this was agreed many years ago. The first two sentences of the RfC statement are asking us to confirm the status quo - there should be no need for an RfC for this." Perhaps it's my autistic way of reading things, but if proposing deprecation is requesting the status quo, doesn't that mean open wikis are considered deprecated? I wouldn't suggest listing every open wiki on the internet, but it seems, based on this RfC, that the ones that are listed should be considered deprecated. Also, based on this RfC, an RfC on Fandom would probably be closed the same way. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 16:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Deprecation is a process that applies to a specific source, not classes of sources, and generally only used when the usage of a source on Wikipedia has become problematic. Deprecation is a reactive rather than a proactive process. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
If you want to start a discussion to officially deprecate Fandom, I would support it (and then argue to reopen the discussion about RationalWiki which I'm confident would close in favor of deprecation per WP:SNOW), but the impression I'm getting from WP:RS/N is that RationalWiki is defacto deprecated and discussing the matter is a waste of time, so I assume the same would be said about Fandom. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 17:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Has the usage of rationalwiki on Wikipedia been problematic? As far as I can tell, no. There are far too many unreliable sources out there for wikipedia to deprecate them all and add all their urls to the list, as deprecation requires, so the only sources that should be deprecated are those that are widely used rationalwiki.org HTTPS links HTTP links shows that there are only 6 uses on Wikipedia in total, far below the number necessary for a deprecation discussion (generally at least 100). Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Currently there are five uses in mainspace – I believe this was the sixth one. Uses in four examples (Conservapedia, List of wikis, RationalWiki, and List of major Creative Commons licensed works) are self-explanatory. In the case of The Life Zone, there is a plot summary that is copied from Rationalwiki.
To answer your question "Has the usage of rationalwiki on Wikipedia been problematic?". Yes. Users who should know better sometimes use Rationalwiki in talk pages to attack living persons, but that's more of a behavioural problem. Politrukki (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure that RFC close is valid: a request for deprecation should be open for at least seven days. Politrukki (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The RFC wasn't really valid in the first place, so an early close was appropriate. MrOllie (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The reason it is only mentioned five times is because I routinely remove references to it per WP:BOLD. I should not have to do that, and when I do there shouldn't be any debate about it, but there has been. Also, another thing I meant to propose in the RfC (but forgot to mention) is that, despite compatible copy left licenses, content should never be copied from there (or Encyclopedia Dramatica) unless RationalWiki is directly relevant to the subject matter (I would say it's okay to use short quotes from R-W in the Conservapedia article, for example) because we shouldn't be using content from an attack website in our neutral encyclopedia project (and because people wishing to promote the site or the site's POV can copy a paragraph from there and use that to insist on a link). Because any copying of content legally requires a link, instances of content from RationalWiki or Encyclopedia Dramatica copied onto Wikipedia should be treated as a copyright violation. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 15:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
If the licenses are compatible and complied with by definition it is not a copyright violation. And if it is an attack site, the content will usually be in conflict with policy anyway (WP:NPOV, obviously). If there is a rare example of text on one of these sites that does meet our policy requirements and has a compatible license, we could use it is allowed by Wikipedia:Copyrights. Including a link in such a circumstance is no problem. WP:BADSITES failed, we don't blanket ban anything but spam. MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking along the lines of Wikipedia:LINKLOVE. There have been past issues of people on RationalWiki's board of directors attempting to add links to the site, and as I had previously pointed out that incident led to a lot of unneeded drama. I can foresee future problems with site administration copying content into Wikipedia in order to force us to link to the site (and that could stretch beyond just RationalWiki and become an issue for commercial interests). Not to mention I would say the site breaks the Creative Commons and GDFL licenses used by contributors at the Wikimedia Commons by having its servers set up to directly pull images from the Commons to use in their articles with no attribution unless the viewer clicks on the image (it's my understanding that this is inadequate attribution), and RationalWiki has a history of willfully hosting blatant copyright violations, which really invalidates their free license. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 12:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Fear of what somebody might someday do is not a basis for us to deprecate a source. If you have a problem with how RationalWiki attributes Commons images, that is an issue to raise with them directly, not in this discussion. MrOllie (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
So, what is your view, has Rationalwiki now been formally deprecated or not? Politrukki (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

As others have said, I don't see deprecation as just being a more extreme form of unreliable; rather, it's intended for sources where there is a specific problem that requires a more clear-cut and firm designation. Often this is because people keep trying to use the source in inappropriate ways even though it's clearly generally unreliable, but it can also be because a source is trying unusually hard to appear reliable in a way that might mislead editors (hence why one of the rationales for deprecation focuses heavily on the idea of a source engaging in deliberate fabrication.) Deprecating an entire class of sources would make deprecation less useful because it wouldn't signify as much, and turning it into just "really really unreliable" would potentially undermine WP:GUNREL, which already means a source should almost never be used. And the definition of WP:USERGENERATED maps to WP:GUNREL more closely anyway (generally unacceptable). Since there are people who actually spend their time removing or replacing deprecated sources, deprecating specific wikis might make sense, but as numerous people pointed out, RationalWiki isn't actually a problem in that regard, though some others might be, like tvtropes or fandom. --Aquillion (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

List of sources that are needed to be considered on the list:

Which sources are considered reliable in the list here:

Note: when you reply, make sure you put a word marking the following with one of the keys underneath the list of sources

List of Sources:

Keys:

  • Green - Reliable
  • Yellow - Unknown
  • Red - Non-Reliable

27.32.123.68 (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

websites' reliability are not determined on this page. discuss these at the reliable sources noticeboard. ltbdl (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Bloated

This page has become bloated (366 KB), more that current United States (329 KB). I suggest that summary of this page that only contain source and legend is transcluded to a new page to reduce page size. This way, if there's consensus later, we can probably merge all page at Category:WikiProject lists of reliable sources into one summary page. Thanks. Hddty (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The New Statesman

The New Statesman is missing. Presumably it should be listed? Pikemaster (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pikemaster: this page is only for listing sources that come up rather often. With a quick search, I could only find one recent discussion (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313#The New Statesman) about this source, and it seems pretty clear that it's notable (but often publishes opinion pieces). Probably not worth listing here. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@Elli: thanks. I mention it because given that The Spectator is listed, and New Statesman can be regarded as a kind of left wing equivalent of it, perhaps it would be appropriate to have them both listed. Pikemaster (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
That is understandable, but isn't how this list tends to work in practice. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Color-blind accessibility

Hello, I'm color-blind and find it difficult to distinguish the pastel green and yellow shading. Although it is the most common type of color-blindness, the green/red here isn't the problem for me. These are the hex codes in use now:

  Generally reliable (#DDFFDD).
  No consensus (#FFFFDD).
  Generally unreliable (#FFDDDD).

Could we make the green a teensy bit darker or the yellow a teensy bit lighter, or both? Possibly:

  Generally reliable (#C0FFC0).
  No consensus (#FFFFE5).
  Generally unreliable (#FFDDDD).

Thanks. MOS:COLOR has a few links and testing tools but doesn't directly suggest hex codes.-Ich (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Re-add Meaww?

Seems to pass WP:RSPCRITERIA per

Aboutpage:[28], and has some WP-presence [29]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Neowin reliable?

Is Neowin reliable? --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:9FC1:E9CF:3AEB:C211 (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Topic-specific pages

For some reason the following refuses to save without nowiki because it says I link to domain "A b o u t .moc" (which I don't...)

FYI
 – Changing {{WP:VG/S}} to [[WP:VG/S]] resolved the issue. Hiding the {{Help-me-helped}} template because the substance of the post still needs to be addressed. GoingBatty (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggest moving section WP:RSP § Topic-specific pages, which is currently in See also, way up. As an editor says above, the page is bloated. It's easy to overlook that articles such as this one also exist for specific topics. Perhaps even better would be if section WP:RSP § What if my source isn't here? would get another search box similar to "Search the noticeboard archives" that provides a "Search the topic-specific pages". As an example, I thought Digital Trends simply wasn't mentioned anywhere, because neither this article (and its Talk page and its archives) nor a noticeboard archives search gave me a hit. Then I saw an editor at WP:RSN § Digital Trends point to WP:VG/S. I'm fairly certain I would have found the entry myself if a "Search the topic-specific pages" would have been prominently available.

--2001:1C06:19CA:D600:D2EA:A47D:92F4:1BBD (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Sina Weibo

How about Sina Weibo? should we considered reliable or unreliable? - Jjpachano (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Sina Weibo is more like a platform or social media site than a source. Much like Twitter or YouTube, it's not reliable in general but some posts will be reliable for some claims depending on who has posted them. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The Historical Marker Database

It has come to my attention that the website, the Historical Marker Database is not a WP:RS. I would like to propose listing it on your project page as a source not to use for the following reasons:

  • One example is here, upon reading it, it becomes evident that this is user-generated content, where registered users can submit and customize their contributions.
  • When you read its "About Us" page, it explicitly states: "Anyone can add new markers to the database and update existing marker pages with new photographs, links, information and commentary.

Greg Henderson (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Moving this question to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Greghenderson2006, per WP:RSPCRITERIA and [30] I think this may be the right place. It's not unreasonable, but a little weak for inclusion atm IMO. See also WP:RSPMISSING.
Noting that it has a WP-article, Historical Marker Database, and quite a bit of wp-presence:[31]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Washington Free Beacon?

Washington Free Beacon is a noticeable conservative outlet with a lot of unreliable content, including on national security. It should be added into the Deprecated list 2600:4040:53FA:2B00:B8D9:6DE2:B0E1:EA19 (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Submit your argument to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, not here. Graywalls (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Per [32], may very well meet the WP:RSPCRITERIA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Deprecate Andre🚐 09:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
THAT would be a discussion for RSN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
OK, but I agree it can be GUNREL on the strength of the archived discussions alone. Andre🚐 10:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Add entry NewsGuard

NewsGuard (the browser extension) was not subject to an RfC, nor was it subjected to multiple discussions, but in the first and only discussion about the source, here, we came to a rough agreement that no, NewsGuard is not a reliable source; it is a good starting point but ultimately should not be used to decisively decide whether a source is reliable or not. The reason I would want to suggest listing is because this extension is very prominent in Microsoft Edge, and people might continue using NewsGuard in RS discussions. I believe this is a reasonable exception to the inclusion criteria. Awesome Aasim 18:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Ultimate Music Database

Would this website Ultimate Music Database be considered reliable? It is currently used to source Radio Luxembourg chart placements on Paul McCartney articles but I assume it is not. Thanks. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Zmbro, A better place to ask would be Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Heads up for Washington Post

There's nothing to suggest this will immediately take the WaPost's quality a sharp turn to the worse, but Will Lewis has been named as CEO [33]; Lewis has run on prior Murdock publications including the WSJ and The Daily Telegraph, as well as was currently was running The News Movement which aimed to provide "non-partisan" news to Gen Z users, but based on that site, is the type of "non-partisan" coverage that tends to lean right.

Again, there's zero indication now that WaPost will lose its reliability, but something to watch for. Masem (t) 02:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

"The CEO's political opinions are different than mine, therefore they are unreliable. Of course I don't want to admit this outright so I'll just stealthily suggest that it 'may become' unreliable." Good logic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.121.239 (talk)

add category for fact checks

As a category of perennial sources, does Wikipedia prefer citing "fact checks" especially in writing a controversial article where WP:fringe theories have been promoted as misinformation? If preferable over news reports that remain neutral, I assume that a fact check's reliability still depends on its source's reliability. For example: a fact check published by an independent source that synthesizes primary sources with secondary sources versus a fact check published by a governmental agency (with "career bureaucrats" who aren't replaced whenever the head of government changes) that cited primary sources. rootsmusic (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if a RS fact checker is necessarily preferred, but depending on context, they can certainly be useful as sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

PanAm Post

An RfC on this source at RSP was archived without closing. There appears to be no consensus, so I presume the status quo stands, but an uninvolved editor might want to check and close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#RfC:_Reliability_of_PanAm_Post BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Uses

The column "Uses" and the symbols used should be explained. Kdammers (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a Legend for the table already. Masem (t) 20:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Where? Kdammers (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
In the section titled "Legend". Cortador (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
The symbols in the "Uses" column and not defined in the section "Legend". Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Dendy Media

This company appears to be a straight PR company where one can pay to get a "story" featured on various websites. My opinion is that any story provided by this company, regardless of the webhost that published it, is not a reliable source. At issue is my removal of this source and the associated text from Elisa Jordana, which appears to be a vanity article. That removal was mentioned by an editor in the current deletion discussion. I'd appreciate the thoughts of any editors that are experts about reliable sources. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

You have posted at the talk page for the RSP page. This page is about discussing the RSP page format, whether to change/update associated entries, and whether to add/remove entries.
However, adding an entry would require 2 discussions at the reliable source noticeboard, which isn't the case for Dendy Media. Also, your question seems to be asking whether it is a reliable source. So I think you should ask this question at WP:RSN. VickKiang (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
My bad! Thank you for the link. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Hypocracy in Political Sources

On the list of source reliability , Fox News is shown as unreliable and biased while CNN and MSNBC are shown as good sources. I believe that all three should be listed as unreliable because they have all shown to have strong political biases (Fox - Conservative, CNN and MSNBC - Liberal) that can, and have distorted the the truth. 76.117.162.190 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

CNN: [34] MSNBC: [35] O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
You are free to start a discussion or RfC on the reliability and bias (which you are mixing here, indicating that you aren't well-informed about their difference) of these sources and challenge their current status. Cortador (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Something which Larry Sanger also noticed a few years ago. Someone Not Awful (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Logical fallacy in illustration

The illustration seems to imply that because a source is wrong about some things that means it is wrong about everything. If the same book said 'the sky is blue' then would you believe that the sky is never blue? If this is intentional as a means to represent Wikipedia's policy on sources then why does Wikipedia have a policy that is fundamentally fallacious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.121.239 (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

See WP:Reliable sources —siroχo 22:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  • User:Siroxo The IP concern about this showing the logical fallacy is correct. The cartoon and even use of RSP is commonly misunderstood or misused to mean RS is a universal and permanent blessing or ban. The cartoon caption message is "The reliability of a source greatly affects what information it can be used to support, or whether it should be used at all." But it's doing that by showing it silly elsewhere (except maybe the meatballs). Whatever it says correct or wrong about elephants leading to belief in statements of unrelated fields of cancer is the logical fallacy of Association fallacy. But it is that the book is ancient and unknown which means WP should not use it as a cite for apples, even if what it says is correct, see WP:MEDRS and WP:BESTSOURCES.
It always depends on context - of what specific piece is being cited for what specific WP content. See WP:RS at WP:RSCONTEXT "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Also a sidenote that while WP:V is an important policy, RS is a guideline and not a policy, so a page does not necessarily follow it. RS even says it "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though [exceptions] may apply." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, WP:Reliable sources is where the IP editor should start to find our guidelines on reliable sources, it should provide answers to their questions. —siroχo 05:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Ancestry

Could you tell me the preferred method for citing U.S. Government documents found on Ancestry.com or FamilySearch.org, such as Census Records or Passport applications? I'm considering copying these records to Internet Archive, but it might be more appropriate to cite the original source location, like 1923 United States Passport Applications. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006:, this really belongs in Reliable Sources Noticeboard. That entry is here, because it's been discussed there numerous times. Graywalls (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
RSN deals with whether the source is acceptable; Wikipedia talk:Citing sources is a more appropriate place to talk about formatting the bibliographic citation. That said, {{Cite document}} is one option for citing a document. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Which is what it is about. So and so was cited for speeding which cites the local traffic court records fail the inclusion worthiness test and connecting and interpreting the records should be done by a reliable source. A user generated compilation of PRIMARY SOURCE documents, like, traffic tickets, birth/death index, so on and so on and association of the records to a certain individual is made by users fails WP:RS. So, whether the use of the type of materials cited by users of user generated contents (like Ancenstry, FamilySearch, Find a Grave) is best addressed at RSN. WP:PRIMARYCARE says such shouldn't be used. So, Greghenderson2006, or contributors to FamilySearch are not reliable sources for interpreting the primary documents. Graywalls (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Ancestry is not a user-generated compilation of primary sources. It does include such a collection, but it is clearly separated from the official records presented by the company. Zerotalk 14:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
If your neighbor photocopies a scientific journal article and gives you a copy, the journal article does not become a user-generated article. If your neighbor scans an official, public court document and posts it online, the court document does not become a user-generated document. Editors should be particularly careful about making sure that the source is used correctly. It's far easier to justify use of a source that says "Henry Fitton, Earl of Pontisbright, born 1902" than to justify one that says "Robert Smith of Big City", because the first is guaranteed to be unique, and the second is almost guaranteed not to be unique (in an English-speaking country).
(Graywalls, the question asked here was about "the preferred method for citing", not "whether I can use it". I answered the question that was asked. Also, PRIMARYCARE [which I wrote, by the way] says that primary sources like these should be used with care, which is not the same as saying shouldn't be used at all.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, thanks for writing WP:PRIMARYCARE. One question, in a biography, when adding birth & death dates, sometimes an obituary does not contain the full dates. It seems logical that a U.S. Government birth record or death record, one that includes the person's name, dates, and address, should be a reliable source. For example, my California birth record shows my full name, my date of birth, and county of birth. It also lists my mother's maiden name. To me, this record is a WP:RS for my birth date. What do you think?
The next question is how to post it on Wikipedia, via "California Birth Index, 1905-1995," , FamilySearch" or through the template:Cite_document template with no mention of FamilySearch? Greg Henderson (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
In practice, we have had problems with people using the wrong birth record, so I personally wouldn't encourage you to use these sources. Also, using them is banned for both living and recently deceased people.
As a completely separate consideration, no matter what the source is, you are not required to say how you found the source (e.g., FamilySearch, JSTOR, etc.). It's permitted, and if you want to, then most of the citation templates support the |via= parameter for that purpose, but you don't have to. See the note in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you read it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
It is also getting into original research and WP:UNDUE territory when editors start interpreting and stitching together primary sources. Wikipedia is not genealogy and including details about family members is getting into too detailed. One might see source like https://glensfallstoday.com/warren-county-police-blotter-may-27th-june-5th-washington-county-police-blotter-5-27-23-5-30-23/ then look at county court record and come to the conclusion named subject DOB mm/dd/yyyy was arrested for petit larcency(cite:police log), and was subsequently convicted (cite: court records). Even if this is 100% true, if it's not covered in third party sources, it's highly undue. Same with when some subject's parents, their children, dogs, fish tank fish and whatever was acquire and died. Graywalls (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think you meant WP:3PARTY, since the newspaper is a third-party source, but WP:BLPPRIMARY would absolutely apply in that particular instance. Also, getting the exact date of birth, through whatever means are necessary, is not actually Wikipedia's goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Evaluating a primary source yourself and trying to determine the fitness of use is original research. The determination of fitness and pairing should be left to a secondary source. It's far easier to justify use of a source that says "Henry Fitton, Earl of Pontisbright, born 1902" than to justify one that says "Robert Smith of Big City", because the first is guaranteed to be unique, and the second is almost guaranteed not to be unique (in an English-speaking country).. WhatamIdoing, you fully and entirely missed my point. This was nothing to do with determining DOB. My point being just because information can be found doesn't mean they belong even though there are inclusionists that see it differently. @Greghenderson2006:, Wikipedia has templates for citing patents, FindAGrave as well pull quotes. While technical tools exist to do so, that doesn't mean they should be used. After all, essentially all automobiles sold today can go in excess of 100mph while there is no public road where doing so is legal in the US. Graywalls (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Original research is defined in that policy as "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists". Evaluating a source (whether primary or not) to determine whether it is fit to use at all, and what it is fit to use it for, is not original research. It is an absolutely necessary activity for any editor who adds content to an article. Your own edits run more towards removing content than adding it, but I'm sure if you think about it, you'll see that editors really must determine what a source could properly be used for, and avoid all other uses. Even the most highly regarded sources are not fit for any and all content; editors really must determine fit uses for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it is interesting that there is a Template:Find a Grave, but with the following caveat: This template should be used very sparingly and in most cases the template (or links to Findagrave not using this template) should be removed from articles. Thanks for you info. While I do not plan to use FAG, I would like to use dates from U.S. Government issued documents like passports, date of birth records, etc. From what I have have read, they should be used with caution but it is OK to cite them if it is the only source for the date information, e.g. John Doe was born in city/state on January 21, 1911. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
If it's truly the only source for a given fact, it may not be important enough to include in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/Archive_8&oldid=1191780162"