Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Index

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

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

Resolved

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

WP:SHORTCUTS for specific sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This worked out really well. Thank you all for putting this together! — Newslinger talk 13:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

IGN?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obituaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list is not an article, so I don't see why WP:POLA would apply. Otherwise, this is by Wikipedia standards long-established practice: the Bible isn't WP:RS, never was and never will be. Even if the US would become a Protestant theocracy, it still wouldn't be allowed, since what theocracies hate most are heretics and Sola Scriptura is a major source of heretical readings. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Zero Hedge Permanently Suspended From Twitter for ‘Harassment’

Zero Hedge Permanently Suspended From Twitter for ‘Harassment’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Times of India?

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

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

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

66 youtube.com

24 amazon.com

14 theguardian.com

13 imdb.com

12 nytimes.com

12 discogs.com

11 timesofindia.indiatimes.com

11 sungazette.com

10 thehindu.com

10 books.google.com

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

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

Vexations, Thanks for your analysis. I will start an RFC. buidhe 18:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I repeated my experiment on articles that have been tagged with {{tl:Paid contributions}}: [29]. The top 10 looks like

33 timesofindia.indiatimes.com

25 doi.org

24 chathamhouse.org

22 kauppalehti.fi

19 cigionline.org

19 adweek.com

17 nytimes.com

17 highbeam.com

17 arxiv.org

16 sun-sentinel.com

So, the Times of India is the MOST frequently cited source in articles that we have identified as containing paid contributions. That should be cause for concern. Edit: It turns out this is because the ToI was cited 33 times in Aravindante Athidhikal. Vexations (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. Yes, it gets abused, but that is not its fault. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bubble Experiment--The Media Bias Chart, Junk News, Social Media Feeds...

Denver's 9News is running a fascinating experiment to simulate what people would see on their social media feeds if they followed only left, only right, and only center stories. They based their selections on the news source ratings of the Media Bias Chart. (Source: Vanessa Otero)

• The Bubble Experiment--The Media Bias Chart, Junk News, Social Media Feeds, and Resulting Bubbles

BullRangifer (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

One more reliable source, and Ad Fontes Media would qualify for a Wikipedia article. — Newslinger talk 13:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

​I'm using your script and it looks really great! unreliable.js pairs alongside m:Cite Unseen quite well, and I wonder if there is some way to create a shared data store from the perennial sources list that can be used for both scripts, as well as new scripts in the future. — Newslinger talk 13:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking at making things based on a JSON file, but I don't understand how those work. So maybe that file could be used by the other scripts too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good. You may be interested in the schema proposal in m:Talk:Cite Unseen#Cite Unseen integrations. I was hoping to automatically parse the table into JSON, but am not sure how to best approach this. There's wikitextparser, but it's in Python, and a user script might be better. Alternatively, a bot could do this automatically. — Newslinger talk 13:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Trump White House press releases

White House press releases from the Trump WH should be deprecated. They are no better, and sometimes worse, than RT and Breitbart. We must base all of our content on RS. Notability (Trump and the WH are obviously notable) does not confer reliability, and Trump and Stephen Miller are remarkably notable sources of bottomless misinformation and propaganda.

To include the WH POV, we must do it by citing independent RS which mention the WH POV, just as we are supposed to do when documenting misinformation found in other unreliable sources. We must not use the unreliable source as our reference....ever, with ONE exception, in their own biography. Then self-ref is allowed, even of blacklisted sources, and even then with caveats.

I subscribe to myriad RS, as well as the WH newsletter (not RS), and it's no better than the worst unreliable sources. It is propaganda straight from the source. I sometimes wonder () if some of it is dictated straight from Putin's press officer. We know that Trump shares highly classified info and enemies lists with Putin (and other dictators), and that he obeys Putin, including choice of Secretary of State, so why not? -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Probably, but that discussion should take place on WP:RSN. This page is only an index and summary of previous discussions. - MrX 🖋 18:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The WH POV can reliably be sourced to the WH press releases. It's certainly not a RS with respect to anything other than their own POV, but there's no reason to deprecate those as far as sourcing the WH POV is concerned. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

That would apply only to the articles about the White House and WH press releases (if there is such a page). Deprecated sources can be used for such purposes, but nowhere else. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Or to any pages related to current American Foreign Policy, or any other range of topics where the viewpoints and official announcements of the WH/Trump Administration are relevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

In those cases, there will be multiple RS we can cite. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe move the Legend to the top of the source list?

Kind of a pain to scroll all the way down just to figure out what grey/yellow/etc. means. Test123Bug (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Or you could just click on the link. Grandpallama (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Test123Bug (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Does anybody have a reliable source for the claim, that Wikileaks is not reliable? I can provide you with links to erroneous publications in the New York Times and the Guardian. Can anybody show a flawed publication on Wikileaks? —Raphael1 18:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Raphael1, in past discussions listed in the entry for WikiLeaks, editors expressed concerns that WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate the documents they publish, and that some of the non-government documents may be copyright violations, which we are not allowed to link to. WikiLeaks is also a primary source, while Wikipedia articles should be mostly based on secondary sources, especially for contentious claims. If a reliable secondary source confirms that a WikiLeaks document is genuine, and that document is not a copyright violation, then the document can be cited as a primary source if there is consensus to do so. — Newslinger talk 20:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Newslinger, why is there a different standard for Wikileaks? How does "expressing concerns" about a source change anything here? I can express my concerns about many news sources. In fact, I can even prove flawed publications on many news sources. How does that change anything? Does that mean the New York Times and the Guardian are no longer reliable sources? Please provide evidence for falsified documents published by Wikileaks. --Raphael1 20:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Raphael1, You asked a question and had a response, please do Newslinger (and yourself) the courtesy of considering the response before responding yourself. The link given is to 12 pages of intensive discussion regarding yours, and other's concerns. There is not the remotest chance that you read and understood the arguments of dozens, maybe hundreds, of editors in those archives in the 16 minutes it took you to reply here. Rest assured, the issue has been discussed in great depth and with good faith. That's not to say it's impossible you have fresh concerns not addressed in the record, but please check first? Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

​WikiLeaks is held to the same standards as any other source (the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline). There is consensus in the past noticeboard discussions that WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate its documents, which causes it to fail both WP:V and WP:RS. See discussion #4 for an example of a WikiLeaks document that was rejected by editors due to its questionable provenance. Note that the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", which means that an editor who wants to cite a WikiLeaks document needs to establish that it is authentic, instead of simply asking other editors to disprove the same. WikiLeaks was last discussed in 2018, so feel free to start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard if you believe the consensus has changed. — Newslinger talk 20:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger Are you trying to take me for a ride? An editor, who wants to cite a Wikileaks document cannot do so, because whenever one uses a reference to Wikileaks, a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Wikileaks banner comes up, that that tells you this reference is prohibited. There is currently no way to add a reference to Wikileaks, even if one can provide evidence for the authenticity of the document. --Raphael1 21:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger And what does the Jehova's Witnesses letter have to do with Wikileaks? It has never been published there, has it? --Raphael1 21:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like your attempted edit to the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface triggered edit filter 1034 (hist · log). The warning you saw, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-WikiLeaks, links to WP:RSP § WikiLeaks, but otherwise has nothing to do with this page. Also, the filter does not prevent you from adding WikiLeaks to the page. It is set to warn, which means your edit will go through if you submit the edit one more time after seeing the warning. Pinging JzG for comment on the filter.

You're right in that the Jehovah's Witness letter should not have been listed in the WikiLeaks entry, and I've removed it. Please refer to "Is a document from Wikileaks reliable?" (2018), the most recent discussion, for another example. — Newslinger talk 21:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on adding generally reliable sources to the CAPTCHA whitelist

There is a request for comment on adding generally reliable sources from the perennial sources list to the CAPTCHA whitelist, which allows new and anonymous users to cite them in articles without needing to solve a CAPTCHA. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Adding generally reliable sources to the CAPTCHA whitelist. — Newslinger talk 19:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)