Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

No archiving since end of October?

I'm noticing that there don't appear to have been any discussions archived since October 29, anyone have a clue if there's a bug to be fixed? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill: My guess is it's probably because someone accidentally deleted most of the noticeboard on 3 November, and got help to have it reverted... therefore every thread on the board is no older than 3 November (regardless of time stamps in the signatures). Platonk (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Platonk:, I didn't realize that the bots went by edit history and not time stamps. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The archiving has failed again because a blacklisted website (Presumably Boobpedia) is currently linked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Someone was speculating that it was a recently blacklisted link referred to in the FR24news thread, so they changed the URL so hopefully it wouldn't trip up the next time the archiving process runs. Platonk (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Not going to lie, part of me can't wait to see the character count removed from the page next time the archive bot runs. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 01:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I guess the FR24 link wasn't it! Woodroar (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful if the bot was programmed to say in its edit summary which link is causing the problem? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I actually just copied all of RSN into my sandbox and I got a warning about 3 more domains that are on the blacklist: 711web.com, usatribunemedia.com and news-24.fr. I believe I've removed them all so it should archive normally tomorrow. I guess we'll see! Woodroar (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Notified: the bot's creator, Σ. --Chillabit (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't we help out by archiving individual threads? The auto-archiver code says it archives threads after 5 days. We could identify a few of the 'closed' discussions that haven't been added to in over 5 days, and archive those. I have installed, and use, the User:Technical 13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver tool, but have only used it on article talk pages. However, the instructions suggest it was created to assist when bots have failed to archive noticeboards: "Noticeboards and other high-traffic discussion pages, normally archived automatically by bots, have gotten long and less manageable recently due to bot instability. OneClickArchiver was created to better enable experienced editors to clear out old discussions themselves, without having to rely on bots." If someone would help identify a few lengthy 'done' threads, I'm happy to click that link and archive some of the threads. And by doing them individually (one thread at a time), we will discover which one is holding up the auto-bot (if there are any of those left after Woodroar's removal of several more blacklisted links). Or we could just wait another 11 hours or so and see if the autobot works this time. However, if the length of this noticeboard is a problem even for that time, we should at least try to archive the lengthiest 'done' threads. Platonk (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

There are four old closed threads that would qualify. The three short ones:

• RfC: Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) as Source
• RfC: Republic TV
• RfC: GNIS

And the very lengthy one

• RfC: The Daily Wire

which probably accounts for a full third of the page. Platonk (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Just so you know, the Technical 13 script is no longer updated and development passed to User:Evad37/OneClickArchiver. I installed it for this same reason but couldn't get the FR24 section to archive. That was before I removed those most recent links, though. I've been holding off experimenting with it because I wouldn't have time to fix anything I broke. You're welcome to try, of course! Woodroar (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one I have installed. My common.js file is gobbledegook, so I misread something. I'll try the first thread and see if that works. That would be easy enough to undo if it fails. Platonk (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It worked! I see someone else had tried it, too, but they only did one thread. I did four in total. I think I will skip doing The Daily Wire RfC because I was involved in that, and let the auto-bot do it, or someone else who maybe wasn't involved in that discussion. But I did archive the FR24 thread, so Woodroar's edits worked. I predict the auto-archiving bot will complete its task tonight. Platonk (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Perfect! Woodroar (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 Resolved. Last night's archiving performed correctly, and reduced the file size by half. Platonk (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a list of sources by decision?

Is there a list by decision (there are 284 archives now) or is this blocked by I read Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Define reliable sources

And do you know of there is a list of the most cited web sites similar to 10 most cited sources on wikipedia

And lastly does perennial sources mean that we should have clear decisions on highly cited ?

Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSP is an index of some frequently-discussed sources. All sources are reliable for some things and unreliable for others, so as always decisions depend on content. Alexbrn (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

1) There's a search box to search all the archives for the noticeboard, but note that consensus can change and a source can be unreliable for one thing but reliable for another. 2) I'm not aware of a listing of the most cited web pages, and attempting to establish such a list would first need to come up with some clear definitions of what a unique web page is. For example many scientific texts are hosted both on multiple websites in parallel and there can be multiple redirects (e.g. from DOI) to any single "canonical" URL. 3) If you are concerned about a specific source, start a discussion on it. But having a big discussion just for the sake of having had that discussion is probably not a productive use of anyone's time. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

How do I bring an archived discussion back to the main page and request a formal close?

Whilst I think the consensus in the archived discussion is fairly clear, since the GEONet Names Server is used on tens of thousands, maybe even more than 50,000 articles, I would like to get it relisted for a formal close due the Wikipedia-wide impact of a decision on its reliability. FOARP (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That discussion has hardly enough consensus for a clear result. I can see at least 3 different votes by 5 different participants, no more than two had the same vote. That's not enough to implement a "Wikipedia-wide impact". --Jayron32 13:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Uh, Jayron32 everybody agreed on the reliability of GEONet for whether a place was populated or not and the legal recognition, it was only the reliability of it for locations that was disputed. It was about the same level of consensus we just had on GNIS, which is an equally widely used source. However, if you think a consensus was missing then we should re-list it, or close it as no consensus. FOARP (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I won't close it, because I participated, but if I were an uninvolved editor, I would have closed it as "no consensus" and therefore useless in establishing precedent for anything. If you want someone else's opinion, you're free to wait for it, but the difference between "closed as no consensus" and "not closed" is basically nil. --Jayron32 18:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:RFCLOSE. No need to unarchive the thread, just point to where it is currently archived. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask again here, how do I unarchive a thread? I see the Slovenski Narod discussion is still running despite no !voting for weeks. Is it simply cut/paste it from the archive? I assume not, right? FOARP (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I follow what I regard as expert advice that if it's archived it's closed but you could perhaps get inspiration from this where David Gerard apparently did what you didn't assume, and prefaced it with the comment = un-archived from Archive 329 for proper closure. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Peter. FOARP (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Please don't do this, especially for older discussions and without removing the discussion from the archive. It creates a duplicate discussion in the archives, with one having additional comments after a time gap with no way to tell later what had happened there without going through edit history. The usual way for closing archived discussions on this noticeboard has been for a request for closure, followed by the closer themselves unarchiving and closing the discussion, simultaneously. I was about to close the GNS discussion but then I saw that even though it was formatted like an RfC, it was never tagged with an rfc template so it was archived pretty early. FOARP, you might want to add the template if you want it to be an RfC and want more participation. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tayi. Apologies for messing things up. I was sure cutting/pasting wasn’t the right way to handle it, but honestly didn’t know how to get this reposted properly otherwise, and in my defence it has been done before. I didn’t know that the RFC template actually has that effect, though it does explain why the discussion got archived so early. I had asked for a close but no-one wanted to touch it because of the impact - there advice was to advertise more broadly, but without a re-list that would be pointless. FOARP (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I apologize too. I shouldn't have pointed the way I did. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment on The Daily Dot

WP:RSPSS lists The Daily Dot as "generally reliable for internet culture". However, I still think that additional discretion is warranted when using the source. As per the Wikipedia article for internet culture, the term is rather vague without well-defined boundaries which would make the statement "generally reliable for internet culture" to be somewhat problematic. The Daily Dot does sort their stories by category including by "Internet Culture", but the tag is also found in many articles that may not specifically be about internet culture or where it merely touches upon it briefly and isn't the main focus (example 1 2). Secondly, while I agree that their straight news reporting on internet trends is usually good, a lot of their articles are highly opinionated without disclosure. Many of their features engage in heavy analysis and commentary (ex. attributing motives*, dubbing others "Karens" and "cringeworthy" without quotes, etc.) without properly labelling such articles. They do have articles that are labelled as such, but many of them lack such delineation. They have also been mentioned in a previous discussion as well as the Wikipedia article to have a political slant in reporting. (*For clarity, I don't disagree with the accusations of being transphobic, but the article is also heavy on analysis/commentary as well as content that would pose BLP issues while not explicitly labelled as Opinion or Analysis)

While I don't think this means that it should not be considered "generally reliable", I still think that extra care should be taken when citing articles from The Daily Dot. They are great when breaking news about topics that are trending in cyberspace, but I would take care to always default to attribution - especially since they can be highly opinionated during reporting coupled with the fact they are often one of the only sources deemed reliable to cover certain niche internet topics. Dankmemes2 (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a discussion for WP:RSN itself - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little confused as to where to post this at first. I will copy it there now.Dankmemes2 (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Deprecated and unreliable sources new guideline brainstorm

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources Shrike (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Think we passed the brainstorm stage already, what with all those different discussions at ANI and here, still ongoing. 'draft proposal' is not very far along so more input welcome.Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh? There's nothing to propose on that page though. Currently there's about 6 unresolved questions there and not a proposal for anything. Or am I missing something? Mvbaron (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It's just terminology, it's what Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Good practice for proposals calls it, brainstorming being step 1. It doesn't mean there is any kind of proposal per that tag at the top of the discussion,Template:Draft proposal. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

How should the warning of top of the edit page be worded?

Please see MediaWiki_talk:Editpage-head-copy-warn#language_error for a discussion regarding the phrasing of the notice that appears on the top of edit pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting closure of the archived Amnesty International RFC

I think it would be beneficial to get a formal closure of the Amnesty Interational RFC, archived to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 371#Amnesty International a couple of days ago,[1] especially as there was a self-undone early close after about a week. Thryduulf (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Blanking request for closure within thread

Guy Macon Alternate Account has recently posted yet another comment asking for an experienced closer for the SI thread. I blanked it as the thread has already been advertised at WP:ANRFC and there are other comments dealing with the expectations for the closer within the thread. I don't see any reason to keep the edit (see diff), but MrOllie has reverted my blanking. Per BRD I wish to discuss this here. I don't see what the point is in cross-posting requests for close at such frequency and as many noticeboards as Macon has. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it affects anything one way or another, so basically, who cares? This whole thing seems like a lot of unnecessary effort over the almost inevitable There is no consensus on the reliability of the Skeptical Inquirer. Some editors expressed that it is a biased and opinionated source, and some editors advised against using it as a source for contentious statements in BLPs. It's already been a month, I'm sure a little wait won't hurt, and while I don't think repeatedly talking about the requested closure and the guidelines around closure helps anything, neither does reverting. In conclusion, I didn't catch any trout today, despite the shitty weather, and I'm somewhat disappointed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

You don't really have to see what the point is, if a talk page comment isn't actively harmful (it doesn't violate WP:TPG), it should just be left alone. This discussion is acrimonious enough without deleting each other's comments. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Unnacceptable behaviour to remove that comment, but unsurprising. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any (good) point in blanking that comment. Just stop it, ACS. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

RFC questions

Dk if this has been asked before, I noticed an RFC with choices as follows?

Generally reliable for factual reporting

Unclear or additional considerations apply

Generally unreliable for factual reporting (and therefore ruled out for BLP articles)

Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Are these choices standard? The last two in particular. Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a reference to WP:RSP#Legend. Some sources end up there if they are discussed often enough, and they are typically assigned a classification based on consensus achieved here. AlexEng^(TALK) 10:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Right, my fault, I meant the precise wording. Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

With respect to the specific wording, I don't believe there is any standard. When I formulate an RfC, I always put it as neutrally as I possibly can. I reserve details and value judgments on any specific proposal for the discussion section. This RfC author did not seem to do that. Maybe they thought it would help other editors streamline their thought process, or maybe they thought the additional info (such as the implied consequences for BLP usage) would be helpful to guide the discussion. That's my guess. If you want more specific details about their thought process, I would recommend pinging the author directly. To reiterate my answer your general question, though—no it's not standard. AlexEng^(TALK) 12:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you v much! Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It is perhaps not "official" but is recommended at WP:RSN page top as a "common format for writing the RfC question" due to RfC: Header text. I objected but did not challenge. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. Finally had some time to look at it, not really official as you say, just a sort of practice, I guess. The option 4 is "like the Daily Mail" but that was a specific case and afaics based on the fact that it fabricated stuff. There is no clear guidance on what would make something deprecable other than that and yet we offer the option every time, leaving it to editors in a given discussion to determine it. Is that about it? Selfstudier (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's determined by editors in a given discussion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I fear this "four option" format is becoming "standard" and that's a very bad thing. Its use was, IMO, responsible for the poor outcome[2] of the Skeptical Enquirer RfC, since the four options on offer are completely unsuitable for many publication types: in this case a lay serial publication in the realm of general science/knowledge. It's another symptom of the pernicious influence of RSP, whereby everything apparently now has to be forced into the straightjacket of its crass WP:LOCALCONish categorization system (WP:GREL, WP:MREL etc). Alexbrn (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies

If you go to page history, it will appear that upon closing a discussion, I accidentally used an incorrect format, so first reverted it before adding the correct one. Sorry for the inconvenience and confusion if you have been editing the page, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Needs YOU!

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; and Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 17:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Edits hidden

What happend to have so many edits removed?★Trekker (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The log says "User edited while logged-out, revealing IP address". Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies for formatting errors when closing the RfC, I inserted the archives and close top/bottom incorrectly. It has been fixed now, but sorry for the inconvenience. Many thanks! Also, I think I didn't cleared the cache of my page by reloading, and its version is somehow still one several hours ago when this mistake was not fixed. If this caused any inconveniece, I apologise, but its all right now and I have reverted the wrong edits. Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Al-jazeera reliability

Are we allowed to use Al-jazeera maps made for ethnic distribution????? Russianbear76 (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

If I may ask, what led you here? I see you have only made one contribution to WP, this one? To what exactly does your question relate? An article? Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

A very similar question was also asked by a now blocked user who also had an interest in Afghanistan-related stuff, curious [3]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Source Disagreement

Hello,

I have had an account for awhile and just recently decided to become more active again after a friend told me about the wikipedia contribution process. First, I decided to go source by source, rather than topic by topic, to add information I felt was relevant. However on my first source (brutusjournal.com) I was reverted. I understand spam must be a huge problem, but I do not see what the problem is in citing a younger source which can be came across. The information was in no was extreme, and rather than provide any dispute as to the reliability of the edits, they were simply reverted. I had the following exchange with the user responsible for the reverts:

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This link was directly related to the text being added to the website. Which specific aspect of the external links guideline does this violate? The source is reliable and cites its own sources. It appears we must defer, in situations like these, to the “assume good faith” direction and allow the text to stand unless there is a specific violation that can be shown by the reverting party. Refsjjehhgshh (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a self published student journal, so not reliable. Repetitively adding links to the same unreliable site is spamming as Wikipedia defines it. 'Assume good faith' never means that common link promotion patterns are ignored. If you are here to help build an encyclopedia and not to insert links to one particular website, I suggest you find something else to cite. MrOllie (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia’s own pages state, “Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same.” The source in question is a journal that publishes various authors works. I understand the concern, and with regards to helping build the encyclopedia, that is also of concern, but it is important to differentiate a personal blog (self published source) from a student journal. The content added so far is by no means exceptional or extreme. Refsjjehhgshh (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

If you want more input, feel free to take it up at WP:RSN. You'll be told the same thing there, though. MrOllie (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Refsjjehhgshh (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

A student journal is not generally a reliable source since it lacks the reputation for fact checking, particularly on a page like Dobbs, which has reliance on mainstream newspapers Masem (t) 11:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This?. No, we are not using a blog run by children as a source for financial articles, or any other articles ValarianB (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting that all the sources you added have the same author. Clearly non-reliable spam with likely conflict of interest. Slywriter (talk)

The Times Group

These are all news papers of Times Group Are all these news papers considered reliable?

The Times Of India The Economic Times Navbharat Times Maharashtra Times Ei Samay Mumbai Mirror Vijaya Karnataka Bangalore Mirror Pune Mirror PravinGanechari (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@PravinGanechari This is not the place to ask about reliability, but rather to discuss the reliable sources noticeboard itself. Please see the talk page header for more details. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Second Fox News RfC

It's inevitable that a new Fox News RfC will have to be proposed at some point. I think the two recent attempts today have been poorly thought out and would have resulted in an absolute clusterfuck had I not prematurely closed them. The question and the format really need to be workshopped somewhere before posting, which I hope this thread can serve a discussion point for. Hemiauchenia (talk) And 19:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we should go as focused and standard as possible. I'd use:

Is Fox News coverage of politics and science reliable?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

We already had that RFC, thats why Fox us listed as unreliable for political and science news. What has been happening more is calls for all of Fox to be called unreliable, which personally is premature. Reporting sensationalism via how articles are present in the website (eg the click at issue) doesn't necessarily reflect reliability, since headlines etc are considered part of the actual article. Masem (t) 19:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Masem, that's not the case. Fox News (politics and science) is currently at option 2/no consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Currently Fox is listed as "No Consensus" rather than "Generally Unreliable" for poiltics and science, how much difference that makes in practice I don't know. Also, the 2020 RfC was held before the 2020 election and Fox News's baseless promotion of stolen election conspiracy theories, so the consensus of the 2020 RfC may be outdated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

According to MMFA, the news division posted conspiracy theories and cast doubt about biden winning the election hundreds of times, approximately 1/3 of all claims made by Fox News, so chalking it all up to their opinion pundits is innaccurate. [4]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This seems very compelling to me. I didn't know that. However I know MMFA itself was the subject of claims of being partisan so I don't know if some editors would accept this. Andrevan@ 22:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

MMFA is a highly biased site with it's own issues. That is claims Fox has issues is both not surprising nor enlightening. Springee (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

"headlines etc are considered part of the actual article" I thought we generally disregarded headlines? WP:HEADLINE, no? Is there a missing "not" in there? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I missed the word on my phone, absolutely yes. Headlines are NOT part of RSes Masem (t) 21:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, I think the RFC should just be choosing between "No consensus" i.e. status quo or option 2, and option 3 or one downgrade down. Making 4 options is more confusing and also gives the closer a tougher time to determine consensus, increasing the likelihood of ending up on a "no consensus" or defaulting back to status quo/option 2. The discussion should be about whether or not it should be downgraded 1 peg. Andrevan@ 23:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, I'm not strenuously opposed to that format, but you will get participants calling for a procedural close, calling the format biased, questioning why the standard 4 option format wasn't used, etc. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Obviously I don't want editors to complain of bias, but I think there are good reasons not to have 4 options. As mentioned, it makes the job of determining consensus that much harder and favors a "status quo" answer which is kind of a cop-out. There have already been many discussions of Fox News, we know that "generally reliable" should not be on the table. I also don't think we should consider "deprecating" at this time (though that is probably not completely unreasonable in my view). So, since we're eliminating option 1 on the good end and option 4 on the bad end, I think it is not biased because editors can either keep the status quo, or downgrade it 1 notch - we're only discussing the proposal, per the standard RFC of asking a yes or no question. I believe this has been done many times in RFCs and it is not non-standard. However of course I don't want to just open the RFC and have it be procedurally closed. That's why I'm discussing it here instead of BOLDly opening the RFC again. Andrevan@ 14:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm working on it here, I would love any WP:BOLD help. Andrevan@ 20:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, thanks for closing the thread below, could you help with my draft userpage or am I going the wrong way about this in your view? Andrevan@ 22:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I intend to vote Bad RfC regardless of wording but the proposed wording is worse than the usual parade of Fox RfCs. Have a look at WP:RFCBRIEF to see what an example of "brief" looks like. Don't make statements like "The status quo on Fox News is" when all you're doing is quoting the WP:RSP essay, not (as far as I know) an RfC result. Don't make statements like "List of past RfCs" and skip e.g. there were two failed ones in the last week. Don't make statements that assume expertise like "red box". And as for your statement what "we are considering", I'm not part of any of your "we" and will consider what I think is appropriate. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If you intend to vote Bad RFC regardless, I will not be taking your feedback into account, because nothing I do will convince you to make it a "good RFC." If you are offering feedback that is constructive and can reach a positive result, I will not disregard it, but if you have no interest on discussing the merits or believe they are ill-founded despite the evidence and no information, well, I can't please everyone. I do think it is entirely neutral and merited to include the existing status quo as well as links to past RFCs. The two or three in the past week or so were procedurally closed so they do not count. The RSP state of the status quo is a reflection of the close of the old RFC so it is valid. "Red box" should be table stakes for being informed on what is listed in the RSP table today. And there is no requirement as far as I know that an RFC needs to offer more options than those desired to consider. Andrevan@ 16:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to my statement in this prior message, I have moved a portion of the user page into the "discussion" section, but I still think there should only be 2 options. Andrevan@ 17:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan's changes fix all WP:RFCBRIEF|WP:RFCNEUTRAL problems I described. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. Andrevan@ 18:35, 29 July 2022 (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.

---

IMO we should completely delete our over-generalization of sources and instead move to a standard of expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it. Until we do that we should remove the partial deprecation of the USA's largest TV & Cable news source, not try to worsen the deprecation. The occasional misstatement and spin that comes from all of the news sources (including Fox) can easily be dealt with when attempting using sources to cite a factual item. The far bigger damage comes from enabling wikilawyers from using it to exclude the largest news source from wp: NPOV balancing situations. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, this isn't germane to this discussion, but I don't agree at all with any of that. You'll have a chance to opine if a new RFC is opened, but I doubt that "throw away the entire system" is going to be an option. Andrevan@ 20:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Make no small plans.... :-) North8000 (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think Fox news stories are generally reliable for facts. I check Fox every day, and find that their method of bias is in what they tell and what they don't. I find what they tell is usually as accurate as what any MSM tells. Remember, Fox News was the first to call Arizona for Biden in 2020. This assessment does NOT apply to their opinion pieces, Fox Nation, or Tucker Carlson. YoPienso (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I find it incongruous to call Fox defender of the stolen election theory when fox called Arizona improperly early. If the election was rigged, then Fox played the biggest part in rigging it. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

On the Arizona point, the Fox News election guy called Arizona early and stands by his call, he also appeared in the Jan 6 hearings. I offered several fact checks which were not about the 2020 stolen election theory. As far as I know, the news portion of Fox has made it clear that Joe Biden won the election. However, Fox has repeatedly pushed fact checked COVID information in their News section, as well as a misleading headline that was amplified on social media. Andrevan@ 21:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

While I think the Arizona call was notable, Chris Stirewalt, who made it, was let go shortly thereafter.[5] He called it a "firing." That set of facts does not strike me as an indicator of reliability, but reasonable minds may differ. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Bet that Mitch McConnell got off the phone with Rupert Murdoch at 11:18 PM, and then the network called Arizona at 11:20 PM. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Stirewalt's firing, Murdoch said it wasn't the call for Biden but the stagecraft."Even though Fox’s projection ended up being accurate, Murdoch has fretted that it was handled poorly."

The LA Times wrote, "Stirewalt was part of the polling unit and election decision desk at Fox News, both of which have stellar reputations for authority and accuracy in political circles, despite the right-leaning bent of the rest of the Rupert Murdoch-owned network." (My bolding)

Do you see anything wrong with this Fox story about Biden urging vaccination? YoPienso (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the Fox News desk handled the polling/election and the Arizona call well. My current failed fact checks of note are listed here. There are other, older examples about climate science and stuff that have been discussed before. Andrevan@ 22:26, 28 July 2022 (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.

North8000 is correct here. We really need to stop trying so hard to use generalization buckets where it becomes a game to get sources people like or dislike put in a good or bad bucket. Springee (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• I added the RFC back taking into account all the relevant feedback from this discussion except for the 4 vs 2 options, I have seen many other RFCs with only 2 options so it is standard and valid. Andrevan@ 18:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• It was reverted again by Hemiauchenia. Please substantiate the objections with the version I added. I tried to address all the objections. Andrevan@ 18:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• I started a thread at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Andrevan@ 18:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Withdrawn thread per [6] Andrevan@ 18:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Why do this again? What problem is this going to solve? If Fox were labeled as good and widely used I could see the issue. However, it's labeled as Yellow and basically never used for politics or science except in cases where the reliability concerns are extremely low. At the same time if this is because New Guard has made a claim about Fox, well are we going to say News Guard decides all? Thus any source News Guard says is good we will also treat as acceptable? Conversely, MSNBC will be red because News Guard says as much? This is a solution searching for a problem. Springee (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about News Guard, please look at my draft. Andrevan@ 19:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I see NewsGuard as a guide, not as something that should be used to authoritatively assess the reliability of a source. I have looked at the nutrition label for Fox News and MSNBC and the extended descriptions pointing out blunders that may make the source less reliable and there are three things that the two fail at: "regularly corrects or clarifies errors", "handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly", and "gathers and presents information responsibly". In order to have a successful RfC, we need to be able to mention all the factors into why it was started to spark meaningful conversation and not just heated arguments. That said I think this context can go in the 'Discussion' section of the RfC, not in the lead statement as I previously did when I attempted to do so.

I also think a moratorium is inappropriate because the purpose of a deprecation RfC is to assess the reliability of a source for specific purposes, not to talk about how much we like or dislike the source. NewsGuard is a good start to this, but I don't think it is a definitive end. If something happens that suddenly changes the reliability of a source, a moratorium would mean the RfC would be speedy closed (even if the answer is WP:SNOWBALL obvious). Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 19:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think if we have MSNBC it should be a separate RFC. I am only concerned about Fox News. If there is good reason to doubt MSNBC that should be done separately. I don't believe NewsGuard needs to be involved but of course any users may bring it up in the discussion, but there is plenty of info to discuss about Fox News on its own. Andrevan@ 19:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Another question that might be asked is whether NewsGuard is a reliable source for verifying facts about the accuracy of any given news site. There is already one fact-checking app "Media bias/fact check" that is marked as "generally unreliable" and another one that is marked as "generally reliable". But then, NewsGuard utilizes a nine-criteria methodology, I have been using NewsGuard since it was free back in 2018, and I don't see any serious problems with their ranking system. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 01:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

You can add that to the RFC if it opens. I personally am not familiar NewsGuard, but I am relying on Politifact. Andrevan@ 01:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's time to have a moratorium on RFCs about Fox News. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Certainly not. Last one was what, 2 years ago? WP:CCC. I tried to focus on recent examples in my version. Andrevan@ 19:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

There are two questions to ask before launching that RFC, 1) has anything changed significantly in how Fox News reports and operates in the area of political news in the last two-three years and 2) does that mode of operation change how we have described their current state at RSP?

The first question I think is no - they remain a strong mouthpiece for conservatives and try to downplay any successes from Democrats or liberals. They perhaps have gotten a bit off the potential Trump bandwagon following Jan 6 but there's really no practical change or anything from a business side that would otherwise affect this change. Additionally, I have not seen any demand for increased usage of Fox for coverage of political topics on WP. Most editors seem very much aware of their bias, and there hasn't been any major editing problems because of conflicts over Fox's positioning at RSP. As for the second question, using your examples you given, all of those easily fall into the cautionary aspect of "contentious claims" that is at RSP currently. We do not need to downgrade Fox to change how we'd handle those sources if someone were to want to push to include them. And as I mentioned already, there is not suddenly any new push to use Fox News more than there was two-three years ago.

So there really doesn't seem to be a need for an RFC. While RFCs can be good, as been cautioned from others, we can fully expect an RFC on Fox News to draw hundreds of comments, create lots of conflict and require admin intervention at times to calm editors down. Given that there's no likely need to change the RSP position on that, it is better to not create the potential disruption with that RFC at this time. Masem (t) 19:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree - I cited half-a-dozen examples of recent failed fact checks that to my knowledge haven't been discussed before, so the answer is 1) yes things have continued to progress and there is recent evidence, 2) yes, Fox should be downgraded. Editors who don't agree that it should be downgraded still shouldn't be able to prevent opening a new RFC. Also I have recently reverted several additions of Fox News sourcing to political articles. [7] [8] As written, it is confusing because we say there is "no consensus" even though it should be "generally unreliable (politics and science)". Andrevan@ 19:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit #5 is improper, but the article they cite is not necessarily. The thing is, a lot of WP articles on politicians will do something like -- "Yesterday Mr X said 'Q'[1]. In 2000 they said 'anti-Q'[2]." -- when neither source [1] nor [2] makes the connection that the two quotes are inconsistent. Sometimes it may be worth it to cite a generally-less-reliable source (who cites a reliable source within (in this case Dallas Morning News), which you cite secondarily) just so you're not the one implicitly making the SYNTH by conjunction. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe this is the venue to debate the finer points of specific articles, unless I am misunderstanding, since the RFC has not been opened yet. We were discussing whether to open it and how to format it. I was only offering evidence that in fact, contrary to Masem's point, some editors do add links to Fox News in an inappropriate way. Re, #5, without getting too deeply into the truth or the issues: You can find a bunch of similar articles, for example, from the RNC[9] and the NRSC[10] so it looks to me like a right-wing talking point, and I do have concerns about it. Andrevan@ 21:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Remember that RSOPINION allows for sourcing from sources otherwise unreliable for fact. I wouldn't go quoting some of the talking heads at Fox News like Sean Hannity as even his viewpoints are fringe, but a general Fox News piece criticizing a Democratic official is certainly within the scope of what RSOPINION would allow. It is when Fox News makes, in their words, claims of fact in their voice, but which we can easily recognize as contentious claims, that existing RSP guidance should say that we should avoid those. Masem (t) 20:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, but this is really not the venue to debate that specific usage and whether it was appropriate. This is the venue to discuss the "meta" aspects of the RFC before it opens. There is enough dispute here for an RFC. Andrevan@ 21:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This is important because that first diff in your prior statement was removing an RSOPINION piece and thus misapplication of what RSP says. You're applying a personal preference here to Fox News removal, and not a demonstation of the larger community treatment of it. Masem (t) 21:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it was removed because it was clearly a slanted piece and being used to accuse the article BLP subject of lying or flip-flopping. The reality is probably more complicated. We shouldn't really get into the specifics here, but feel free to discuss on Talk:Raphael Warnock Andrevan@ 21:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Points on format (Fox News RfC)

Though participants are sure to go rogue, it would help to indicate more clearly with boldface what should be used in the !votes. The draft currently has multiple bold options for each choice, and settling on one for each option would be preferable. How about just Downgrade vs. Status quo?

PS: I don't own this section, but I would appreciate it if we could use it for discussion of how to format the RfC statement and not for discussion of whether or not an RfC is needed. I hope those who oppose holding an RfC altogether will still contribute their opinion Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, that sounds good to me, agree with your reasoning. Andrevan@ 19:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think there should be three options: Deprecate, Downgrade, Status quo. The two are not the same if I am not wrong, deprecation means that use of Fox News as a source is generally prohibited and that Fox News should not be used to establish notability. Downgrading to "generally unreliable" just means that editors need to use extreme caution when citing Fox News, unless if I am mistaken here?. This decision to deprecate can be reversed in the future by a similar RfC. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 20:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there should be 3 options. First of all, if we have Deprecate, then we'd need "Generally Reliable" as well or we have 2 bad options, status quo, and no "good" option. Secondly, "deprecate" is a much stronger action that requires much stronger evidence. We don't have that level of evidence right now. There are a good number of normal, reliable articles on Fox News, but because there are so many bad ones, it's hard to tell the difference. "Deprecate" would basically require strong evidence that almost everything is bad when you pick randomly, rather than 10-20 egregious examples and many unproblematic ones. So, it'll be an easier lift and a more reasonable outcome to just choose from Downgrade and Status Quo. Andrevan@ 20:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to add deprecation as an option for two reasons. The first is that it's unlikely to gain consensus. In a [non-RfC discussion] earlier this year, an editor proposed deprecation and the vast majority of participants went off-menu to either support a downgrade or the status quo. I also think adding deprecation as an option but excluding the option of upgrading to generally reliable will add weight to those who'll say the format is biased and the RfC invalid. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

agreed with this Andrevan@ 20:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the options should be Deprecate, Unreliable, Additional considerations apply, Reliable. This solves the problems about not being neutral with all the options. I am wondering if we can separate Fox News's television programming (which has been declining in reliability for a while now) from its online articles (which sometimes, but not always, republishes from other outlets like AP) in the RfC. We might find, for example, that its television programming (and thus videos) should be deprecated but its online articles are mediocre and "additional considerations may apply". I can also say that, and I said this before, just because a source is reliable some of the time does not mean that it is not always reliable. The saying goes that the best lies are the ones that are wrapped in truth. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 21:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not agree. I think we should just keep it to the 2 options, downgrade, or status quo. It's simpler to respond to, simpler to close, and it's neutral enough. Also, my main concern is with their online articles. Andrevan@ 22:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I just checked, the four option RfC is not uncommon, although I think a deprecation RfC would be better, since either the source gets deprecated or it does not. But consensus is not just determined through votes, and other options can be suggested in an RfC later down the line. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 01:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The source isn't going to be deprecated right now, it's unclear what the outcome will be at all, but it's pretty clear it will not be completely deprecated as I already explained. If you support deprecating it, for now, you should simply support downgrading it which will move it down the totem pole in that direction. Andrevan@ 01:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• A few things that might help any RFC not be a clusterfuck… 1) make it clear that headlines are already considered unreliable, 2) make it clear that Fox’s opinion shows (Hannity, Tucker, etc) are already considered unreliable. We are not asking about those. We are asking about the political and science coverage on shows like Special Report with Bret Baier and The Story with Martha McCallum. This will help focus the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, I wasn't thinking about shows at all, but news articles on the website. Andrevan@ 21:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Is there a difference? Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

    Well, I suppose if we had issues on those news shows it would go to general reliability of the outlet but I am focused on the written word journalism first and foremost as that is going to be most of what people will want to use to cite things I think. Andrevan@ 21:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

    Im not sure that there is a distinction between written and spoken. My understanding is that most web sites associated with TV news networks take what was said by a reporter on air - transcribe it - and add a clickbait headline. Perhaps Fox uses a different system, but I know this is how most other TV news apps work. Blueboar (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

    I don't believe you are correct. That is not how it works at CNN, at least. CNN has a whole set of writers that only write for the web, in different topic areas like politics, business, style/travel, etc. Then they also have TV shows which have their own writers and production staff. Sometimes the video clips from their TV shows will be posted with a transcript, but always clearly marked as such. Other times the videos will just be added to related news articles that were written by the writers. There might be some situations of overlap, such as when a TV reporter writes pieces or op-eds that don't have associated segments, or when someone who writes a column, like Harry Enten or Daniel Dale, also makes appearances on shows. I believe Fox News is the same - there are many pieces on Fox News that appear there on the website, but don't have an associated TV segment. Andrevan@ 23:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

    If that’s the case, then we need to make it clear that the RFC is not asking about on-air news reporting. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

    There's an interesting NYT article here. [11] It alludes to this model: In 2018, after a former Hannity producer took over the network’s widely read website, FoxNews.com, he assembled a team of reporters called Fox News Flash, who were deployed to write news stories built solely around video clips from prime time. The "Fox News Flash" section can be found if you browse around on the Fox site. Anyway, I am fine with scoping the RFC to "website news sections that are labelled news, not including TV clips." I think the TV clips are already in the generally unreliable bucket anyway, right? Andrevan@ 00:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

    The TV clips, oh sure, they may not be the most reliable. A lot of the stories may be cherrypicked and while they may be true, they are not presented in the most responsible manner. I have followed their YouTube for a while and yes a lot of what they are saying is true, but a lot of their reported stories are cherrypicked to advance a more conservative view. This may be similar to what Daily Mail and the Sun does (and Daily Mail and the Sun both have a slightly higher rating of 69.5/100, but is considered deprecated since 2017). If Fox News does not do a good job at handling information responsibly, with care to living people, then in no ways should Fox News be considered reliable. But this is the purpose of the RfC to decide, not for this discussion. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 01:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

    Right. The point I was making though is that our list on the main page of WP:RSP already labels Fox News talk shows as unreliable. What I want to do is start an RFC to downgrade Fox News news as unreliable for politics and science based on the numerous recent failed fact checks and the fact that they blur the line between facts and opinion pretty badly. Andrevan@ 01:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the standard four option format ordinarily used for RfCs on sources at this noticeboard. Experienced closers are familiar with it, and I strongly suspect any attempt to deviate from it will have a stronger chance of derailing the RfC than the proposed two/three option format. The whole point of Consensus can change is that all options relating to a consensus should be on the table. While I believe that those who would chose "Generally reliable for factual reporting" are in the extreme minority, nonetheless they should still have that option. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of RFCs on this noticeboard with only 2 options. Considering how complex it was to close the last RFC, we owe it to the closers to make it easier. We should also short circuit obvious outliers. We know that Deprecation won't pass at this time. Similar, nor would Generally Reliable. Those just aren't likely to pass right now. Andrevan@ 23:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I tentatively agree that they won't pass, but I suspect those editors who will !vote for either of those options will kick up a fuss if they aren't included. I'd rather keep that sort of "Why isn't option X available?" complaints to a minimum, even if they do make it more difficult to the closer. This RfC is going to be contentious enough without adding that layer on top of it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. We are proposing to downgrade the source, the alternative is the status quo. There's no basis to either deprecate the source, or make it generally reliable. Even if a bunch of people decided to !vote for that, it would ultimately still end in "no consensus," so a vote for "reliable" or "deprecate" is pragmatically, still a vote for "no consensus." The only option that could conceivably happen would be downgrading the source to "generally unreliable" which we have some evidence to do, but there's still a really good chance it will end up as "no consensus" anyway. I've already tried to open the RFC and was reverted, and I don't understand the basis. Let's do it with 2 options this time, and if it's a cluster, y'all can do it a different way next time. Unless someone else has evidenced prepared that they want to present for the "deprecation" or "generally reliable" argument, I don't see either having a realistic chance of passing, so making it a 4-option deal only serves to make it more chaotic and confusing. I've already tried to open the RFC and I haven't been given a valid rationale for reverting it. Andrevan@ 01:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Except that is not the case. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion

If one or two people "vote" for "deprecate", and they have strong arguments for deprecation, it will almost certainly be weighted more heavily than if ten people were to "vote" "generally unreliable" with weak arguments for downgrading. Other editors may also concur with these specific arguments. Leaving these other "less popular" options open can affect consensus greatly, so we should definitely do it! Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 01:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. Per WP:RFC, it should best be a yes/no question. More options makes it harder to determine consensus. Andrevan@ 02:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

RfCs do not have to be a straight yes/no question. The standard format for source RfCs at RSN is the four option format presented above by Firefangledfeathers. About a month ago I launched an RfC on which CS1 citation template to use for websites associated with a magazine or newspaper. Talk:Italian Social Movement, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics have current RfCs with three options. And WP:RSN currently has three other RfCs ongoing with the standard four option format. Complex RfCs are not uncommon on enwiki.

Remember that as proposer, it is not your job to determine consensus. That is always left to an uninvolved editor, or in some cases a panel of uninvolved editors. Once you launch the RfC and make your !vote, you don't need to do anything else except make a request at WP:CR sometime around the 30 day mark. While I appreciate trying to make the closer's job easier, anyone who closes RfCs at RSN will or should be familiar with the standard four option format. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure where that format started but there are plenty of examples in the archives of a simpler support/oppose format, and WP:RFC does indeed suggest that such a question is the best format, though not required of course. I still maintain this is how the RFC should be. There is no rule that it must have 4 options and I reject the suggestion to make it have options which are not being offered. Anyone can still always leave a "write-in" comment. Andrevan@ 02:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

If you're referring to this revert by Hemiauchenia, it's kinda strange and it would be good if Hemiauchenia would explain that reasoning more fully here, but even discarding my own argument on the regular format, I can see that at least two other editors querying on format, and at least two who are opposed to the RfC in its entirety. I kinda agree that, at least while the format of the options are outstanding, there isn't a consensus to launch the RfC as of yet. Once there's a consensus on that format, I think there is a consensus for it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I would also like Hemiauchenia to explain the reasoning or why he started a thread on WP:AN and another thread on the noticeboard itself pointing here to the "pre-RFC." Andrevan@ 02:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

My guess is the neutrality requirement for the RfC. I don't think there needs to be consensus for an RfC for an RfC to occur. I can imagine that giving only two options and a half-baked RfC is a bad idea and will almost certainly negatively affect the discussion. The goal of listing all the potential options is not so editors can be fringe about it but so the RfC can satisfy the "neutrality" requirement for it. I think you are also forgetting that consensus is not assessed by the number of votes for a proposal but by the strength of each argument. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The one that was reverted in that diff was perfectly brief and neutral. I am not forgetting how WP:CONSENSUS works. The point is we are only offering a downgrade for discussion, which may be voted yea or nay. Andrevan@ 02:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

That is not a neutral RfC. It's prejudging that consensus cannot find that Fox News is a reliable source or that it is a deprecated source, no matter how unlikely those outcomes may be. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Fine - If I change the draft to use the 4 option format will editors stop reverting the opening of the RFC? Andrevan@ 02:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [12]

I believe it will. And if an editor does revert it, I believe a case can be made that they are in the wrong. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

[13] does this look otherwise OK? Andrevan@ 02:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I kind of want to rephrase the question as "What is the current reliability of Fox News?" and the header can be titled "RFC: Reassessing the reliability of Fox News". I don't know why the reliability has been broken up into "politics and science" and "not politics and science" when clearly the stories they choose across all topics are designed to invoke an emotional response on purpose. Sure what they are reporting on might be true, but the way that it is being presented on the homepage is nothing short of gathering information in an irresponsible matter. It does not matter much that they might be reporting on facts when in reality they appear to be publishing stuff close to what Daily Mail publishes rather than keeping people informed like a responsible publication like PBS or BBC does. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The split between Fox News' science and politics reporting from the rest of its output seems to have stemmed from the closure of the 2020 RfC, where the closers described the split between participants along those lines. In theory there's no reason why a 2022 RfC needs to be explicitly along those lines as one RfC could cover all of its output. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe that these suggestions to broaden the RFC are going to make it even more chaotic and less likely to have a meaningful result. Let's keep it narrow. It's already a concession against my better judgment to add 2 options that have zero chance of passage. If we expand the RFC beyond a narrow scope it will have no chance at all. It feels that these suggestions are going to reduce the likelihood of a meaningful consensus. Andrevan@ 02:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks better. The only other change I'd make is to eliminate a prejudical inference from the question. I'd word it per the 2020 RfC Which of the following options best describes the current reliability of the politics and science reporting of Fox News? potentially with a follow-on sentence briefly mentioning the no-consensus outcome of the 2020 RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't like that phrasing, and it is not required that we re-use the old phrasing or the old formatting. How about this: Should Fox News be considered reliable for politics and science?, Upgrade to upgrade to Generally Reliable, Downgrade to support downgrading to Generally Unreliable, Status Quo to maintain the present situation., Deprecate to completely deprecate the source. Also, other editors said we should not include the past RFC result in the intro. That would make it not neutral and prejudicial. Andrevan@ 02:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

While not how I'd word it (obviously), it's not bad. It throws a bone to the folks who are going to !vote "generally reliable" regardless. There's a couple of admins who might try and pull it because it's slightly leading towards upgrading to reliable, but there's definitely significant precedent to use a question like that on this noticeboard.

Slight tweak to the options though to avoid unnecessary repetition:

• Upgrade to generally reliable for factual reporting
• Status quo to maintain present situation; unclear or additional considerations apply
• Downgrade to generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Deprecate as it publishes false or fabricated information

Keeps the regular format options/explainers, but also moves it away from the explicit option 1/2/3/4. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Andrevan@ 03:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

OK how's this:

Should Fox News be considered reliable or unreliable for politics and science?

1. Upgrade to Generally Reliable for factual reporting
2. Status quo to maintain present situation; No Consensus, Unclear, or Additional Considerations Apply
3. Downgrade to Generally Unreliable or Questionable for factual reporting
4. Deprecate entirely to Generally Prohibited Andrevan@ 03:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

For a second I had a worry about option 4, but then I checked the text of WP:DEPREC and this looks grand. The formatting/italics is a good touch for readability. So yeah, I like it! Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

OK thanks. I'll leave it in limbo on the page for a while to see if anyone else has objections to this version. Andrevan@ 03:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, seems wise. There's no need to rush after all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm hoping that 'when' the RFC is up & running. All of us will be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON & thus respect each others stated positions, on the matter ahead. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - What is the status of MSNBC news, as a reliable source? I support having Fox news & MSNBC news on equal footing as reliable sources. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  MSNBC is currently considered "generally reliable." If you'd like to share the failed fact checks for MSNBC to me on my talk page I'd be happy to review them and help prep an MSNBC RFC after we finish with Fox. Andrevan@ 00:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  Per WP:RSP#MSNBC There is consensus that MSNBC is generally reliable. Talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 - is my choice. Please keep me informed, if this RFC is shut down. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's not an RfC yet. Work is still ongoing on deciding the format of the RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Please let me know, when it's up and running. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I hope so too GoodDay, bludgeoning is not productive, though remember that taking a position on an RFC is not a vote. That's why we say !vote. All positions need to have a rationale and a valid argument. Some discussion may happen between those who disagree within reason. Andrevan@ 03:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan Do you mind if I fix capitalization and minor formatting stuff for the RFC proposal? Specifically in the headers :) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 03:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead Andrevan@ 03:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I just opened the RFC. Thank you all for the help and feedback and collaboration on improving it. I think the work made it much better. Andrevan@ 17:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I wonder now if we should tackle MSNBC at the same time or if we should wait for the Fox News one to finish first... Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's wait until the Fox News one finishes if you don't mind. If you have some evidence for MSNBC please feel free to start a draft and share it. However, MSNBC is currently a green generally reliable source. So I think it's a different situation that should be treated differently. I don't think NewsGuard alone is a strong case. Andrevan@ 18:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This entire discussion and RFC has gone completely off the rails. A literal handful of editors, rather than treating it as a request for comments, have bludgeoned the discussion to an absurd extent, drowning the input of the community members deigning to opine on the RFC. I haven't bothered to join in because it is utterly futile. Any opinion, pro, con, or neutral, is drowned in the noise. Some uninvolved admin should close this now useless and counterproductive thread.Banks Irk (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This was also a major issue in the 2020 RfC. In particular I agree that Andrevan's comments on the RfC are extremely excessive, making up nearly half of all comments to the RfC, and that he should really just stop at this point because it is effectively bludgeoning. Some sections can and should be boldly closed and collapsed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

By my count at least 80 editors have participated and it's been running for less than 30% of its total duration, or even less than that if the normal time is extended as someone proposed. There is plenty of time for everyone to respond. You certainly may, and I urge you to AGF on the discussion. I'd certainly oppose a closure. By my estimation, nobody pro or con has "take up one-third of the total text or ... replied to half the people who disagree." I will certainly be responding less - it's natural that I've been responding a lot since people have been directly challenging me and calling me out by name, but that was natural since I posted a lot of evidence. Andre🚐 02:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

And, you don't see that as a problem? Imagine deleting 50% of the posts in the RFC ...not just your's, mind you, you are not the sole abuser, and ask if it would diminish the discussion one iota. As was said of the attitude of Laurie Medcalf's character in Lady Bird, if you can't say something nice, be brutally honest.Banks Irk (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry, but I'm confused by your comment. I do think the RFC is going fairly well so far, with many good discussion points on all sides. There have been a few contentious back-and-forths, but for the most part, I think everyone is getting to have their voice heard. I'll be responding a lot less or maybe not really any more at all as time goes on, I think my points were made already and I'm mindful to not be repetitive. Please remember that accusing folks of bludgeoning or abuse can be incivil. I hope you do opine and add your commentary to the RFC. Best, Andre🚐 03:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Archiving

This RfC was archived without proper closure, IMHO a closure is needed. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this research website reliable?

Hi so I was reading on wikipedia and on a talk page I read that researchgate.net is not a reliable source of info. I think there is some pretty good info on there that I have found multiple times and I am wondering why it is considered unreliable I thought wikipedia would be approves research papers... Was this user lying or is research gate not considered reliable here?

There are many important pieces of info that has been very helpful to me over the years and I'm wondering why some websites like indpendent.co.uk is considered reliable as I read that that was the case from the talk page and whether that is true or not?? I also think that this page would be relevant right? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:RS/AC&redirect=no. So yeah thanks in advance Weatherseekr (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Researchgate is a website that hosts articles published elsewhere. If that "elsewhere" is a good academic journal, then the article is a reliable source. However, users of researchgate can also upload things that haven't been published in a reliable journal, or haven't been published at all. In that case, the article is not a reliable source.

The independent is considered a reliable source for news and current events (which won't be represented in journal articles because the academic publication process is very slow).Furius (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Also be aware that some items uploaded to researchgate.net are pre-prints, articles that have been accepted by a journal, but which may have been modified before they were officially published. These may look like they have been published in a journal, but there is no guarantee that the pre-print on researchgate matches the published article. Academia.edu also has uploaded papers, and the same caveats apply. Papers should be cited directly to the journal, and linked directly to the journal's website or through a connection like Jstor, doi, etc. A courtesy link to a copy of an article on researchgate or academia.edu that has been published in a reliable journal may be used in a citation, if the original article is behind a paywall or otherwise not accessible, but be careful to insure that the copy on researchgate or academia.edu is the same as the published article. - Donald Albury 00:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah some of the stuff I read on research gate definitely didn't seem reliable and I couldn't find original sources for some of the stuff on there. I would definitely advise caution when using research gate and to use it to find more reliable research sources instead Jet414 (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

To echo and expand above, ResearchGate hosts among other things preprints, academic journal articles in published state with some form of acceptable (or dubious foreign not-well-checked) copyright, author translations of their own articles (pre- or post-print, again questionable copyright in the latter case) from non-English-language peer-reviewed journals, academic book chapters (the article-collection-type) (typically a preprint form when posted on ResearchGate, but not always), technical reports, think tank and NGO reports, conference reports, conference proceedings (published or preprint), conference speech transcripts/scripts, and the list goes on. As you can see, you can't determine what kind of document you've got simply by virtue of it being on ResearchGate. Typically you would verify anything you see on there that the institution and/or author exist independently, and if the article was officially published elsewhere eventually, you would put that in the citation information and then link the ResearchGate article as a free unofficial alternative for convenient verifiability. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The Toronto Sun is not a reliable source

The toronto sun is not a reliable source for citation because of disinformation here are some examples of disinformation: https://north99.org/false-story-about-protests https://nowtoronto.com/lies-about-climate-change-and-astrology https://rabble.ca/politics/spreads-astrology-lies And here's them promoting astrology (which is fake) which they seem to do every week or month: https://torontosun.com/life/horoscopes/daily-horoscope-for-sunday-june-12 https://torontosun.com/news/national/astrological-predictions-for-2021-the-year-of-the-ox https://torontosun.com/advice/?amu=/last-word-in-astrology/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiERRa662 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• It depends - The TS is a tabloid, and like other tabloids should be used with caution. That said, a lot depends on what topic area we are talking about. For example, I suspect they are quite reliable in their sports coverage. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  "Tabloid" just refers to how a newspaper folds its pages, as opposed to broadsheet. It does not in itself reflect on a paper's quality, apart from a reputation kicked off at the start of the 20th century by association/exclusion. It's sort of like asserting that "news presented at primetime should be used with caution [as opposed to news presented in the afternoon]". SamuelRiv (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  @SamuelRiv: the Toronto Sun is both a tabloid in the sense of format and tabloid in the tabloid journalism sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  This needs to be specified every time. I'm thinking the word should just be scrubbed from RSP since I've seen it get confused many times, especially for some major newspapers, especially when an inverse notion of "broadsheet-quality journalism" is simply laughable. (Unfortunately our article on the history of journalism is just a love-fest that omits the part of the 20th century that makes today's "fake news" seem like clerical typos.) SamuelRiv (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Tabloid is in common usage to refer to the idea of sensationalism and so on. In the digital era, this meaning is more common than the other usage. We can't prescribe language within such narrow bounds. Tabloidism is indeed a good descriptor in some cases, like the NY Post. I don't know whether the Toronto Sun is or not, but I do believe we can allow usage of this term in discussions. Andrevan@ 17:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have found the Toronto Sun to give reliant info on things like weather and natural disasters and they do seem to be held to a standard because they are a member of the National Newsmedia council. But I would agree that this is the wrong discussion page to be speaking on this to begin with. Funk7 (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Read the notice at the top of this page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The Toronto Sun is a reliable source and most of its news articles are taken from wire services such as CP and Reuters. Lots of newspapers have or had astrology sections. Jeanne Dixon for example was syndicated across numerous newspapers, including the Toronto Star. While it is published in tabloid format, it isn't the National Enquirer or even the UK's Sun. It is owned by Postmedia, which publishes respected Canadian titles such as the National Post and the Ottawa Citizen.

I would like to see some actual third party criticism of its news coverage before discussing its reliability.

TFD (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• If the Toronto Sun isn't reliable, then the Toronto Star is equivalent to The National Enquirer. At least the Sun is able to label its opinions as such. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed RFC on talk page: Newsweek (please critique formatting)

Posting this here to see if it would be a valid RfC.

---

Should Newsweek news articles be considered generally reliable?

Particularly because of their willingness to obtain translated sources and social media sources, which I would compare to The Daily Dot, which is marked green and reliable, as well the presence of a number of well-researched articles despite a "clickbait name" is comparable to BuzzFeed News, which is marked green and reliable in WP:RSPSOURCES.

The WP:NEWSWEEK policy is often a part of talk page debate. For opinion articles it seems this should mostly follow WP:NEWSOPED, as it does for editorials by other outlets.

1. Upgrade to Generally Reliable for factual reporting
2. Slight Upgrade to Generally Reliable for factual reporting, Recommend Attribution
3. Status Quo to maintain present situation; Consensus is to evaluate content on a case-by-case basis
4. Downgrade to Questionable for factual reporting
5. Deprecate entirely as Generally Prohibited

---

This would be the RfC, just want to make sure this follows the format.

The "Slight Upgrade" is included because of the complexity of the existing WP:NEWSWEEK policy.

Feel free to make any suggestions on edits.

Rauisuchian (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

A RfC has to be brief and neutral. Stating:

Should Newsweek news articles be considered generally reliable? Particularly because of their willingness to obtain translated sources and social media sources, which I would compare to The Daily Dot, which is marked green and reliable, as well the presence of a number of well-researched articles despite a "clickbait name" is comparable to BuzzFeed News, which is marked green and reliable in WP:RSPSOURCES. appears to me like you support an upgrade. That is perfectly fine to include in the survey or discussion sections but I suggest you leave it out of the original prompt. Also, there is currently a RfC on The Daily Dot split between Option 1 and 2. VickKiang (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• The basic question should simply be “Should Newsweek be considered generally reliable?” and the 4 options. The two paragraphs explaining why you are asking are potentially argumentative, and so should be included as the first comment under either the “survey” or the “discussion” sub-heading. Blueboar (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Worth addressing the previous RFCs in the discussion. Why a change from the previous results? - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • In the discussion (but not the question itself) it may be worth noting that our current assessment of Newsweek talks a lot about how it has clickbait headlines… however, that focuses on something that would not be reliable anyway. ALL headlines (regardless of the news outlet) are considered unreliable. Our assessment should be based on Newsweek’s actual reporting (ie the factual accuracy of the body of its articles), not its headlines. So … even if we maintain status quo, we should probably rewrite the assessment. Blueboar (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• I will regard it as a bad RfC in any case, but the standout wording is "The WP:NEWSWEEK policy ...". It is not a policy. It is part of an essay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Moving RFCs for RSP to another page

The regular Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard page is just too big for people to read. It's big enough that some people will have trouble even loading the page, especially on a smartphone. As of last December, a quarter of the English Wikipedia's editors were mobile-majority editors. I don't expect those numbers to have gone down significantly when we get the next update of mw:Neil's spreadsheet (probably in a month or so).

I think the easiest way to reduce the volume on this page is to move the RFCs for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to another page. It could be a special-purpose page (perhaps Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Votes), or it could be separate pages for each RFC (e.g., Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Fox News), or it could be the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources talk page (since the goal is to update that page).

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, since I believe a better way to reduce page size is to discourage the RfCs. Unfortunately RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs failed in July 2019, but I'm hopeful that as time goes on more people will realize how bad the concept is. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Not having so many RFCs would also be effective, but since we apparently can't have that (yet, anyway), then why not move them to a separate page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Because (in my opinion only) that encourages proliferation. If my postbox is getting full of junk, then yes I can add a new box, but I think most people would prefer to put a little note on the original one saying "no flyers please". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Huh. I expected to get complaints that putting these repetitive RFCs on a separate page would amount to "hiding it" in an "unpopular" or "underwatched" location, but you have surprised me. Thanks for expanding my view of the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Something to possible add to the header or the editnotice?

this is where I drafted it (feel free to edit it). The notice is meant to tell people to get evidence before downgrading a source. Thoughts? 137a (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there consensus for this?

Regarding this recent edit to the header, is there consensus for this? This isn't really a user behavior board, so seems a bit odd to add this. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems inappropriate to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not incorrect, and there's been a fair bit of not doing this. Seems a very loud statement though - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus? None that I have seen. I do think it's good manners to notify any editor when a discussion involves them. Though usually have seen a ping as sufficient for this purpose. Slywriter (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree on the good manners (with limited exceptions). I don't think that etiquette applies here more than it does on any other project discussion page. I would favor removing the notice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed for now. Thanks all for the feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

CBS News

I was surprised that CBS News does not have an entry on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I did a simple search of this notice board and did not find an RFC on it, though I did find it was used as an example of an obvious RS by multiple users. Would it be appropriate to start a process to evaluate and add it to the perennial source list? It would seem to me to be of similar reliability to its peers NBC News and ABC News (American Broadcasting Corporation) which are listed. --Noren (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of Perennial Sources isn't to be an exhaustive list of sources one can use, but rather a list of sources that have been challenged or discussed in the past, and the outcome of those discussions. Zaathras (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It would seem to me to be of similar reliability to its peers NBC News and ABC News -- Probably it seems like that to everyone, so no one ever cared to discuss it. Endwise (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur that CBS is generally reliable. Andre🚐 16:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally reliable with the same national vs local affiliate split as other major American news orgs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

RfCs not closed

RfCs on The Daily Telegraph, The Times and The Economist attracted dozens of participants over several weeks, but are now archived (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 392 and 393) without having been closed. Is this normal? It feels like a lot of people wasted a lot of time. EddieHugh (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not normal, they must be restored from archive and closed. Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It is normal, it happens all the time. If you really believe that then go restore literally hundreds if not thousands of conversations from the archive so that they can be closed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A how-to statement is in "Continuing discussions". There has been argument about specific situations in the past, my own take is that the discussion here was "concluded" and therefore should not be revived. I once asked about procedure, the reply was here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@EddieHugh, Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Closing the discussion says: "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance" (emphasis in the original).

If you can't figure out the result on your own, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Closure requests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@EddieHugh: I and two other users have already requested closure for the three RfCs. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello , Need Help Verifying Sources.

Are These Sites Reliable?

https://muslimskeptic.com/

https://muslimmatters.org/ BB10000 (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliable for what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

No, they're just opinionated blogs, not news. Zaathras (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Use In General On Islam. BB10000 (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Also , How Are These Bolgs? BB10000 (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry , Blogs. BB10000 (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

They just, um, are? It is just the opinion of some random writers, not journalists working for a recognized media outlet with a history of fact-checking, reliability, and accuracy. Looking back at your history, you edit-warred extensively last June, and were warned about adding your personal interpretation about the Quran to Wikipedia articles. What has changed from then to now? Why are you asking about the same websites you brought up then? What has changed, and what do you feel will be different now? Zaathras (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I Left The Country On Vacation And Came Back. Since Then I Was Planning On Getting The 2nd Sources , But Are An Arabic. The Sites Already Have Research Translated And Explained. Also , The Websites Are Not News Sites. Both Deal With Topics Of Islam. BB10000 (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they deal with the topic. As do many other websites, of varying credibility. Which is why we require (particularly for contentious questions) evidence that sources being cited meet our requirements. Are they widely cited as credible sources elsewhere? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia? Or Other Sites? BB10000 (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

No. Not on Wikipedia. In credible media organisations. In academia. In contexts where expert opinion on the subject matter is being sought. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry , The Site Muslim Skeptic Is Partly A News Site. It Also Has Research Aspect. BB10000 (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Both Sites Have Writers That Are Cited. Like Yasir Qhadhi and Jonathon Brown on One And Daniel Haqiqatjou On The Other. BB10000 (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Cite by who? For what? Provide some links please, so we can make an assessment. And then give a clear explanation as to what exactly you are proposing to cite these websites for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Timcast

We should ad this website to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Website link [14] Zyxrq (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSP is for sources that have been perennially discussed. As far as I can tell from the WP:RSN archives, Timcast has never been discussed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

This is true, though I think of it as a paradigmatic example of a source which should be deprecated, so it might make RSP someday! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

We're 99% of the way there already I think. A quick insource search shows it linked in only two articles, Pool's BLP, and for some reason as a source in 2022 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there are so many unreliable sources out there that only ones that have (or had before they were purged) significant Wikipedia usage should be included in this list. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

We're 99% of the way there Levivich (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's premature to deprecate. It would be better to take a wait and see approach. I suspect it will be treated like a number of other questionable right wing sources by external sources in the end. However, until we have actual evidence that it's bad we shouldn't preemptively declare it to be. That doesn't mean give it weight but it also means we let external sources rather than our opinions dictate. It also should be based on reviewing actual articles. Springee (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, and not meant as a formal proposal (hence the "someday"). Didn't mean to start a brouhaha! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Gamerant

Good day to everyone.

Pretty new to editing and would like to inquire if this is considered a reliable source [15]https://gamerant.com/loserfruit-charity-stream-kiss/? Especially if i combine it with this as additional citation [16]https://twitter.com/Loserfruit/status/1214101005278695424 Ubdead575 (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Game Rant is owned by Valnet, Valnet properties are iffy on reliability. If this is for a WP:BLP, I would advise avoiding Valnet. For other articles it's more case by case, like you wouldn't use a Valnet article by a freelance writer for a controversial claim, as it would likely be WP:UNDUE weight, but you might use it if it's the most in-depth coverage of a non-controversial claim. —siroχo 20:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Was planning to use it as ".... was accused by some viewers of exploiting the LGBT community while others defended etc" Cause the article is pretty neutral and gives the views of both sides without favoring one.

Are the tweets considered a reliable source since the tweets are done by the person who the wkikipage is about? The tweets in itself go deeper in on the subject. I would not be adding a definitive fact but would just list both sides their arguments on the wikipage Ubdead575 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

You can read WP:ABOUTSELF for the policy consensus on using the tweets. There are potential issues with relying on a source like Game Rant in a WP:BLP, maybe focus on the subsections WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BLPSOURCES, and WP:BLPGOSSIP. If three years have passed without any further coverage of this incident, is it worth including at all? I haven't investigated this specific instance enough to know the answer. The article talk page might be a place to get a local consensus. —siroχo 21:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

dotesports and ign

Would you consider dotesports and ign reliable sources on articles about content creators? Ubdead575 (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The video game project generally considers both to be reliable, although it's understood that they sometimes post more blog-like content. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Also I just realized you've posted on the talk page, instead of the main RSN. You're not gonna get nearly as many responses here. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Deprecation RFCs and quorums

If Im reading this right, four editors voted to deprecate La Patilla. And one of those was a "generally unreliable or deprecate" vote. And now on the basis of that RFC, this source is verboten, in practice, across the entire encyclopedia? That is insane, and I think we really need to rethink how these RFCs and their consequences are handled. nableezy - 20:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Even with the small amount of attendance, I'm not seeing a consensus for option 4 at all (and I probably would have been a 3 or 4 myself if I had gotten involved in the discussion). I think this RfC close needs to be appealed. An Option 3 close would have been much more defensible. Silverseren^C 20:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The RfC in question was closed only an hour ago. Would it not make sense to take this to a close challenge if you both feel that the close was not an accurate reading of the consensus (or lack thereof)? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I dont really care about this source or this close, I care about the idea that four editors determine site-wide consensus on the usage of a source. nableezy - 21:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree, that is not a good close. Beyond the quality of that closing, I also agree with nableezy's concern regarding the number of participants in a single discussion that now sets the record in stone. When the DM was deprecated there was a long discussion with many participants. I think this speaks to an issue with RSN and reliability discussions since RSP was established. We have moved away from discussions about a particular article supporting a particular claim to very broad discussions with very limited input. It's quite possible someone with a strong understanding of a source simply wasn't following RSN when the topic came up. This is to the long term detriment of Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely. I have previously observed that RSN has mutated from "Is X source reliable to support Y statement in Z article?" to an endless series of malformed RSCs to try to broadbrush ban this or that website or publication. That's not the purpose of RSN or RSP, and it is to the detriment of the project. Banks Irk (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Years of community practice and consensus otherwise say you are incorrect. Andre🚐 04:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you show those consensus discussions? It would be good to see what is actually supported. Springee (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

We did already have an RFC on the existence of deprecation RFCs - David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Nableezy. And it's not just La Patilla. Plenty of sources have been deprecated without a thorough discussion and real consensus. Once I stumbled upon a filter which applied to a source which wasn't even deprecated. The words about the deprecation not being a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation (from Wikipedia:Deprecated sources) are more honoured in breach than observance. The usual status quo bias makes it impossible to ever review any deprecation and the list just keeps growing. Alaexis_¿question? 17:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It was close, but it was between 3 and 4, and much more 4 - rather than, say between 2 and 3. It was close, but I did read the RSN discussion and the previous talk page discussion closely before closing - David Gerard (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

But how does it make any sense to effectively ban a source on the basis of four editors in one discussion? Why not say the obvious, there is no consensus for this source as a whole, or even interest in creating one, and individual citations should be considered individually. nableezy - 21:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard about this source but I think WP:LOCALCON applies here and to all similar discussions; there wasn't enough participation to deprecate this source. BilledMammal (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Except this is not a local discussion - it's a global noticeboard. And there is no minimum quorum for a consensus. Andre🚐 03:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

LOCALCON talks about a limited group of editors. This can apply even at a global board if there is insufficient participation but the question is sufficiently broad, as is the case here. BilledMammal (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a very out of context read. A broad noticeboard to advertise broad participation is what is called for. It does not say anything about a quorum or imply such a thing. If people do not like this close, they should challenge it the normal way. Andre🚐 03:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

By that argument, if just a single person responded to the RfC and voted Option 4, then that would be enough of a consensus to full on deprecate the source? Silverseren^C 03:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Technically, in the old days, someone could just deprecate the source and if enough people saw that and nobody challenged or reverted it, that was as good as a well-attended RFC. Andre🚐 04:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

What planet are you from? --JBL (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm from Wikipedia starting in 2003. Andre🚐 18:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

An impressive resume; oddly you leave out that those 20 years include an almost complete absence from 2010 to June 2022 (< 18 months with > 50 edits, and that's without getting into details), and that your first edit to RSN was in July of last year. So please, cut out the bullshitting and bludgeoning. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You can disagree with me but it's a civility line to accuse me of bullshitting. Nor is bludgeoning accurate. It seems we have roughly a similar number of edits. I have a few more, and have also been here for longer, and I am a a former admin and bureaucrat, so I am allowed to opine here without being hectored or accused. Andre🚐 17:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

A broad noticeboard to advertise broad participation is what is called for. Can you explain how you came to that limited interpretation? It is not an interpretation that I agree with; a broad noticeboard discussion with minimal participation, whatever the reason for the minimal participation, still lacks the broad consensus required for a change like this. BilledMammal (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That is a reason to challenge the close, but it is not the existence of a quorum requirement. Andre🚐 04:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

If this - functionally, a quorum requirement - is a valid reason to challenge a close, then doesn't that demonstrate the existence of a quorum requirement? BilledMammal (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a reason to challenge, but not an automatic reason to overturn. It requires discretion. Again, there is no quorum. You may challenge for insufficient participation, but there is no hard minimum number, just like consensus isn't a specific % of supermajority. Andre🚐 18:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• I can’t speak to this specific source, but as to the general principal: I don’t think an RFC with only 4 participants is enough to deprecate any source. I would not even use such a limited discussion to determine that a source is “generally” reliable/unreliable. At most, such a limited discussion should only be used to determine that “Source X does not reliably support statement Y in article Z”. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly, there is no possible way that four people represent a community consensus on this or any other topic. nableezy - 14:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know of an RfC with only four participants. In this specific one RfC: Reliability of La Patilla I count (perhaps wrongly) 13 participants, of whom (as nableezy said) 3 !voted for deprecation and 1 either unreliability or deprecation. So I don't know what the words in David Gerard's closing remarks -- "majority for deprecation" -- refer to. I also don't know what David Gerard's remark "We did already have an RFC on the existence of deprecation RFCs" refers to, though I know about RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Blueboar, Nableezy, Silverseren, Springee et al that there was not consensus to deprecate. As to the number of participants, the WP:BLUDGEONing and proliferation of poorly formed RFCs by one editor probably prevented more editors from participating (I wasn't willing to wade through it); I hope we won't see more of similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Pretty low WP:CONLEVEL for deprecation and even just the objections raised in this discussion are sufficient to cast doubt.Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• There were 12 participants in the RfC. This is more than participated in the RfC's which deprecated Hispan TV (8 participants), New Eastern Outlook (8), News Break (8), Notable Names Database (8), Rateyourmusic, Discogs, and Last.fm (10), The Unz Review (9), Veterans Today (11) and Voltairenet (5). The following comment appears at the top of the noticeboard "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". Burrobert (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  A clear difference would be the amount of support that each of those discussions would have had for deprecation. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  That comment does not appear at the top of the WP:RSN noticeboard but in the essay-class WP:RSP page, added by Feminist on 28 January 2019.Newslinger added on 4 May 2020 a criterion for "qualifying" participants which perhaps-inadvertently excludes people like me. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes you are correct and, therefore, it is not policy. However, it has been sitting on that page for over four years without anyone questioning it, so, in lieu of any specific policy, it is a reasonable guide. On another point, the concerns about the decision are coming from editors who did not participate in the RfC. Are they concerned about:

• The number of participants? As mentioned above, there was a higher participation in this RfC than many other similar ones.
• The number of votes to deprecate? Voltairenet was deprecated by 5 editors. MintPress had 8 voting for deprecation. Two editors voted to deprecate Hispan TV and a further four voted for option "3 or 4". Seven editors voted to deprecate New Eastern Outlook and News Break. Six editors voted to deprecate Unz. Two or three editors voted to deprecate Taki's Magazine.
• The proportion of votes to deprecate in relation to the number of RfC participants? Taki's Magazine was deprecated by two or three editors from the 13 who commented on its reliability. Some of the votes were ambiguous.
• The cogency of the arguments used by both sides of the discussion? No one has mentioned this as a reason for questioning the RfC outcome. Burrobert (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Any of the RFCs that have a handful of users claiming to represent a community wide consensus on a topic such as can such and such source be used anywhere on Wikipedia should be thrown out wholesale, and if there is not enough participation in an RFC to actually determine a Wikipedia-wide consensus then the result should simply be there is not enough interest to determine consensus and individual citations should be discussed individually until and unless there is enough participation to determine such a consensus. nableezy - 16:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• That close should be overturned, and if there are similar low-attendance deprecation RfCs being cited as precedent those need to be looked at as well. Not healthy for Wikipedia to have so few determine what sources so many can use. – Teratix ₵ 16:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• I suggest that further discussion on overturning this close take place at the proper venue where a formal challenge has begun. I oppose and suggest we should put the kibosh on any wider discussion on quorums, the process of deprecation more generally, and RSP/RSN more generally. As has been repeatedly established, these noticeboards DO enjoy a strong amount of consensus support from the community, do serve as suitably general and open fora for discussion, and it is entirely possible to come to a global consensus to deprecate or downgrade bad sources. You may of course at any time, within reason, start a new discussion to re-upgrade what you perceive to be unfairly maligned sources. As far as the text on the RSP itself, it is a summarization of consensus but the text itself has been seen as essay-level, not policy-level, but still enjoys a good deal of community support and accurately summarizes, and links to, other consensus discussions which do indeed hold force of policy across the encyclopedia. Andre🚐 21:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't, though — a great deal of the "consensus" links from RSP link to archived conversations where three people said "looks good" or "sux". I've noted a couple of these below. jp×g 22:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• I think that a broader discussion may be due on the viability of "generally reliable", "generally unreliable", or "deprecated" determinations (note that WP:DEPRECATED and WP:RSP are neither policies nor guidelines) being carried out sitewide through local consensus on one noticeboard/WikiProject among, in most cases, a couple dozen regulars. Here we have one example of a "sitewide consensus" being reached by thirteen people, but the RSN archives have many more: it is the rule, rather than the exception. Here we have a 2019 RfC on Bustle, an RfC with a dozen comments; here we have a 2011 RSN section about TechCrunch and Engadget, with a whopping nine comments from four people. Here we have a section about Inter Press Service with six comments from three people. Why on Earth would this somehow be more rigorous, or of greater value, than individual discussions about the use of these sources with respect to specific claims, on the talk pages of individual articles where they're used as references? Sure, there are some websites so bad they are never appropriate to be used as references apart from WP:ABOUTSELF, and they pose such a problem that that it warrants overriding our normal editorial processes to get them out. But I think there is a problem with the kind of bureaucracy here — rather than a centralized discussion about the merits of references and sources, the noticeboard has become sort of a self-appointed judicial body for determining which entire websites are good and bad, in a way that upends the normal way articles are sourced. jp×g 22:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's actually the epitome of decentralized WP:NOTBURO because all discussions are decided by consensus, and the mechanisms are designed to empower decentralized decision making. You've chosen a few thin examples that may be due for revisiting. But a better example, and the one that most people are thinking about, is WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. So, I suggest you consider about what is more bureaucratic: insisting on rigor and formality, which is anti-wiki in my view for any number of reasons, or accepting that things on Wikipedia are sometimes fast and loose by design. Andre🚐 22:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Fast and loose by design should not result in blanket bans throughout the encyclopedia. Four people are enough to ban a source in an encyclopedia? You think that makes sense? nableezy - 23:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I do think it's fine. I don't see a problem in this case. I'm focused on outcomes. I think this was the right outcome. I wasn't involved in the discussion but I think deprecation is appropriate for situations like this. What do you think of jc37's idea below? Andre🚐 23:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• (looks around) Interesting noticeboard here. As a noticeboard focused on a particular topic, I think it's just fine as a venue for much of what seems to be being discussed in this discussion. The crux here, I think, is that there is a difference between "some" and "none". I can understand that the "none" of "not any", is concerning to some individuals. How about this for a solution? Just mandate that "deprecation" can only happen to a source that's already been determined to be "generally unreliable"? I think that this would provide - what appears to be, much wanted - clarity in the process. - jc37 23:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  While I don't see a problem with the current system, I think this is a productive proposal for a compromise solution, so I'll support it in the interest of that. Andre🚐 23:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's a good idea. I also agree with JPxG that it would be much better if the discussions were about specific claims, rather than about sources in general, as originally intended ("Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context."). I think the discussions would be much more constructive if the stakes were smaller. I don't know how to reconcile it with the history of RfC and the classification we have now though. Alaexis_¿question? 07:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  That I do not agree with, and is not a compromise at all, but throwing the baby and bathwater out. Andre🚐 08:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'd suggest that RSN should require that no RFC be started on a source until there have been at least three "normal" discussions of the "is X source reliable in Y article for Z statement" formulation. Banks Irk (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Where is the correct venue to raise a question about the standards for deprecation and possibility removing deprecation from the typical RfC list? Springee (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • An RFC on RSN (as you've been told a number of times) - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    Where have I been told this a number of times? Springee (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    Try and amend/upgrade Wikipedia:Deprecated sources might be an alternative? Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    As it says at the top, WP:DEPS is an information page. A change to deprecation procedure will need an RFC - David Gerard (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Well, if you're thinking of proposing a change or removal of the WP:RSN header that recommends "a common format for writing the RfC question", then I guess the precedent is RfC: Header text which was on WT:RSN. But if you're thinking of proposing a change to wording of WP:RS itself, then I guess that belongs in WT:RS since it says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources page." If you're talking about the wording of RfCs in general, then another choice is to continue the discussion in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources, which is still an open thread. But will your proposal be related to the topic of this thread? I was expecting someone to suggest what a quorum RfC might look like. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of whether sources are independent

Is this the correct noticeboard to discuss whether sources are independent? BilledMammal (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that reliability has close ties with independence - sure, why not. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Rephrase edit notice

The edit notice of WP:RSN is misleading. The part where it says Before starting an RfC gives an impression that all discussion here needs to be a RfC. I have fallen victim to this too, so I think it should be rephrased to If you want to start a RfC. This does not give an impression that RfC are somehow mandatory in this noticeboard. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It does? that is not how I read it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's why the page gets so many out of the blue RFC's. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

exactly Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Agree it needs changing. Bon courage (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Ainsley Earhardt birth date and age and birth year

https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/happy-birthday-ainsley-earhardt-131327508.html Hi, I was wondering if this reliable source of Ainsley Earhardt birthday article is reliable and if I can use this for her infobox? Asking for help on reliable sources, and someone suggested I go to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. They said I could use the link that I copied and paste on here, and it looked ok to use. Should I use the link above, and put WP:RS? I know the template for the date of birth, and was wondering if Yahoo is a reliable source. The source comes from Fox and friends, and it’s a tv show but not sure if it’s a reliable one. Thank u, and I’m really sry. Dandielayla (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This page (the talk page) is to discuss issues about the noticeboard. Your question should be posted on the noticeboard itself (WP:RSN). Feel free to delete your message and my reply then copy your message to the noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, and how do I delete the message and ur reply? I will copy my message to the noticeboard, and see if they respond. Thank u, and I’m really sry. Dandielayla (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Ainsley Earhardt birth date birth year and age WP:RS

https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/happy-birthday-ainsley-earhardt-131327508.html Hi, I was wondering if this reliable source of Ainsley Earhardt birthday article is reliable and if I can use this for her infobox? Asking for help on reliable sources, and someone suggested I go to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. They said I could use the link that I copied and paste on here, and it looked ok to use. Should I use the link above, and put WP:RS? I know the template for the date of birth, and was wondering if Yahoo is a reliable source. The source comes from Fox and friends, and it’s a tv show but not sure if it’s a reliable one. Thank u, and I’m really sry. Dandielayla (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Also asked on the project page. Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, and I asked on the project page Dandielayla (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

When to open source assessment RfC's

A year ago, I made this edit to the header, instructing editors to only open an RfC if the source has been subject to perennial discussion. It was reverted for procedural reasons, but I still believe it is a good idea; if sources have not been subject to perennial discussion then we likely don't need broad and overly-constraining rules about how to use it; it can be assessed on a case-by-case basis. BilledMammal (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's becoming a plague. Please can we do something to stop it? Bon courage (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I've boldly implemented it. If reverted again we can go through a more formal process of proposing it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree 100%. These endless RFCs about sources that have never been previously discussed are absurd and a nuisance. This instruction is entirety consistent with the more general requirements for starting a RFC, and should apply with full force at RSN. Banks Irk (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Also support this as an issue that needs to be addressed. Springee (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I support this strongly. Overall, I think we need to break the habit of labeling sources as generally "reliable" and "unreliable" and making specific decisions based on those general demarcations. We need to start doing the work of actually assessing local reliability on a case-by-case basis. @BilledMammal's modest proposal is a step in the right direction. Pecopteris (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem seems to have got out of hand recently, so I definitely support anything to try and reduce it. I think the header could do with complete reformatting, it's become bloated other time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

+1 Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Dexerto archived without RfC close

I don't know the standard procedure, but can this thread be un-archived so it can be closed properly? Alyo (chat·edits) 15:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Was this taken care of? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_416#Dexerto. --Hipal (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes it was, thanks for checking in! Alyo (chat·edits) 04:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Cutting most of the header

There're several problem with the notice board header. It's bloated, contains overly detailed instructions (which are likely to just be skipped), has multiple points about RFC, and other redundant boxes and text.

1. Are a box to purge the page or the Cent box really necessary?
2. Pointers to other noticeboards are all well and good, but they are ignored by those they'd help and unnecessary for those that don't need them.
3. Overly detailed instructions on what to include in your post is read by no-one, as proved by every thread. Simpler cut down instructions may actually be read.
4. Instructions on how to setup and RFC should just be cut. Editors who don't know how to setup an RFC are unlikely to be setting up an appropriate RFC.
5. Both new and more established editors seem to have odd ideas about RSN. The text While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy could do with being a bit more prominent.
6. The formatting is mangled on narrow screens.

I'm not technically adapt with the relevant markup, but I've mocked up something to show my points here. I wanted to merge the archive boxes at the end into the "Search the noticeboard archives" box, but it's beyond me.
Suggestions, criticisms, and edits to the mock up would be warmly welcomed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinging BilledMammal, Bon courage, Banks Irk, Springee, Selfstudier as you where part of the discussion above. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm all in favor of cutting this down to simplify and increase the odds that editors actually read it. All of the points are good ones. I'm a big fan of point #3 of the XYZ formula that I often repeat, but it's probably going to be ignored just like the current version, which is basically the same thing. Banks Irk (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  We're all flooded by messages and warning in modern life, to the point they are just ignored. My thoughts were that by minimising it editors might actually feel like it could be worth reading. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree 100%. Minimizing instructions increases the likelihood that they'll be read and followed, but by no means guarantees it. Banks Irk (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not certain this change will fix the problem but it seems at least to be a reasonable try. That said, I would suggest posting the proposed text/changes here first. Springee (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  I mocked up an idea of how it would look here. I thought posting the whole header into the talk page might be a bit much. The mock up isn't a complete but gives an idea of what I suggest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  That does reduce the length but I think I missed how that would address the concern about too many RfCs. Am I not following this correctly? If the intent is to cut things down then add some sort of statement about "before RfC do X" (not saying to phrase it that way) then I think this is moving in the right direction. I would suggest getting more eyes before making any changes because this is a high traffic notice board but many may not notice this discussion. Springee (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  My intent was to remove all mention of RFCs. Most of these seem to come from new(ish) editors, and I'm guessing the one bit of the header they read are the parts about RFCs. Editors who already know about RFCs don't need instruction on how to set one up. Any advice on how to garner more attention? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I see your intent. I'm not sure that's better than a prescriptive instruction but given the length in question perhaps you are onto something. As for getting more traction, I would suggest adding a notice on RSN (non-talk), VP-(not sure which one), perhaps RS-talk? Springee (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's got to be worth a try, at least. We seem to have had loads of unnecessary and badly-formed RFCs recently. I don't see anything obvious that your mockup is missing which I think desperately needs inclusion Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Three cheers for fewer RfCs. As a suggestion: Keep all the instructions but put them behind a hard-to-find link. For people who have trouble remembering how to do things. For sure, though, when it comes to something you want people to read, an uncluttered and simple layout will greatly improve the odds of it being read. Elinruby (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a good idea! I'd keep just the instructions (#3 in your list) after trimming them a bit. Hopefully once the other stuff is removed they will be more prominent and more users will follow them.

The rule about an RfC needed to deprecate or "gunrel" a source needs to be *somewhere*, either here or in WP:RS. Alaexis_¿question? 09:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have some text for the instructions you think would work?

I'm wondering if how RFCs for sources should be handled, including deprecation, the standing of WP:RSP, etc might be better handled in an essay that could be linked from the header. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• These all look good; we could try this as proposed as a first step, and if the RfCs don't slow down in the next, say, two months, we could add concise wording similar to: "Do not start an RfC unless a source has been repeatedly discussed before on this page." DFlhb (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• Edward-Woodrow I cut the floating templates as they end up like this on mobile. The issue is that templates such as {{not a forum}} don't dynamically resize, so the auto-formatter can't handle them correctly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need {{notaforum}}? I don't see many forum-esque posts here, and it is overly prominent compared to other elements. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I think that the notaforum template could be dropped. Banks Irk (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the box, and replaced it with a bulletin point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I generally support the trim but I oppose removing the text to the effect of Requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles, should be registered here using {{rfc|prop}}. These RfCs should only be opened if a source has been subject to perennial discussion. As usual with RfCs, consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument. It can be made more concise, though, and more descriptive. Andre🚐 18:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

How about

RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been subject to perennial discussion. RFCs must comply with WP:RFC, including WP:RFCBEFORE. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument.

Banks Irk (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering if an essay for RSN might be an idea. How and when RFCs should be used, what the generally reliable, marginally reliable, unreliable, deprecated mean and how and when they should be used, common issues (e.g.WP:SPS/WP:UGC/WP:BIASED/WP:MEDRS etc). This could then be linked in the header, rather than trying to put it all in the header directly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of shorter vs longer when it comes to the header, though I do like the idea of something in there right up front that actively discourages RFCs. Banks Irk (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the place to put the "Essay" is in the intro to WP:RSP, along the lines of "if you want something listed here, jump through the following hoops". Banks Irk (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk has a good idea about where to locate the instructions. Please include something like "Add a links to at least three prior discussions of this source. If there haven't been at least three prior discussions, we'll remove your RFC." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

No objection to that. Andre🚐 16:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I love the idea of reducing this, but I think that we've kept more than we need (e.g., RSP is mentioned twice; we don't need to make a big deal about WP:V being a policy and RS being a guideline) and lost the one thing that I have always valued. I think we need to push the idea that WP:RSCONTEXT matters, and therefore you need to show up with:

• the source,
• the article, and
• the sentence/claim under discussion.

Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine is an excellent source, and one that I'd like to see in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, but it is completely unreliable for statements about celebrities, or films, or books, or sports. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Part of the problem is how to state this simply without many caveats. Having a lot of bolded bullet points just ensures they are not read. RSCONTEXT is key but a simple one or two line explanation is required that can direct new users to supply the details required. I've tried adding such into the first box, replacing a sentence that half covered the same details.

Andrevan and Banks Irk I've done something similar for the RFCs, but folded the second sentence into the first (so the WP: links appear as normal text).

Link to the mock-up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It generally makes sense, but I would add something to the effect of "You can also start a general discussion about whether a source is reliable" since that is something that is permitted in the current iteration. Andre🚐 21:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I've made changes to the wording, and invite others to review. DFlhb (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the changes, much easier wording.
Andrevan I think editors will do this anyway. It's certainly allowed, and although context is key it's not always necessary to have all three point (you can't use forum posts about the validity of vaccines it doesn't matter what article, you can't use a blogpost not written by the subject in a BLP regardless of the claim). Also it's helpful to remember that many posts are editors asking for advice, so pointers on how to identify a reliable source might be the right answer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I like these edits. Banks Irk (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• I was intent on boldly implementing the changes, but the results aren't correct. I'll work on the mockup to sort out what's wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the previous header was created in 2012 after much discussion with the goal of keeping the instructions simple and clear as possible using minimal text and careful selection of bolding and colors.[17] At the time, it contained 177 words (1,768 characters). It appears that over time, it suffered from scope creep until it reached 485 words (3,109 characters).[18] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Changes to the header

Having fixed a formatting issue. I've boldly made the changes to the header discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Good job!Banks Irk (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Next I'm going to look at at the edit notice. It has the same overly detailed instructions, and on mobile most of them don't even display. First pass at a mock-up is here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm also wondering if it's possible to change the box for the archives search to eliminate the long list of every archive page. It seems to be that it's pretty useless and takes up a lot of room especially on mobile. Banks Irk (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It should auto-collaspe, is it not for you? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at the current header on an Android phone running Chrome. The long list of archive pages doesn't collapse below the archives search box. Banks Irk (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added nomobile to the archive list, so I think this should now be fixed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Also any issue if I move this to the section above, as this is about the header rather than the edit notice.

(I did this) -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggested changes to the edit notice

The current header can be seen here:
Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Following the changes to the header I'd like to suggest changing the edit notice as well. It currently consists of the detailed instructions the header had, and instructions on RFCs. It suffers the same points as the header, specifically:

1. Overly detailed instructions on what to include in your post is read by no-one, as proved by every thread. Simpler cut down instructions may actually be read.
2. Instructions on how to setup and RFC should just be cut. Editors who don't know how to setup an RFC are unlikely to be setting up an appropriate RFC.
   

Worse on mobile the details overflow the top of the screen, so only the RFC instructions are actually visible.

As a solution I'm suggesting to replace the current notice with the statements on CONTEXT the new RFCs from the new header, with a new addition covering common questions. The mock-up can be seen here:
User:ActivelyDisinterested/temp2
All comments welcomed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I like it Banks Irk (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Previous instead of previously but overall that is nice and concise, I checked on mobile and the original really is as bad as you say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the change. Springee (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea. I just checked how it looked on my mobile phone and it still doesn't fit on screen. Maybe we can lose the previous RFC note too? Obviously unproper RFCs aren't that damaging, I think. For the avoidance of doubt, I support the change even if the RFC note stays. Alaexis_¿question? 20:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

One major consideration in shortening the header was to actively discourage and limit RFCs. Banks Irk (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If there are no objections by the weekend I'll post a edit request on the template. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

If I were you I would add the MBFC notice:

Do not start discussions just because Media Bias/Fact Check differs with WP:RSP, as MBFC is an unreliable source.

But otherwise great job. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Could we hold of on this for the moment? Although there was a spate of such comments they seem to have died down, and space on the edit notice is limited as discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, ping as I doubt you're watching the thread. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I sympathise with the thought behind the suggestion, but I agree that instances of this have fallen off recently. I would not include this; the impetus for these revisions is shortening and simplifying the notices and instructions. Banks Irk (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see if there is a resurgence of MBFC posts Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• The template is fully protected, so I've made an edit request to implement the new edit notice.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for all your work on this. Banks Irk (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• The new edit notice has been implemented. I've checked that it works on desktop and on mobile using the desktop view but could someone check the mobile view? I have a script that auto-kicks me to the desktop view so I sign out to check the mobile view, but my IP range has been blocked for the next two years. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  It looks perfect in en.m.wikipedia. I'm looking at it in Chrome on an Android phone. Banks Irk (talk)` Banks Irk (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Banks Irk, hopefully with that this is done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Jacobin

Kind regards. I'm starting this discussion following the advice of the closing statement of the last Jacobin RfC, which said that a separate discussion could be started.

The main question that I have is how we can address the concerns about the previous discussion closure, as well as questions raised afterwards (such as at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 407#https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea). Since the previous closure was not disputed and I gather that RfCs are the only way to review statements, how can we proceed?

Pinging discussion previous participants: @Banks Irk, Springee, Selfstudier, ActivelyDisinterested, VickKiang, Bobfrombrockley, TarnishedPath, and JPxG:, as well as the closer, @David Gerard: NoonIcarus (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This was closed less than six months ago because it was malformed as nothing whatsoever merited reconsideration of the prior RFC. Let's start with the most basic question at RSN: What specific statement at this source is proposed to be used at what specific article for what specific content? Absent an actual, live, dispute, there is no basis whatsoever to reopen a very recent discussion of the source that was itself malformed. This ain't 'Nam! We have rules. Banks Irk (talk)` Banks Irk (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there a live issue concerning usage of this source? Or has this thread been raised to attempt to re-litigate previous discussions? TarnishedPath^talk 01:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies on not being familiar with the material in question; what are the concerns? jp×g🗯️ 01:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I see now that this is the talk page for RSN, which causes this to make a little more sense. I suppose the issue at hand is how RSN itself works. Still, I am not quite clear on what it means to address concerns in this context; do you mean to dispute the closure, to discuss it in general, or what? jp×g🗯️ 01:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This being the talk page, makes more sense now. I was wondering where all the threads disappeared to. Like you @JPxG, I'm a bit perplexed what concerns are to be addressed here absent a live issue. TarnishedPath^talk 02:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The concerns are raised here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Jacobin BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

My view, as expressed in the recently closed RSN discussion: I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus.

So, my question would be: does the wording and green colour-coding at RSP best summarise the several in-depth discussions of the source which have occurred at RSN (and not just the very inconclusive RfC)? I don't think it does. Procedurally, can the RSP entry be rewritten slightly to reflect these discussions, or does it require a new RfC? IF it requires a new RfC, then I think we need one. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I think an RfC would be required but WP:RFCBEFORE would need to occur first. I don't really know if there is much to discuss at this point absent a live issue. TarnishedPath^talk 10:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't my wheelhouse so this might be a stupid question, but if it needs an RfC in order for any change to happen, then what would RFCBEFORE consist of? A discussion of whether it's worth proceeding with an RfC? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

No. That's not the way to start. Several people have told you the same thing. The way you start is by asking a simple, direct question at RSN. Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article? Banks Irk (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Allright, here's a recent one. This source has a clear bias, as shown in this article. Should it be used in place of numerous high-quality unbiased generally reliable sources, as in this instance? The introduction of that highly biased source in that context, when other higher quality and non-biased sources are available, is likely to head towards using the source in UNDUE ways in other places. It wasn't used in undue ways in this particular use, but why use it at all when there are unbiased sources that can be used? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

To repeat what I said previously, in the May 2023 RfC, it was speedily closed, but there were a few editors in good standing that felt that a properly held discussion would be welcome i.e., Thebiguglyalien, Generalrelative (no ping),, and there were many who voted generally unreliable and others who voted generally reliable. Of course, that RfC was started purely by a pointy and disruptive OP now blocked indef, so was validly closed, but many suggested a future discussion being beneficial. The examples SandyGeorgia points to above, the Ukraine piece discussed in May, and this piece are specific cases that lend me to want discussion on the reliability of this source as to 1) the reliability of several specific authors that have been mentioned and 2) whether it's suitable for the broader Russo-Ukrainian War issues seems needed (of which I have no opinions on, as I don't frequently edit these contentious topic areas). All of these examples were post RfC (it was first closed in 2021, which was overturned in AN, and then was closed in early 2022, but discussion finished before that), and won't be able to resolved just in individual talk, hence my desure for some more specific discussion. VickKiang (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

FYI VickKiang, this edit did ping me. I'm not actually in favor of additional discussion absent an ongoing content dispute. My point in that previous discussion was that Jacobin should probably be distinguished from its peer-reviewed offshoot Catalyst, which publishes some decent academic work –– albeit always from an anti-capitalist perspective. I agree that the editorial standards of Jacobin proper are abysmal. Generalrelative (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I have amended my comment. VickKiang (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk and TarnishedPath: One of the last issues with the sources is at the National Democratic Institute article (Talk:National Democratic Institute#Venezuela disputed and better source needed for Jacobin???), where Jacobin is used to support the statement that the NGO had an important role in the opposition victory in the 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary election, while omitting crucial events that happened in the years before, such as a chronic economic crisis, widespread shortages of goods and a significant wave of protests, to mention some. I placed a Disputed tag in said section as a result.

Since I didn't start this discussion with a fixed question, I thought that editors could be free to revisit previous discussions, but it has been proven that there are new topics that definitely should be discussed, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Latin America (for instance, I put forward examples of conspiracy theories about Colombia published by Jacobin). The RSP description would definitely benefit from those. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a good example of how it's often not the biased source per se, but editor misuse of the biased source. I wonder how anyone thought that DUE, and what the full context of the NDI self-congratulatory puffery would be if an unbiased source had thought it worthy of reporting on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Per @SandyGeorgia, that appears to be a misuse of a source, rather than an issue with the source itself. We can have editors misuse sources that none of us would ever think were biased. I'm still not seeing a live issue. TarnishedPath^talk 22:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Go try to delete and see how live it becomes; we have boatloads of editors running around adding UNDUE content from biased sources because they've been greenified at RSN, and then creating a ruckus when the UNDUE content is removed. Which is why editors are concerned that the closing statements summarize the state of consensus correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia It's still not about the source per se and an editors misuse of it as I understand it? Unless I've misinterpreted something, that could happen with any source and is more a editor issue than a WP:RSN issue? TarnishedPath^talk 04:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Both: it's an editor education/behavioral issue being furthered by RSN functioning (or misunderstanding of RSN functioning). This behavior is impacting RSN as well as causing POV issues in articles and lengthy talk disputes.

We have seen recurring threads at RSN over the battleground that has been made of Venezuelan articles because editors misuse sources, misunderstand DUE WEIGHT and ONUS, and think that getting a source deprecated or green-lighted governs all use of sources in articles. In a country where there is no free press, we have editors seeking to deprecate all press that is independent of the State-controlled (which is everything in the country, so independent press has all been "exiled"), and elevate all sources friendly to the State, and then using/removing said sources, at times indiscriminately or independently of any other policy. And chastizing/threatening those who remove content that doesn't meet DUE WEIGHT, ONUS or any other policy. The drive behind all of the Venezuelan reliability threads has aimed at removing sources independent from the State, which because of the absence of press freedom are often the best or only sources, and then rework articles to the State-friendly sources promoted via RSN threads. The two examples of use of Jacobin on this page are the tip of the iceberg; they are introduced, then content based on them is expanded, then a fuss is created if the content is removed per ONUS or DUE WEIGHT or any other policy.

(I've not yet commented myself on Jacobin as I haven't had the pleasure of seeing an article from them worth citing-- I've seen the two examples in this section of articles that are so highly biased as to be lies in camoflauge. Were another RSN to be opened, I'd ask someone to show me an appropriate use of this source.) If this is indeed a source which has some use, a) an example would be nice, and b) it is being poorly served by those who are using it in Venezuelan content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I've only really seen Jacobin used in political pages. My experience is with Australian politics (because that's where I'm from). A quick search finds 2,096 articles that it's being used on, and that's a wide variety of political stuff. While I've not liked some of the analysis I've seen in the past and found it a wee bit biased, I've never considered it to be unreliable on the whole.

I really think we need to separate the editor behavioural issues from anything and those should be addressed by those editors involved before we make a mountain out of molehill. Because as far as I'm reading things this is first and foremost an editor issue and that's what should be dealt with. RSN is not the place for editor behaviour issues/education. TarnishedPath^talk 12:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't agree more; it would be helpful if your feedback when these behaviors come before dispute resolution fora lined up with your statements here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia, I'm hoping that you're not suggesting that is not the case. Regardless, I find myself less inclined to engage in dispute resolution fora at present given my recent experiences at AN\I. As far as I'm concerned most of the time it can be someone else's problem. TarnishedPath^talk 15:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

yeah, I closed that discussion because it seemed too many editors just didn't see a live issue since the last RFC. As I suggested in the close, bring a substantive live issue or two. Diffs that couldn't be resolved in talk, that sort of thing - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: Overall I think there's sort of a "RSPitis" issue -- the only possible answers are "green", "yellow" or "red". This creates an absurd situation with outlets like Jacobin, which is "red" in the literal sense that they're reds (their about page says "Jacobin is a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture"). But it is "green" in the sense that its factual claims are generally reliable and it doesn't just make shit up. Meanwhile, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are also green. So, if all we have to go by is the color of the RSP cell (and many people do this), there's basically no difference between these three in terms of which opinions can be cited as generally held, and which should be cited with attribution, et cetera. For example:

Factual claim: In June, British American influencer Andrew Tate was charged in Romania with rape, human trafficking, and forming an organized criminal group to sexually exploit women.

Not a factual claim: For all the hot air spent insisting on the need to cultivate the hypermasculine self, through an attitude of buccaneering individualism and refusal of convention and conformism, these claims amount to meek compliance, comforting illusions, excuses and alibis about an inescapable essence.

Not a factual claim: Improbable though it is, instead of their pursuit of their conception of the good life, obsession with failure, warrior-capitalist boosterism, and bemoaning of a weak and effeminate society, the manosphere’s most prolific spokesmen would do better to pay attention to figures like McCabe and French writer Édouard Louis. [...] Louis, himself brutalized as an adolescent, is an impressive advocate of the popular classes and marginalized.

Would it be acceptable to just write in an article about these people, straightforwardly, that they "pursue warrior-capitalist boosterism"? Of course not. But Jacobin is GREEN!!!!!1111 so we end up with a lot of silly arguments and endless pissing contests at RS/N. Personally, I think that RS/P should be replaced with a simple list of cells that link to RSN discussions and the sources shouldn't be given "ratings". Failing that, I think the cell colors should be abolished, and people should be forced to actually read what the summary says. But who knows: I am just some guy. jp×g🗯️ 22:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes the National Democratic Institute talk page link a little above here is a good example of someone invoking the source’s “Green tick” status without attending to the actual content of the RSP summary. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

An editor could invoke any source's green tick status at RSP as an excuse to misuse the source. That's not an indictment on the source. TarnishedPath^talk 00:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's what I mean: RSP/RSN in their current incarnation actively encourage and enable this kind of nonsense. jp×g🗯️ 01:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Does it? Surely editors need to have common sense and read WP:RS and know that the source they are using must be used in context of the edit being made. Just because it is marked as generally reliable at WP:RSP it is not an excuse to use it to claim things that the source does not say and if they do that is an editor issue not an issue with RSP/RSN. TarnishedPath^talk 04:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

If editors are misusing sources that needs to be dealt with in article talk in the first instance and if necessary at the appropriate board. Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree. None of the examples cited in this discussion involve any actual dispute about reliability of the source or any false or incorrect statement of fact. Until there is live RS issue, a RFC remains premature.Banks Irk (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. TarnishedPath^talk 15:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

But there is. The main example I have provided here cites incorrect causes for an election, and in the previous RfC I included at least three more examples of falsehoods about Colombia (that Colombian paramilitaries were present in the 2002 coup against Chávez, that Colombia supported paramilitary incursions into Venezuela, and that the country actively sought to sabotage and promote a military intervention in Venezuela [19]). --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The 2022 closing was viewed as problematic in large part because it moved the source from RSP yellow to green. This move went unnoticed because the actual closing of the discussion was done within the RSN archive after the discussion had been archived. When this was challenged the consensus was such closures shouldn't happen but due to the time laps the best option would be to redo the RfC. I would say that the problematic "it's green" use of the source is probably a reason to start a new, focused RfC. Instead of running it broadly, focus on if the source should be "green but biased" or moved to "considerations apply". That said, I will echo what Bobfrombrockley said, the 3 color system is a bad system. Virtually all sources will operate on a spectrum and it would be better to simply link to summaries rather than what we have now where editors are incentivized to push for a particular color based on their preference and where "my source is green so it's better than your yellow source" is treated as a valid argument. Springee (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible questions

Reading through the comments, regardless of one's position, I see that the main contention can lie of the RSP descriptions and categories. I've thought that for a RfC to not be so controversial, said statements could be narrowed down to more specific questions. Namely, I've thought about the following statements:

1. Is Jacobin reliable as a source for topics related to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine?
2. Is Jacobin reliable as a source for topics related to Venezuela?

What are your thoughts? Any input is welcomme. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Is Jacobin currently being used in either of those two topic areas which would give rise to such question being asked? Is there a live issue? TarnishedPath^talk 01:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

As I have said four times now, Jacobin is currently used in the National Democratic Institute to back the statement that the NGO was a crucial factor for the opposition victory in the 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary elections, and it is pretty much a live issue. The outlet is also used in Patrick Duddy's article to back the claim that In March 2008 Duddy had requested funding from the United States Agency for International Development and the United States Department of Defense "to influence the information environment within Venezuela", which at the same time uses WikiLeaks as its original source.

Additionally, Jacobin is used in the Zarah Sultana and the Stop the War Coalition articles to defend the position of the organization during the invasion, and is likewise cited in the Proposed no-fly zone in the Russian invasion of Ukraine to back critics of the proposals. From what I can see, the source mentioned in the previous RfC was used in the Russo-Ukrainian War article to change the description "the Euromaidan protests" to "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests". --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue I see with a lot of Jacobin pieces is that they are opinion pieces masquerading as news. The National Democratic Institute and the Stop the War Coalition articles appropriately call that out and specifically say that what is being said is the opinion of the author of the Jacobin article.

I've removed Jacobin from Zarah Sultana and Proposed no-fly zone in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so there's no longer a live issue there.

Is there anything further to discuss? TarnishedPath^talk 01:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe that Jacobin doesn't clearly distinguish opinion articles and news articles, at least for its online version. Basically all articles have an editorial voice instead of being straight news. This isn't a mark of unreliability by itself, and a lot of magazines does this (The Economist, for example, writes exclusively in editorial voice with no byline as its main feature, but is still reliable for facts, and RSP consider it generally reliable with a short disclaimer that The Economist publishes exclusively articles in editorial voice with no byline, with a few featured commentary pieces by pseudonymous bylines), but probably justifies some more caution. IMO, this could be made clearer for Jacobin on RSP, but if there's no consensus for that, starting another RSN discussion seems to be fine. VickKiang (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't really take a university education to get when something is an opinion piece and if editors are using opinion pieces they need to call them out as the opinion of the author. When editors aren't doing as such perhaps it needs to be discussed with them and if they repeatedly do it, then it should be brought before AN/I on the basis of WP:CIR. Editors not property attributing opinion pieces as opinion should not be a RSN thing. TarnishedPath^talk 02:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Sorry, I've been meaning to respond to this. The main issue with the National Democratic Institute article is that no other sources repeat this claim, and I can't even find the original NDI statement, who are supposed to be the ones to be cited for the position. Pinging @Burrobert:, who has opposed the removal, so they can share thoughts.

One of the last things I can point out to is that Jacobin is also used in other articles about Venezuela and about Peru. While most of the times it is used along with other sources, an issue that remains is the characterization used, as mentioned in the case of the Ukraine invasion article, which is directly linked to its bias. For example, Jacobin is used in the Venezuelan opposition article to back the claim that said opposition is "right-wing". Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that string of citations and maintenance tags in Venezuelan opposition is a mess. Ps, Jacobin has been removed from there per WP:RSEDITORIAL. If someone wants to add it back in they need to specifically call out that they are stating the opinion of someone and who that someone is. TarnishedPath^talk 23:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus, more generally I think this needs to be addressed in the articles themselves. As stated by @VickKiang, The Economist writes a lot it's articles in editorial voice and that's not a mark of unreliability by itself. From the examples I've seen so far, where I've removed it, the issue is that Jacobin has been used and its not been stated that its an opinion piece. There has been two examples I've seen where it was clearly stated that it was been used to state an opinion of the author of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 00:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Jacobin is being used on the NDI page for three factual statements:

• After the death of Hugo Chávez, the NDI provided funding and training to the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD) coalition of opposition parties in Venezuela.
• The MUD used the NDI's assistance to create a voter database and target swinging voters through Facebook.
• The NDI said a "determining factor in the success of the coalition in the parliamentary elections of 2015 was a two-year effort prior to the elections to raise awareness, train and align national and regional structures of communication of all the parties that conform the MUD".

These are factual statements, not opinion, and Jacobin is considered generally reliable, so their inclusion in the NDI page seems uncontroversial. Btw, Jacobin does not say that the NDI "was a crucial factor for the opposition victory in the 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary elections". Jacobin says that the NDI made that claim. Whether or not the NDI was a crucial factor is not mentioned in the NDI wikiarticle. Burrobert (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)