Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 31 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Reliability This page is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability

Note: This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the Noticeboard itself. Please post questions or concerns about sources and articles on the main project page: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For the record, the discussion about creation of this noticeboard took place here and here.

Section sizes in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Section size for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (34 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 711 711 Check Your Fact 12,673 34,468 RfC: Check Your Fact 762 21,795 Survey: Check Your Fact 13,898 13,898 Discussion: Check Your Fact 7,135 7,135 RFC: Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS? 1,424 1,424 Indie Vision Music 49,583 73,671 RfC: Indie Vision Music 24,088 24,088 RfC: Al-Manar 1,071 60,798 Survey (Al-Manar) 19,527 19,527 Discussion (Al-Manar) 40,200 40,200 RfC: Times of Israel 1,312 57,458 Survey (Times of Israel) 56,146 56,146 Journal of controversial ideas redux 58,512 58,512 RFC Science-Based Medicine 1,241 53,384 Responses 52,143 52,143 What definition of antisemitism should we require sources to have? 33,577 33,577 I would like feedback on what I feel is a reliable source but others have questioned. 3,023 3,023 Is this article about Wikipedia a reliable source? 14,467 14,467 RfC: Bild 436 14,466 Responses (Bild) 8,000 8,000 Discussion (Bild) 6,030 6,030 Is Power-Technology.com reliable 1,630 1,630 Using Who's Who in American Politics with the caveats of ABOUTSELF? 4,026 4,026 Reliability of Globo 1,071 1,071 Watchtime 920 920 Quartz and AI errors in 2024 articles 1,937 1,937 Killing of Brian Thompson 3,643 3,643 Slate (magazine) and is it reliable? 3,548 3,548 Reconsider ABC News 2,326 2,326 Is the Khan Academy a reliable source for Petra? 3,161 3,161 Moviehole.net (defunct) 2,972 2,972 Dictionary.com 1,477 1,477 This Day on Bella Disu 3,783 3,783 Total 436,453 436,453

This noticeboard has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jasper Jackson (8 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. Will Oremus (9 February 2017). "Wikipedia's Daily Mail Ban Is a Welcome Rebuke to Terrible Journalism". Slate. Kalev Leetaru (10 February 2017). "What Wikipedia's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship". Forbes. Samantha Cole (2 October 2018). "Wikipedia Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts". Vice. Omer Benjakob (9 January 2020). "Why Wikipedia Is Much More Effective Than Facebook at Fighting Fake News". Haaretz. Oliver Darcy (24 July 2020). "Wikipedia administrators caution editors about using Fox News as source on 'contentious' claims". CNN. Nishant Kauntia (30 November 2020). "The Edit Wars: How Wikipedia earned the ire of the Hindu Right". The Caravan. Samuel Breslow (29 September 2022). "Wikipedia's Fox News Problem". Slate (magazine). Asaf Elia-Shalev (18 June 2024). "ADL faces Wikipedia ban over reliability concerns on Israel, antisemitism". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. "Wikipedia declares Anti-Defamation League 'unreliable' on Israel, antisemitism: Report". Middle East Eye. 18 June 2024. "Wikipedia declares ADL 'unreliable' on Israel-Palestine conflict, antisemitism". i24NEWS. 19 June 2024. Josh Marcus (19 June 2024). "Why Wikipedia just labeled a top Jewish civil rights organization 'unreliable' on the Israel-Palestine crisis". The Independent. "Wikipedia labels prominent Israeli civil rights organization 'unreliable' on Israel-Palestine crisis, antisemitism". Arab News. 19 June 2024. Rob Eshman (June 19, 2024). "Wikipedia called the ADL 'unreliable.' It's a wake-up call the civil rights organization badly needs". The Forward. Retrieved June 20, 2024. David Goldman (June 20, 2024). "Wikipedia now labels the top Jewish civil rights group as an unreliable source". CNN. Retrieved June 23, 2024. Daniela Ginzburg (June 21, 2024). "Wikipedia deems ADL 'unreliable' due to Israel advocacy". Jewish News Syndicate. Retrieved June 23, 2024. Aaron Bandler (June 21, 2024). "Wikipedia Editors Label ADL Only Reliable for Antisemitism When "Israel and Zionism Are Not Concerned"". The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Retrieved June 23, 2024. Aya Youssef (June 23, 2024). "Palestine's battle against Zionist editing on Wikipedia". Al Mayadeen. Retrieved June 23, 2024. Rob Eshman (June 24, 2024). "'Does anybody question the NAACP?': The ADL head thinks Wikipedia is biased. Is he right?". The Forward. Retrieved June 25, 2024. Etan Nechin (June 25, 2024). "Leading Jewish Groups Rebuke Wikipedia's 'Attack' on ADL's Credibility on Antisemitism". Haaretz. Retrieved June 25, 2024. "Jewish orgs pen letter to Wikipedia condemning ADL ban". The Jerusalem Post. June 25, 2024. Retrieved June 25, 2024. "'Concern, dismay' by Wikipedia attack on ADL, 43 Jewish groups tell Wikimedia Foundation". Jewish News Syndicate. June 25, 2024. Retrieved June 25, 2024. Shiryn Ghermezian (June 25, 2024). "Jewish Groups Lambast Wikipedia for Its 'Attack on ADL's Credibility' About Antisemitism, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". Algemeiner Journal. Retrieved June 25, 2024. Asaf Elia-Shalev (June 25, 2024). "Wikipedia's operator rebuffs Jewish groups' call to override editors on ADL trustworthiness". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Retrieved June 26, 2024. Ben Brasch (26 June 2024). "Wikipedia defends editors deeming Anti-Defamation League 'unreliable' on Gaza". The Washington Post.

Is user @Samuelshraga: allowed to participate in the RFC on the Jewish Chronicle which revolves around the ARBPIA topic area, considering they are a non-confirmed user just under 500 edits? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the RFC question I'd say that it's borderline. TarnishedPath^talk 12:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't make an issue of it, personally. But I'm not an admin. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there has been a steady decline in the reliability of mainstream-media sources - even once-respected ones like the New York Times and the Guardian - over the last ten years or so. I think it has multiple causes (the decline in revenue of newspapers because of competition from free Web sources; the increased pressure from governments after Snowden) but that doesn't really matter; what does matter is that these sources no longer deserve the deference that Wikipedia accords them.

I don't know what can replace these once-reliable sources. Personally, I look for consensus among individual good journalists who now blog independently, but I can't see how to construct "generally reliable sources" out of that. Desassossego2 (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an evidentiary basis for the "It seems to me"? I usually try to assign zero credence by default to the numerous 'it seems to me' just so stories my brain likes to make up to make sense of complicated things and go and look for the evidence. Either way, the noticeboard is really for specific sources in specific contexts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desassossego2, adding onto what Sean said, do you have any evidence of this happening? — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{【=◈︿◈=】} 11:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC) Slatersteven (talk)[reply]

I have been saying this for years, but short of using academic sources only what do we do? Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, it's either we deprecate the current MSM sources which are considered reliable as unreliable, or we reevaluate the current MSM sources we deem unreliable under the lens of what is currently consider reliable. I don't see either happening though. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I have been saying for years, no use of News as sources, but it ain't gonna swim. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I agree that we should not be using news as RSes for an encyclopedia. If there aren't books from reputable experts or academic publishing about topics then these topics probably aren't encyclopedic in scope. Of course we should also be cautious about "academic" publishing to continue avoiding scam journals which remain a real problem. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we exclude news from RS what persentage of currently notable articles do you think remain notable? 20%? 30%? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it us reestablishing that NOTNEWS is a policy, and that while we encourage editors to keep articles up to date with news, we shouldn't be trying to write these massive dumps of reactions and anysis from the media in the short period after an event, but instead wait for state longterm views take over. — Masem (t) 16:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we do not need an article on ongoing events (for example) we are not a new paper. We can wait until the actauly analysis starts to appear, months (or even years) down the line. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, we are still classifying such sources, if you want to contest the NYT or the Guardian reliability, that can be done, with evidence. A generic discussion like this is unlikely to produce any change in specific classifications.Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think in general journalistic practices in the modern day have declined, due to the collapse of print media and the lower revenues of online publishing. However different publishers are handling this in different ways, some are pushing for subscriptions or have gone completely subscription based, while others have gone for SEO clickbait.

How each source should be handled, and if a particular source needs to be re-evaluated will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis. I doubt relying on blog posts by former journalist is a solution, poor editorial oversight may well still be better than no editorial oversight. And of course academic sources would be preferable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declining relative to what? If every source is worse or more biased, than the most reliable sources are still the most reliable sources. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples don't work... Both the NYT and the Guardian are at all time highs in terms of quality, reliability, and scope. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I notify all the editors who participated in the Jerusalem Post's RFC about new evidence being presented to ask their opinion about it by pinging them without violating WP:CAN? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging admins for their advice @Barkeep49: @ScottishFinnishRadish:. Makeandtoss (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an administrative call or anything, but I'd say that pinging every participant is probably unnecessary. This isn't information that wasn't available when the discussion started, and editors interested in following developments in the discussion will have subscribed or watchlisted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone advise on the usability of material from the above publications. Are they reputable sources in the own right? Thanks, MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might add: for the purposes of BLP. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depends; if it's contentious I would be very wary of doing that - I would say that WP:DAILYMIRROR applies to both titles (they have the same owner). Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm wondering about the material in this article, Simon Weston#Personal life, concerning information about the subject's father, and sourced to the publications in question. Two issues: BLP in itself, and the use of the possibly questionable sources. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BLPSOURCE "material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism" and this info seems quite irrelevant to the subject's life and very tabloidy. Orange sticker (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've removed the contentious material from the Simon Weston article. MidnightBlue (Talk) 09:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably reliable sources for that, but it's almost certainly UNDUE in the article anyway, especially as Weston has been estranged from his father for a long time. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are books published by Facts on File, Inc., considered reliable for use as sources in Wikipedia articles?

On a related topic, does Wikipedia have a list of book publishers with reliability indicated (something like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources)? Eddie Blick (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facts on File is an established textbook publisher. Generally with book publishers a lot of reliability depends on the author but I wouldn't look at a book with that imprint and consider it any sort of red flag. Just keep in mind standard Wikipedia guidance about textbooks. Simonm223 (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Simonm223. I appreciate your response. The one I have looked at seems reliable to me, and I feel better about it after reading your comments. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]