Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Cartoon image near lead

Current leadimage

Alternative?

Another option

Yet another option

I removed the cartoon image near the lead. I think this image is sarcastic and distracting to the point of this article, and takes up a lot of space, especially when you read the page from a phone. Per WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content., so I have removed the image for now. I think it might be better positioned in the beginning of the "Legend", but personally I do not think it is beneficial to the article, even if it has been on this page for 5 years as mentioned by another editor. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's distracting for the point of this project-page, and since it's not an article, there aren't really any rules apart from consensus. Until I see an alternative I like better, I'm at keep it there. Previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/Archive_6#reliable_sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a great example of the dangers of poor sources. American Apple Orchards PAC aka O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't particularly care for the image either and would be fine with its removal. Some1 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not all serious, we're allowed a little bit of humour. Keep or replace with the xkcd. Anarchyte (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This xkcd image is far better than the current image. I would support that as a replacement if outright removal of the current cartoon does not reach consensus. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The image is perfect as is and illustrates clearly that not all sources are equal. Margaret Hamilton next to a stack of code illustrates nothing, and the XKCD one illustrates that sources are needed, not that reliable sources are needed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

But she has surely assembled the good sources! ;) That said, you make sense to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Headbomb that neither of the proposed alternatives are better. I don't have any particular attachment to the current image so if someone can come up with a better alternative I wouldn't mind changing it, but neither of these are. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think no image is the best. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I like having an image, so long as it's material to the text. The use of an image, especially one as pertinent as this one, sets up the content in a helpful way.

The four-panel cartoon is is the only image identified that is material to the text it accompanies: it shows the use of sources, but also that not all sources are reliable. That's the page's entire point.

The Hamilton photo is a great photo, for Margaret Hamilton (software engineer); not so much for this page. It says nothing at all about sources or their quality (except perhaps a pun about source code, which would be too arcane for a large number of non-programming Wikipedia editors who are the target audience for this page). The XKCD cartoon is is about the need for sourcing, and would be fine for WP:Reliable sources or WP:Citation needed; but it makes no point about the reliability of sourcing, so does not carry the point here. So far, the four-panel cartoon is the only one identified that is apt for this page. TJRC (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support removal of the cartoon. Ridicule is not part of the scientific method. The kind of mockery that the cartoon engages in is not helpful in discouraging pseudoscience: [1]. James500 (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  RSP isn't very much about fighting pseudoscience, is it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's very much about fighting it, though it's not its exclusive mission (that would be fighting bad information in general, of which pseudoscience is part of). But this page is also not about changing minds. I couldn't care less about the feelings of WP:LUNATICS offended that no one is taking seriously their claims that water has memory, or that CNN is controlled by reptilians.

  What it's about is explaining and documenting that not all sources are equal. And the cartoon explains that very succinctly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  The cartoon does exactly what @James500says it does which is antithetical to the headline, "The key to fighting pseudoscience isn’t mockery—it’s empathy". The cartoon could not be more mocking if it tried. Thankfully, we are free to remove it in the absence of evident consensus for the image being retained. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  "The key to fighting pseudoscience isn’t mockery—it’s empathy" That's one opinion, and it certainly isn't universal. Moreover the point of the cartoon is to illustrate that not all sources are equal, and that if you bring a non-reliable source, people will ignore it, and rightfully so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  The cartoon does not explain "that not all sources are equal". The cartoon does not say that any sources are reliable. The cartoon does not explain which sources are unreliable, or what they are unreliable for, or why they are unreliable. The cartoon does not say whether there is any difference between being unreliable and being less reliable, and does not admit that uncertainty sometimes exists. The cartoon does not explain that a source may be reliable for some things even though it is unreliable for others. The hypothetical source described in the cartoon bears no resemblence to most of the sources listed at RSP. There are no ancient books that claim that apples cause cancer. RSP should not include jokes about the World Elephant or (even if only by implication) the World Turtle. I do not think that showing that cartoon to someone who "brings" an unreliable source is going to help to convince them or anyone else it is unreliable. I think it is more likely to cause offence and prolong disputes. And individuals who cannot be reasoned with need to be blocked, not insulted with a cartoon. James500 (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  @James500 makes some excellent points about how the cartoon is actually potentially offensive, in addition to being unnecessary and in no way actually clearly didactic. I had not considered the offensive nature of the cartoon, and it is with this added reason that I see the building consensus for removal is becoming even more compelling than I had initially expected. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  It is a good illustration for WP:AGEMATTERS. For an article about perennialy unreliable sources, not so much. Would it be a COPYVIO to use the front page of this article from The Sun (UK, Murdoch stable, now there's a surprise): Freddie Starr ate my hamster. Fair use? It is the archetypal example regularly cited in UK commentary, though there are more egregious examples. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not a bad idea, but would fail the strict demands of WP:NFCC/WP:NFCI. Got anything good pre-1929? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I found a sort-of-alternative which I added, but IMO it doesn't really fit. This is more an example of "Even generally reliable sources sometimes get it wrong." I wonder if they published a redaction? JMF's example is a much better fit, arguably even fake news per "The man behind the hamster story was the British publicist, Max Clifford, at that time Starr's agent, who concocted the story as a practical joke." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced it's really illustrating WP:AGEMATTERS. Yes, the books is described as ancient, but "apples cause cancer" isn't a previously-respectable but outdated theory.

  As for a non-free image: per WP:NFCC#9, non-free images are only permitted in articlespace. Suggesting non-free images here is an absolute non-starter. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Quote from book: "Put ye sliced apples on a beach, and behold, crabs shall appear!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I do not see how WP:AGEMATTERS really applies here as well. Also, it looks like some people want the image removed, some don't really care, others want a new image, but there is no consensus to keep the existing image. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  I see strong support for keeping it from:

  • Objective3000 "American Apple Orchards PAC aka O3000, Ret"
  • Headbomb
  • TJRC

  And weak support from:

  • Gråbergs Gråa Sång
  • Anarchyte
  • Caeciliusinhorto-public

  Solomon Ucko (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  No consensus to change = no change. Basic wikipedianism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Support removal and inclusion of second alternative. It's supposed to be a witty cartoon, but really isn't that funny or relevant to the source list that intends to be a more formal summary of source reliability. The cartoon in question would be better suited for WP:RS or WP:FRINGE rather than this list of perennial sources, specifically the latter. The second alternative (Margaret Hamilton) is a lot more relevant, as it indirectly represents the concept of "stacking" source discussions from an enormous archive, which is very much reflective of this project page and purpose. Will have a search on commons and see if I can find any more alternatives. CNC (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Support removal. As the kids say, the current image is pretty cringe. I'm not sure having an allegedly funny image in the lede contributes anything. Apocheir (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment None of the alternative images seem compelling. Margaret Hamilton standing next to papers doesn't tell us anything. The Wikipedian protestor comic is actually kind of funny, but it's about a lack of sources at all rather than unreliable ones. The Dewey Defeat Truman press photo is pretty exclusionary to anyone not well versed in midcentury US presidential politics. Bremps... 03:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I would say that is why outright removal, without a replacement, is looking like the best option supported by the largest consensus at the present time. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Support removal. None of the three images are clearly relevant to this particular page rather than, say, WP:RSN or many other source-related guidance pages. I support removal without replacement. Also, removal will reduce page size... a bit.--FeralOink (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose removal. The cartoon we have currently is the best of the four choices presented, and does a good job of showing that not all sources are reliable. Enoryt nwased lamaj (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Page size

This page is presently 407kB long. It is difficult to load this page with a browser, and even more difficult to edit it. Are there any sources that are not sufficiently perennial, or sufficiently important, that they need to be included? Alternatively, could this page be split? James500 (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• I think splitting a totally reasonable idea and have tagged the page accordingly. Other extremely long lists have done this, usually alphabetically. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• I am opposed to cutting sources just to make the page shorter. If a source has been discussed repeatedly, and a consensus reached, there should be an easy way for editors to learn about that. But splitting is completely appropriate. John M Baker (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• There have been repeated proposals to this effect, but frankly there is no easy division that does not greatly reduce usefulness as a quick reference guide. It's long because there's a lot of entries and they need to be somewhere. I must note that a short while ago you were proposing this page's complete removal as useless, so it's not clear the degree to which your advice on its modification for usefulness should be considered - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Splitting the table means you can't sort it properly any more with all entries. Cortador (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Agree to split. The obvious choice would be A-M and N-Z. Otherwise sectioning alphabetically (A,B,C,etc), and collapsing each section could help with browser loading time if not mistaken? Similar to the French wiki version. CNC (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – Agree with David Gerard and Cortador that the usefulness of a single-page presentation is paramount in terms of sorting and searchability, so I discourage arbitrary splitting or shortening of this page. There are many more readers of this critical page than editors. Therefore, as long as it loads in an adequate manner we should not alter the page to cater to editors. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
• On a technical level something should be done to alleviate WP:CHOKING concerns. Mfko (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fuzheado The entire point of this page is to centralize information. We could have a distilled parallel list of some commonly discussed sources on a user subpage, though. Bremps... 03:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment What do people think about splitting combined with transclusion like at List_of_Latin_phrases_(full) (except with a single sortable table)? 174.92.25.207 (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. No good way to do it.—Alalch E. 17:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Since the page will keep growing, some sort of split seems the standard response for pages that get so big they cause technical problems. Would it be possible to make a searchbox on the first page that will cover the entire RSP? WP:CHOKING seems to be the written guidance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, if we do split it, we could perhaps divide Sources into a few subsections, that might make editing easier. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The Sources section on this page could look something like

Searchbox

• link to sources 0-L
• link to sources M-Z

A little similar to 2019_in_film#2019_films, articles like that used to have big-ass lists of films, mostly American ones. They still have big-ass lists of dead people... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Is this really a question about the inclusion criteria for this list, and whether it should be adjusted? I'd say that if there hasn't been an RFC for a source in X years, then it's not really perennial anymore. (Not sure what X should be, but it's at most 10.) Maybe we should add something about that. Apocheir (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Æo (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I like Gråbergs Gråa Sång's partitioning idea! An alternative source division schema could be a link to each of the four major source reliability categories of Green, Yellow, Red, and Grey. Each would have its own page.--FeralOink (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should partition by color. I think that would reinforce the incorrect idea that these "reliability categories" are absolutes, rather than depending on context. There is no black-and-white line between reliable and unreliable sources; rather, different sources are reliable for different kinds of claims. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• There probably are some frivolous entries though maybe not enough to make a big difference. I was thinking of removing the entry for "bestgore", who would ever try and cite that really? Hardly perennial. VintageVernacular (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You'd be surprised as to what people will try to cite. Some entries, particularly the blacklisted ones, have useful context as to why they were blacklisted in the first place. But I agree that there are some entries that are stretching the definition of "perennial". Mfko (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment A split is treating the symptoms rather than the root cause. This page has attracted an enormous amount of cruft over the years and desperately needs to be pruned, the inclusion criteria adjusted, and sources aggregated (as seen below with the medical preprints for example).

For example, several entries could simply be aggregated under a generic banner of "this is user-generated content, don't use this". (Stack Overflow, Quora, TV Tropes, Ethnicity of Celebs, Land Transport Guru, SourceWatch, WhoSampled). There are plenty more entries in the list but these stuck out the most.

There are also problems with the definition of "perennial" as there are several entries that haven't been discussed for 14+ years such as Spirit of Metal. Of course on the flip side, you have entries like "The New Yorker" that haven't been discussed as well but are obviously reliable. Where is the line drawn? Are there really that many people attempting to cite Spirit of Metal to warrant its inclusion on the list? Mfko (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with merging the user-generated sources together in most cases. Some entries that are blacklisted or deprecated might warrant still being listed on their own. There are also some edge cases, like sites that host both UGC and professionally written content (e.g. Atlas Obscura), or UGC sites when used by reliable news organizations (e.g. YouTube) that we might have to handle on a case-by-case basis. But generally, the run-of-the-mill generally unreliable UGC sites could all be condensed together. See also the § Merging some entries section below.

Your comment about the definition of perennial echos my earlier comment about the inclusion criteria for this page. Apocheir (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Generally disagree. This sounds like trying to put a plaster over the problem, if we are too look at the root problem which is size. At the moment the page is at 2.5KB, it should be around 2KB per CHOKING issues referenced above. Grouping together entries like user content isn't going to solve the problem here, not by a long shot. I'm not opposed to sources that haven't been discussed in many years being taken out, but not convinced even this would see the minimum required 20% decline in size either, probably more like 10% at best. Also it's complicated as some sources haven't been discussed in a long time, but otherwise are regularly used on WP, so not being discussed isn't necessarily a barometer of having no benefit for inclusion either. Sometimes you have to look at some of these entries and simply consider "could someone find this useful"; the answer is someone probably could, even if not regularly, regardless of if it's inclusion is necessary. Overall I'm generally opposed to unsustainable solutions such as "trimming" in these cases. It reminds me of when articles reach 20,000 words; instead of simply splitting as required, editors suggest trimming unnecessary content; as if it's going to reduce the article size by 50% to a readable size (which never happens). It'd be a shame to get to the point of trimming entries, which naturally proceeds into excluding further entries based on similar criteria, simply because we are unwilling to split the article in a conventional manner. CNC (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Split alphabetically – While we're at it, given the size of the page we might as well split into three (I propose 0–F, G–M, and N–Z, eyeballing roughly equal length), not two. We can have likely have a transcluded (full list) page too. Remsense诉 19:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That works for me.--FeralOink (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: This page is very useful for pressing "ctrl-f" and splitting into multiple pages would double the work required every time the page was used. Slow editing is an acceptable price given that the article does not have to be edited that often. Support merging the use-generated sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not just slow to edit; did you notice the transclusion proposal? Remsense诉 18:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I wonder is there's an "information page" on en-WP that gets edited more often than this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose alphabetical split as this would create a new problem after solving another. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support per @Remsense and @Ivanvector's proposals below. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose splitting that doesn't result in a single list that editor can check against. So I would support the transclusion option. As to inclusion criteria the change that should be made is the comment about needing an RFC for inclusion, this causes editors to jump start RFCs on RSN for sources with no prior discussion just so they can get the source listed here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested, I commented on that here: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/Archive_9#Starting_WP:RSN-discussions_with_the_purpose_to_include_stuff_on_WP:RSP Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree with Levivich, although I don't know how to stop it from happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I do too. I've seen more than one RSN RFC where people ask "Is there actually an issue?", and that sometimes help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the inclusion criteria should explicitly exclude discussions/RFCs that only seek RSP inclusion, but that might be better discussed in a separate thread. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose any split. This is a list. Using the list does not mean reading the whole text. The list is mostly, if not exclusively, being used to check if a specific source has been deprecated. It goes without saying that a single search is the efficient choice. -The Gnome (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Is this still your position given the proposal below, which would allow users to seamlessly search the full list on one page as before? Remsense诉 16:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It still is, because in the case of lists such as this, there is, by definition, no issue of page clutter. Almost all uses of this list concern a single source being checked. Suggestions to change something very successful are all well meaning but misguided: they're about lists generically. -The Gnome (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That's slightly confusing, I'm not sure why anyone would be proposing a complication like this on a lark or because we don't know article guidelines don't apply.

The concrete reason expressed by multiple editors is that they have considerable difficulty reading and editing this page due to its length and breadth being enough to slow down their system.

(I'm one of those, but I haven't explicitly said as much because I always have weird computer problems and don't like complaining about them.) Remsense诉 21:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Same. RSPS sometimes takes like 20 seconds for me to publish an edit. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Break table and switch to a subpage format, where each subpage gives a nuanced profile of a source. The table has always been cluttered and cramped, and now it's still too big. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you really believe that creating "a nuanced profile of [every] source" would be anything less than a Herculean task? Why not simply opt for simplicity, consolidation, and practicality? -The Gnome (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not clear either on that proposal or what it would do either—surely the current format of entries is generally sufficient for what the list is designed to accomplish? i.e. figure out how mean to be to who you're reverting, and maybe grab an example quote as to why a source is good or bad. Remsense诉 21:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

For sources that are GREL, GUNREL, or deprecated, a brief entry describing why ought to suffice. I think a nuanced profile of a source would only be needed if the source has additional considerations or there's no consensus about the source. If we go this route, however, I worry about editors warring over the contents of a subpage when they have a content disputes, rather than working it out on the article talk page.

Additionally, as someone who has closed a couple of RSN RfCs and added entries to the chart, I would not have closed those discussions if that had meant that I would have needed to write a nuanced profile of the source based on the consensuses that emerged from those discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose It does what it needs to do and I've never noticed any issues with it loading on browsers. I'm going to oppose on WP:AINT principles. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Several editors say that it's broken and loads slowly. Just because you don't have issues doesn't mean it ain't broken for others. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

We are only talking about it because it is indeed broken. Remsense诉 21:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Transclusion possibility

Sorry if an annoyance, but does the proposal to split, while also transcluding the segments onto a (full list) page move the needle for any of the oppose !‍votes? As I see it, this would seem to enable equivalently easy or easier editing and searching for all users. Remsense诉 18:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I was just going to say that - we already have plenty of pages that work that way. WP:RFPP comes to mind, as do the main pages of both WP:AFD and WP:RFD. For AFD and RFD all active discussions are transcluded to a main page that can be Ctrl-F searched, while clicking on an edit link takes you to edit the subpage of each individual discussion for AFD or to the daily page for RFD. WP:EDR also works that way, and is a page with multiple long tables. I think it would even be technically possible to transclude subpages onto a main page in one continuous sortable table, I think our highway exit list and election results tables work that way, but with as much info as is on this page it would be a nightmare to edit. Anyway, we wouldn't be reinventing the wheel here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

In fact I just tried to demo what it would look like in my userspace, see User:Ivanvector/RSP split proposal. It doesn't work because there's something with include tags on the original page that break how I think the transclusions should work, and relative links to templates that of course don't exist in my userspace. I'm sure I could figure it out but this isn't how I was planning to spend my Saturday - if someone else wants to run with it then please be my guest, otherwise I will probably look at it again next week. This did get the page from 426kB down to 28kB, though.

Another thought I had while doing this is that we could change the page so that there's a master template for entries, and then each entry transcludes that template. That would be a task for someone who knows more about templates than I do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, never mind all that, I got it working by just bulk removing the "onlyinclude" tags that I don't know what they're supposed to do (nothing about it in the instructions). Works now at least superficially; take a look. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine, the tags are to do with #Duplication at Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Currently_deprecated_sources. When it comes to transclusion, @174.92.25.207 would be the editor to ask around here it seems. CNC (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Support transclusion along with merging entries - but it sounds like that will be a separate project. Mfko (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I generally dislike transclusion, but it seems like a sensible solution in this situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Support This was what I was thinking as well. @Ivanvector Would only transcluding the table body work? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Splitting sources into alphabetical subpages is a good start, but RSP should list every source without being too lengthy and it should be more practical for mobile users. Instead of transcluding all content, the main table could have colored rows with just a source column (linking only to subpage entries) and a status column. The bulk of the content would be on the subpages and source-specific shortcuts would also go to the complete entries on subpages. We could also have a "RSPFULL" page that would transclude every subpage for people that prefer the current format. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That would require a lot more maintenance due to the duplication. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be more maintenance, but changes would only be required for additions, removals, and status changes. Clarifications, additional discussion links, etc. would not require updates. Of the last 10 edits to WP:RSP, only 1 would have required a table update (an addition). The others were changes to other parts of the page, details that would be on subpages, or were reverted. Longer-term, the summary table could be automatically generated and updated by a bot (similar to what User:Rick Bot, User:ChristieBot, and other similar bots do for various pages). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Links etc. will still require updates in the subpage. Bots still require maintenance. I don't see any reason to do what you said; for mobile people, they can already see the first columns. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Some mobile users can't even load the current page. It's too large for some browsers. (@PARAKANYAA: If you want to add anything about the crashing issue you mentioned you were experiencing?) Using a summary table would improve the accessibility of the page, especially for mobile users, users with slower internet connections, and those who use assistive technologies. It's overwhelming even with a good computer, a fast connection, and large screen.

While some updates will require editing two pages instead of one, that affects only a minority of updates. Editing the summary table will be much simpler than editing the main entries. The page currently stands at about 35,000 words, which is 233% above the point where an article should Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed according to WP:SIZERULE. Although this isn't an article, it's simply too much content for a single page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Entries that might be trimmed

Some people above have proposed trimming the list. I think that we can start by cutting the following entries:

• Inter Press Service
• The New Yorker
• Pew Research Center

Each of those sources are well-known institutions and considered to be generally reliable, and the last discussions occurred over 10 years ago. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Since none of these have no (noted) discussion for more than a decade, making them arguably not "perennial", and they do seem uncontroversially generally reliable, I'm ok with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

There a similar issue with sources that were only added due to discussions about adding them, for instance the 'ABC News (United States)' entry. If you check the discussions they are only about adding sources to the RSP, not any real dispute about the sources reliability. The same is true of 'The Age' and 'The Sydney Morning Herald', which only had an RFC to green list.

I've wondered whether the criteria should exclude discussions or RFCs started solely to include sources on the list. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that's worthwhile. Stop and really think about it: has anyone in good faith ever asked in a talk page discussion whether ABC is reliable? If that happens, this page won't help—as there's either particular context or the question is purely rhetorical. Remsense诉 13:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Fine with me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

IMO we should add those to footnote [a] if/when we remove it from the primary list. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

We can rewrite that footnote a bit, but I'm not sure all potential removals need to go there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

There is potential harm with removing the mentions from the page entirely. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

What's the harm? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't word that the best. While keeping them in the footnote probably wouldn't do much than inflating it with a couple dozen characters, readers might not see these sources (especially people who haven't heard of them) on the main page and question its reliability if they were entirely removed.
I'm also fine with archiving or moving to a separate page. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The same type of issues still apply, though. Presumably, the entries were created because editors thought that others might question them, and we can't exactly know if there were any debates that didn't happen because an entry already existed here. Alternatively, some editors might prefer to have a general reference list for sources even if they don't meet the dictionary definition of "perennial", meaning that even uncontroversial entries still have value to them (although that may be an argument to create a separate list). Unless we have reason to believe they're no longer accurate, I think moving or archiving them will always make more sense than removal. Sunrise (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Archiving or moving is fine with me. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

We could absolutely make some sort of "Non-perennial perennials" archive/page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That's actually not a bad idea. CNC (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Getting paradoxical, eh?
Personally I'd call it "stale". Aaron Liu (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

NPP already has a much more comprehensive list than RSP, which includes everything here and more. If there's a desire for a general list of sources a secondary page based on the NPP list could be a place to start. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't believe this will move the bar much and removing sources is moving the page in the wrong direction. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - Chicken or the egg. Lack of repeated discussion about included sources? That's a feature not a bug. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The page is called "perennial sources" because it's intended to be about sources that are the subject of repeated discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Telegraph RfC and "no consensus = no change"

• 1. As a proposal, I think it's best not to include the The Telegraph RfC until matters are resolved. There has already been some good faith reverting from myself and @ObserveOwl, and while the close remains "active" as of writing, it doesn't appear worthwhile for inclusion until matters have been resolved. In hindsight, my initial summary including a quote from the closure wasn't the best idea.
• 2. I have opened a "Request for clarification" regarding the idea that an NC RfC close would mean no change in RSP, an argument that has been repeated numerous times in the general discussion. It's only open to those who promote these idea.

That's it. If you read that, I apologise for likely wasting your time. CNC (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Since it is disputed with regard to LGBT issues should it be updated to yellow and additional considerations apply? PackMecEng (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, The Telegraph remain GREL excluding trans topics, but otherwise would be MREL for trans topics based on 2024 RfC. See this edit as example. [2]. Ideally the close review would be closed first prior to inclusion. CNC (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, you are either generally reliable or additional considerations apply. So until the close review overturns it we go by the rfc and if you look at the extended close its clear on the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the page that is clearly not true, many of the green entries have some sort of additional consideration attatched. Just going from the top we find Al Jazeera which is green with additional considerations, Amnesty International which is green with additional considerations, the Anti-Defamation League which is green with additional considerations, Aon which is green with additional considerations, Ars Technica which is green with additional considerations... I can keep going but its pretty clear that your suggestion that its a hard line is absolutely false on its face. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

For opinion sections sure, that is always the case and noted. Not for when whole topics that would normally be reliable are not. We change those to yellow. For example look at WP:ADLAS. PackMecEng (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something but the Telegraph is not a case of "whole topics that would normally be reliable are not" and your handwaving that these only address opinion sections appears fallacious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Also noting that in your example you list Anti-Defamation League which is currently yellow, as it should be. There is no additional consideration on Amnesty International. I think the difference you are seeing is Telegraph is specifically not generally reliable on those topics while the examples you gave that are still green say you should attribute them. Not the same thing. Also Ars Technica has no additional considerations so yeah its green. Even your Al Jazeera one does not list areas that it was not found reliable. I am not sure you are looking at the right list since all your examples are wrong... PackMecEng (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Please take a minute to look at the sitution before responding, we have three different entries for the ADL... But even the green one describes additional consderations. If we want to jump down to Aon we find "Editors pointed out that Aon often provides data not found in other sources, and care should be taken when using the source as it may be providing a different estimate than other sources, e.g. total economic damages, rather than property damage." which is definitely an additonal consideration. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes we have three, the one with additional considerations is yellow. I'm sorry I think you are just flat wrong on this. Yellow is specifically for additional considerations as laid out in the legend. The fact that others have not been updated just means they should be updated, not that we should not follow the guide and legend. PackMecEng (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes... The "everybody is wrong except me, they will figure it out eventually" argument, very strong. Its simply not as rigid as you make it out to be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The original objection was to wait until the challenged close was finished. You are the one saying we shouldn't follow the legend or page above. So no idea what you are talking about. But seeing as you don't have an argument and I am sighting the guide page, maybe its you pulling it out their butt? But seriously if you have it documented anywhere, like I do, that it should be your preferred way I would love to see it. I found these random examples that are against the legend so I must be right is a bad argument. Just sayin... PackMecEng (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

And where does it define the difference between an additional condiseration which merits being yellow and an additional consideration which doesn't? You're the one saying that the community is incapable of following the legend or page above, you just argued that most of the green sections on the page should not be so and should be updated to yellow. I'm not arguing for radical change, you are... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually I pointed out you were mostly wrong in your examples or why they stayed green. Color and symbol are covered by Wikipedia:MREL. I have no idea what you are arguing for honestly. PackMecEng (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You didn't do that. I'm just describing reality, I'm not arguing. In theory I actually agree with you, but thats clearly not consensus... How much more obvious does it need to get than the PinkNews (green) entry "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Editors closing RFC and those updating the RSP don't always do so in a standard manner, which leads to a lack of uniformity in how entries are maintained. For instance the entry for South China Morning Post is green but that additional considerations apply in certain areas, this comes direct from the close of the RFC. As the RFC was closed as 'reliable but additional considerations apply' that's how the entry is maintained, and it stands as noone has challenged it (even though neither the entry or the RFC close exactly match one of the standard results). This hasn't been an issue as previous contentious RFCs have had clearer results, but ultimately it doesn't matter as editors should be reading what the additional considerations are not simply checking the colour of the entry. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Part of the nuance appears to be that generally reliable is shorthand for "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise" so we have the nebulous issue of discerning the difference between being ruled unreliable in a given area of expertise (a change in color, not GREL) and an area being ruled as not within their expertise (no change in color, remains GREL) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The point is this update to RSP should be topic specific, similar to WP:ADL and WP:HUFFPOST. The Telegraph RfC wasn't based on the general reliability of the outlet, but instead topic specific. If you want to update RSP based on current consensus then at least do it properly. Per my example of Telegraph for transgender topics as MREL, but ideally with better wording. [3] CNC (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

From what I can tell that just muddies the water and is not really helpful. No need for it to have a separate section, just make it yellow and have the description. PackMecEng (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No consensus versus mixed consensus

Following the close of the AN thread (which has attracted its own criticism at the closer's talk page), I can't help but wonder about the current "no consensus" label. It feels to me that label is really trying to do two things and that's where we get tripped up, the same way we would if we tried to smush generally unreliable, deprecated, and blacklisted (or even just these last two) into one category. Most of the time it's saying there is a mixed consensus about the source. That is Editor's generally agree its good in some ways and less good in other ways, so use it carefully. Perhaps "Use with care" could also work for this. And then there times where there is genuinely no consensus about a source, which is a whole different thing than a mixed bag, generally reliable, or generally unreliable. I'm wondering if this kind of split might help us land on a reaosnable outcome not only for the Telegraph but others. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll ask the same question I asked at the talk page discussion mentioned - what is the practical difference for those evaluating (potential) sources for an article between "consensus that additional considerations apply" and "additional considerations apply because there is no consensus it's generally (un)reliable"? If there is none then I don't see any value in a split. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The things in quotes aren't what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting there is "editors can't agree on how to use this source" and "editors agree some uses of the source are appropriate and others inappropriate, so use with care". I think the labeling of "no consensus" is what has caused a fair amount of the agita here and even if that were just renamed editors would be able to see things differently in this instance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Easy fix: "consensus that add'l considerations apply" should remain yellow, "no consensus about reliability one way or the other" should be blank (no color). To Thryd's question, the difference between the two is this: for yellow, editors are guided as to the reliability of the source by the add'l considerations described in the RSP entry; for a blank entry, RSP provides no guidance one way or the other as to reliability. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I wish I'd refreshed the page rather than finish writing what I had started because Levivich says it better than I did in my reply. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I support this. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a thing I could live with, I have always taken yellow as attribution in line for anything contentious. Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea, but closers would have to be clear about exactly what they meant. "No consensus, but editors noted that attribution might need to be used" is ambiguous in whether that's an additional consideration or a general comment about the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is very sensible. If it’s open season on the colours, I’d be tempted to change green to blue to break the connotation of a traffic light rating system, which seems to cause editors to think things like “green is always strictly better than amber, context be damned”. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with splitting this with the caveat that "blank" should mean gray or white, not "not present". If a source that is normally considered to be reliable (say, a WP:NEWSORG or a book published by an academic publisher) reaches a no consensus result at WP:RSP, the fact that there was a serious dispute about its reliability is important and should be noted at RSP. If it wasn't noted, we'd be back to "no consensus means reliable", which I strongly oppose. Loki (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Grey is already used for blacklisted sites, but no colour could be a bad idea as it will appear black in dark mode. Although equally white could be taken as a mistake in dark mode, as if the background colour isn't being handled correctly. I like the blue idea, as it prompts editors to read what 'blue' means. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd also be fine with blue, but I don't see how having the same color as a page's background would be bad. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's just about reducing chances for misunderstandings. My concern would be that a, admittedly tiny, fraction of editors would mistake the black background as the entry being black and therefore 'bad!'. Blue is an unexpected colour amongst the other entries, which helps to highlight it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

If there is a prior consensus that a source was reliable, then a "no consensus" result should not change the fact there was a prior consensus that a source was reliable. I see no compelling reason that there should be an exception to "status quo" just for RSP. There can be consensus on adding additional considerations or a note about bias without there being a consensus on the reliability as a whole. That said, there should really not be many "no consensus" outcomes. RSN discussions should not be closed as "no consensus" just because a significant portion of people responding are ignoring the arguments and !voting based on their opinions. Arguments should be weighted as required by the policy, and after those arguments are weighted there should virtually always be clear consensus that either the source is unreliable or that the claims of unreliability were refuted. If the "side" arguing for unreliability did not manage to convince people of their claims, or they are disputed successfully, that should not result in anything other than "generally reliable". If the "side" arguing for reliability did not refute the claims of unreliability, then it should result in either a "considerations apply" or topic-area breakouts (a la Fox News) as the discussion merits.

To summarize, it appears some editors (both during the Telegraph discussion and discussions about this after the fact) wish to use "no consensus to do anything" as an excuse to "downgrade" a source. The solution there is to more carefully evaluate the discussions and their strengths in the discussion, and to discard opinions on the source that are just that - opinions. It's not to allow this sort of "backdoor downgrading" of a source's reliability just because enough people expressed their opinion without backing it up or managing to convince others. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 16:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The key question you and others have failed to answer is how can a result of "no consensus that a source is generally reliable" equal "there is a consensus that this sources is generally reliable", which is the definition of a generally reliable source? Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Although I'm not necessarily in agreement with it, I can see the argument being stated as "If the prior consensus was that a source was generally reliable, then a new 'no consensus' result means there's no consensus to change that status". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between "no consensus that a source is generally reliable" versus "there was a previous consensus that a source is generally reliable". Consensus can change, but absent compelling evidence that there is now no consensus on the reliability, there is no compelling reason to violate maintaining the status quo that is present everywhere else on Wikipedia. If editors wish to dispute the reliability of the source that was previously considered generally reliable, the onus should be on them to make clear, compelling, and unrefuted claims of the unreliability that convince other editors of its unreliability. If they are unable to do so, they should not be able to "win" through a backdoor like this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 16:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it as a backdoor, it is in effect a source downgrade (perhaps less so than Mrel) because we cannot categorically say Grel. Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

If the people arguing that it is not generally reliable do not manage to convince editors (to the point of there being a consensus that it is not generally reliable), then it is a backdoor downgrade. I'm not arguing that new discussions resulting in no consensus can't result in a "downgrade" - but if a source previously had consensus that it was reliable, and there is no consensus that is is unreliable, then the previous consensus should stand. Anything different is in effect a "backdoor" that is only open to "one side" - the side arguing unreliability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You were not convinced but that doesn't mean that the consensus of editors was not convinced, no matter how many times you state and imply otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

If there's no consensus, then editors were not convinced. Downgrading a previously reliable source should not be possible through a backdoor "no consensus" result. That is saying "no consensus" is a consensus. And that's simply untrue. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a consensus that it is not Grel presently. Further discussion can take place if things change (better or worse). Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s simply untrue. No consensus means no consensus. It does not mean it is not generally reliable. There has still been no reason that this should be an exception from “status quo” applied everywhere else when no consensus arises in a new discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

We're back to my earlier question which you still haven't answered: how can a result of "no consensus that a source is generally reliable" equal "there is a consensus that this sources is generally reliable"? Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve answered it multiple times. If there is no consensus to change something or not change something, it does not change. This is the standard virtually everywhere on WP except here. There is no compelling reason it should not also be the standard here other than to give people a “backdoor downgrade” possibility if the discussion becomes so large/unwieldy that there is no consensus. To make it abundantly clear for you: If there was a prior consensus that the source is reliable, then future discussions need to be seen in that light. No consensus on the source being unreliable should not result in the downgrading of a source that previously had consensus that it is reliable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a lot of words that you've said before that didn't answer the question then and don't answer the question now. The question asked is not "Is there a consensus to change the reliability?" but "What is the reliability of the source?". Why is it so difficult for you to understand that GREL is defined as "there is a consensus that this source is generally reliable" and that anything other than a consensus that is generally reliable means it is not generally reliable? Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Articles are not the same things as RS and even there the status quo thing is slightly suspect. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

My point stands that if a source had a prior discussion that it is generally reliable, and the claims presented by someone in a new discussion to claim “unreliable” are not sufficient for a positive consensus of unreliability, there should not be a “backdoor” to mark it as anything less than unreliable. Either the claims succeeded at convincing people and thus a consensus formed, or they did not, and there should be no change. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That argument is reversible tho, instead of the claims were not sufficient, the defense was insufficient. If the source were truly Grel, the defense would have succeeded. To me, nocon just means more discussion, probably not right away tho, meanwhile the status quo has effectively changed. Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The defense was not insufficient. The defense was sufficient to convince enough editors that there was “no consensus that it is unreliable”. Combine that with the prior status quo, and you have “generally reliable”. There is no reason this should be an exception to the status quo that applies everywhere else. Either the claims were sufficient for consensus or they were not. If they were not sufficient for an affirmative consensus, the status quo should not change. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I give up, cannot defeat repetition. Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Because of the importance of WP:V to this project, I think it's very important that the usual "status quo holds" rule does not imply to WP:RSP. Otherwise, a source going downhill could have years to spread misinfo on Wikipedia even after its decline became obvious to many editors but before other editors got over its past reputation. Loki (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between “consensus that the source used to be reliable and now is not” (as can be seen with Cnet/etc) versus “consensus that the source was reliable, and no consensus now to ‘overrule’ that prior determination”. As is shown, when a source actually begins to publish misinformation, RSN is fairly quick at a clear consensus to change its reliability. What you fail to accept here is that the Telegraph did not publish misinformation - they published information you didn’t like and/or published attributed information that was later shown to be inaccurate but was reported on as someone’s opinion - at worst. If a source was previously determined to be reliable, then no - editors shouldn’t be able to censor it just because they get enough people yelling for it to be censored for publishing biased information or information they don’t like. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

When we're talking about RSes, every discussion is an independent question. If discussion A says that a source is reliable, and discussion B doesn't, what happened in discussion A is and should be irrelevant.

This isn't the same as for text changes: if RFC A reaches a consensus on phrasing, and RFC B neither supports or overturns that consensus, then it still needs to be phrased some way, and the best "some way" to phrase it as a default is what's currently in the article. Loki (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You are arguing this yet you still have provided no actual reason that the “status quo” (which would result in A remaining the phrasing, since B did not come up with a consensus to overturn A) should not apply here other than that you don’t like it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

We have repeatedly explained why RSP is different: The question asked is not the one you think was asked, and the explicit wording of the definitions. At this point it's clear you simply aren't listening. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You’ve explained why it is different. Not why it should be, and not why a backdoor way to “downgrade” sources should be permitted and is beneficial to the encyclopedia by allowing people to censor viewpoints they don’t like. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to change the way RSP has worked for years you need to get consensus to do so, and unless and until you do then the outcome of discussions must reflect the existing definitions used. This is not a "backdoor way to downgrade sources" it's doing things in accordance with the explicit definitions presented front and centre on the page. Closer to reality is describing your preference as a backdoor way to avoid downgrading sources you like - I'm not saying that is your intention but such an intention would be entirely compatible with the arguments you are making. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

RSP is a summary of editors' opinion and discussions on sources. To summarize a nocon result, which indicates concerns, as the previous status is disingenuous. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not to summarize a nocon result - it's summarizing years and multiple discussions that resulted in a consensus as "this source is questionable" just because, even though nothing has changed, enough people yelled on one side of the issue that it made it "no consensus". That is, in fact, why "status quo" is the standard virtually everywhere else on Wikipedia. I stand by my view that there should not be a "backdoor" to downgrade sources in this manner just because people finally got tired of dealing with the bludgeoning from the "sources I don't like should be prohibited" side that tends to be "louder" in these sorts of discussions. If there is a true no consensus on the first discussion about an issue, sure, that can be noted as such. But when there are years of past consensus, one flimsy no consensus result should not result in a backdoor downgrade without an affirmative consensus to downgrade it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

enough people yelled on one side of the issue

Yeah, that's why it should be reflected. Not to mention that louder is not supposed to be how consensus is to be weighed. Knocking down a pillar and that pillar's sizable supporters to enforce one's own beliefs is how villains work.

What happens after a NOCON is the "safe" option. For most scenarios, that's the status quo; for living people, that's removal of disputed material to discourage external pressure; for RSP, that's appropriately displaying the concerns. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with appropriately displaying the concerns, but marking as WP:MREL endorses that there are concerns and they are valid. That's what "additional considerations" means, and I believe we disagree on whether that distinction is necessary. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If a discussion is closed as NOCON, then yeah, the close endorses that there are concerns and they are valid. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) RSP does not "summarise years and multiple discussions" it documents the current opinions regarding the sources reliability as of the most recent discussion. This is because the reliability of sources changes. Also, please stop repeating your rhetoric about this being a "backdoor downgrade", it's been explained to you enough times now that it is incorrect and repeating it will not change that. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

even though nothing has changed -> Well, that's clearly the issue, isn't it? If there was a consensus, and now there is no consensus, something has changed. Loki (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to have an RFC on whether 'no consensus' equals MREL, or if there has to be a positive consensus that a sources is MREL. Simply as a way of having a fixed consensus in case of future disagreement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Per the very long-standing definitions at RSP, MREL is both. Feel free to start a discussion if you think that should be changed, but no discussion is needed to determine what the status quo is. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I would agree, but that it has caused contention is undeniable. RSN and RSP seem to have many detractors recently, showing that common practice has community support can't hurt. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that works because no consenus is more a spectrum than a discrete block... There being no consensus between 1 and 2 is not the same as there being no consenus between 3 and 4. If we can't decide whether something is unreliable or deprecable upgrading it to MREL based on that lack of consensus makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

What has been the precedent in the past? Including cases in the other direction?

In past cases, when a source had a prior consensus of GUNREL, if a subsequent discussion resulted in "no consensus", did that result in a change in the status quo of the RSP listing? Surely, the result of "no consensus" for a status quo GREL source should be treated the same way as a "no consensus" for a status quo GUNREL source, right?
Incidentally I can only recall one such past case (Wikileaks), and that resulted in "no change to status quo", therefore still GUNREL. (The dispute in question was over something ridiculously mundane, too. It was about whether or not some member of the Vietnamese communist party held some leadership position in a particular year. Like, who would care enough to make up stuff about something so boring!) Anyway, we can't do one thing some times and another other times, nor should we defer to the individual closers to apply the amswer to this question however they wish. Nor can there be one rule for GREL sources and a different rule for GUNREL sources: it must be either status quo for both or a change to "no consensus" for both.
One last point: "No consensus of general reliability" is NOT "Consensus of no general reliability". The difference is in the case of the latter, there is general agreement between editors, and for the former there is not. Plus the former also means "no consensus that it is NOT generally reliable" and you cannot have consensus and no consensus for the same thing at the same time. That would be nonsense. But it's an easy mistake to make, and I don't at all doubt that Selfstudier made the argument in good faith. 73.2.106.248 (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This summarizes exactly what I've been saying about it being a "backdoor" so well. People use "no consensus on general reliability" to mean that there is a consensus that it should be "less than generally reliable" when listing at RSP. The status quo should be maintained in no consensus. If "no consensus" turns into "no consensus of general reliability" and that is noted, then it is being listed as a consensus that it is not "generally reliable", which cannot be the case if there was "no consensus". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@73.2.106.248 I don't recall ottomh any examples of previously GUNREL sources having a discussion that resulted in no consensus between Generally Reliable and Generally Unreliable. If such a discussion were to occur though then MREL would be the right outcome because there is no consensus that it's unreliable and also no consensus that it is reliable.

Discussions have closed with a lack of consensus between generally unreliable and deprecate. Those have (afaik always uncontroversially) resulted in a status of generally unreliable, partly because deprecation requires as much of an active consensus as generally reliable does and also because deprecation is just a stronger degree of unreliability but generally reliable and generally unreliable are opposites.

Generally reliable can be though of as assigning a score of 1, MREL a score of 0, GUNREL -1 and deprecation -2 on an integer scale. You can see that 0 is between 1 and -1, but there is no option between -1 and -2. It's also clear that -1 to -2 is just a degree of the same thing while -1 and +1 are very different (FWIW Blacklisting doesn't really sit on this scale, it's something that's applied additionally to (in theory) sources of any rating that have been significantly abused (and/or have themselves been the abuser) although in practice only deprecated or GUNREL sources have done this).

I shan't bother wasting my breath refuting berchanhimez's repetition of falsehoods yet again. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

To say that a MREL sources is less reliable than a GREL source is overly simplistic. In most cases MREL mean that certain additional considerations apply, these may or may not be directly related to reliability in general or concerns about a certain context. Only by reading the details can that be discerned.

In this specific issue the Telegraph is considered generally reliable, but in the specific context of trans issue it's reliability is contested. Nothing in that says that the Telegraph is unreliable in any context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Context

This drama is all about the Daily Telegraph and whether it's a reliable source about trans people. There's a broad consensus that the Daily Telegraph is, in general, a newspaper of record and a reliable source, and we've tested that consensus several times. Whether it's a reliable source about trans people is disputed, and there's no consensus among Wikipedians whether it is or isn't.

WP:RSP needs above all to tell the truth about what the consensus is. Therefore it should say that there's no consensus about the Daily Telegraph's reliability on trans issues. QED.

It doesn't matter whether it says so on a yellow background or a plain white one. It doesn't matter what the precedent is. What matters here is whether we can trust our information pages.—S Marshall T/C 07:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we all agree that it should say that there's no consensus about the Daily Telegraph's reliability on trans issues... The question seems to be what color the box is (yes I know its odd but box color seems to matter much more to some editors than what it actually says in the box). I think we're also painted ourselves into a bit of a corner by expecting papers of record to be reliable sources about everything beyond MEDRS, in reality they all have strong areas of expertise and weak areas of expertise like any other source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that Berchanhimez would agree with that. I think he'd say the discussion was no consensus but the Telegraph should be WP:GREL anyway.

Not that I think his opinion is relevant or according to policy here, but I do want to note that he's very likely to come in and express it loudly anyway. Loki (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• So we could, in fact, add that on a white background and call it done?—S Marshall T/C 06:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'd be for it. Don't know if it's feasible to do only that post close review, but I would support the eventual close being basically that. Loki (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Can Rotten Tomatoes be used for birth info

Why can’t rotten tomatoes be used for birth info if the same birth info is used on IMBD Tnays20 (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

No. Neither RT nor IMDB should be used for birth dates. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Tnays20 IMDb itself is not reliable. (Please see WP:IMDB.) Finding something there does not help Rotten Tomatoes' credibility at all. @Firefangledfeathers is correct. Neither source should be used for any biographical details. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

But I was told by the user:Laterthanyouthink (talk) that he remembers an earlier talk page discussion about RT bios where the editors concerned agreed that it was acceptable for DOB. And that he added some notes and other sources on the talk page of the article. Tnays20 (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's the RfC from last summer regarding Rotten Tomatoes.[4] The consensus was that it's okay to use for movie reviews and ratings as it's core purpose. However it's not a reliable source when it comes to biography details as it's not a journalism site and it doesn't provide any information as to how the material is obtained or verified. Which is a huge red flag when it comes to using such pages as a reliable source for BLPs. Kcj5062 (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

Are these 2 edits correct? [5] And should the page be protected? I'm not sure I'm happy with IPs editing it. This seems to be based on the short dicussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#TechTimes. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I don't think that's the link you meant to inlcude in your post. As to the edits I think the IP was trying to be helpful, if misguided. The original discussion (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 364#Tech Times (techtimes.com), iTech Post (itechpost.com), Gamenguide (gamenguide.com)) shows the sources isn't reliable, but I don't think there's any need to add it to RSP. The IP reverted themselves, and started a new discussion on RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Great. That's what we need to happen. I think the link is the one I wanted, the IP's discussion.

Still, should IPs and new editors be editing such an important page / Doug Weller talk 16:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The first link in your post (directly after Are these 2 edits correct?) leads to a shop listing for a 'ResMed ClimateLineAir™ 10'. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Damn iPad. Sorry. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

swentr.site (RT mirror)

The above site, brought to my attention by this paper, is an RT mirror so should be linked under RT's deprecated section. The report also lists a number of websites which seem to re-publish RT stories verbatim, so well worth a read and possibly including these in the list too. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

word missing in WP:THESUN

This deprecation does not apply to the broadsheet publication of the same name, that existed before the Murdoch from 1964–1969. Before the Murdoch paper, acquisition, ...? -sche (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

'the Murdoch' shouldn't be there, I'll correct it. When I added the sentence I rewrote it before publishing but apparently forgot to remove that fragment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

models.com

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_256#Reliability_of_models.com,_just_as_a_source_for_images_of_magazine_covers
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_358#Models.com_for_1)_interviews_and_2)_ranking_lists
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#Models.com_rankings

Is it worth adding? It's used quite a lot:[6]. Their about-page: [7]. Ping @AndyTheGrump if you have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I made my opinion on models.com entirely clear in the discussion of 'rankings' linked above. A single quote from their 'about' page seems quite sufficient to demonstrate why they cannot be seen as an independent source: By joining Models.com, you can build your brand and leave a lasting legacy: Create and manage your profile page, keep your work up-to-date for clients, magazines, and other talents to see, and claim your credits for extra visibility. Paid-for self-promotion, plain and simple. The website clearly needs to be deprecated as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Instagram pages

I know for the most part social media pages are unreliable sources. But what if the page is a relative of the subject's? I'm asking because an Instagram page is being used as a source for actress Dara Renee's full name. The page seems to belong to her father.[8] Kcj5062 (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used unless by the post is by the subject of the article themselves, see WP:BLPSPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What does Uses section in the table mean?

What does the Uses section and then 1, 2, 3 in the table mean? NamelessLameless (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If you click on the number it will take you to search results of Wikipedia articles using the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Silver Bulletin

Is the Silver Bulletin, an election projection and analysis Substack website run by Nate Silver (the founder of and former employee at FiveThirtyEight, former correspondent to ABC News, named one of the 100 most influential people by Time for his successful election predictions) a reliable source? Personisinsterest (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You should post this to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, this talk page is for discussions on improving the perennial sources list. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The Telegraph again

@Hemiauchenia, the way I understood the closure review decision, the entry should be reverted to the status quo ante. Is my understanding incorrect? I'm pinging @Compassionate727 as the reviewer. Alaexis_¿question? 20:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not how RSN discussions or RSP entries work. The people arguing for this are inveterate wikilayers who are ignoring years of precedent regarding RSN discussions. Take for instance the famous 2020 Fox News RfC, which found that there was "no consensus" for the reliability of Fox News regarding politics and science, which was closed by a panel of admins (rather than unilaterally by a non-admin as with the Telegraph RfC and reclose). By the logic of "no consensus=remains reliable/no change in the RSP entry" employed here, the Fox News entry at RSP should not have changed, yet it was changed and the change was widely accepted at the time. Many entries on RSP have "there is no consensus on the reliability of X", and yet prior to the recent Telegraph RfC the concept of "no consensus" entries on RSP has to my knowledge never been challenged. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This particular issue isn't about how no consensus close should be interpreted, the review closer effectively reclosed the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Which doesn't prevent an RFC on the underlying issue, right? Selfstudier (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I've undone the addition. Nothing on Compassionate727 talk page shows they have withdrawn their close, and the close is still in place at AN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the Administrator's noticeboard close as a fail of WP:BADNAC criterion 2: The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Funny that literally the entirety of the history of how RSN no consensus closes are done can be ignored just because of a controversial topic discussion happening. Someone needs to have the backbone to actually close with a determination on one side or the other or follow RSN rules on a no consensus close, because precedent is very blatant and obvious when it comes to RSN that no consensus means no consensus on reliability for the source in question. Since RSN is about affirmative reliability determinations, whether a source is reliable needs to be something we agree on. If we don't agree, then the source can't be considered WP:GREL by definition. Follow that link, it even says in the first line "Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise". Silverseren^C 21:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've updated the notification at RSN that the close of the RFC review has been reverted, and added the same to Compassionate727's talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  The close revert has been reverted, discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Removal of closure Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)