Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:03, 4 May 2022

Discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard To discuss the reliability of a source, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). Discussions on the noticeboard will be added to this list. This talk page is for discussing the maintenance of the list itself, and arguments posted here will not be taken into consideration.

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages Help High‑importance This page is within the scope of the Misplaced Pages Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Misplaced Pages HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Misplaced Pages Help ProjectHelp High This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Samantha Cole (2 October 2018). "Misplaced Pages Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts". Vice. Retrieved 8 September 2019. Omer Benjakob (9 January 2020). "Why Misplaced Pages Is Much More Effective Than Facebook at Fighting Fake News". Haaretz. Retrieved 10 January 2020. Oliver Darcy (24 July 2020). "Misplaced Pages administrators caution editors about using Fox News as source on 'contentious' claims". CNN. Retrieved 24 July 2020. Palmer Haasch (24 July 2020). "After Misplaced Pages editors battled over citing Fox News as a source, administrators said it should be 'used with caution' for science and politics". Insider. Retrieved 24 July 2020. Noam Cohen (10 August 2020). "Why Misplaced Pages Decided to Stop Calling Fox a 'Reliable' Source". Wired. Retrieved 12 August 2020. Stephen Harrison (1 July 2021). "Misplaced Pages's War on the Daily Mail". Slate. Retrieved 27 September 2021. Stephen Harrison (1 March 2022). "How the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is Playing Out on English, Ukrainian, and Russian Misplaced Pages". Slate. Retrieved 1 March 2022.

Should a separate subpage of WP:RS be created for perennial databases?

Should a separate subpage of Misplaced Pages: Reliable sources be created for perennial databases, such as Olympedia, GNIS, and Soccerway? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, as starter — These databases are used both for article and content creation in dozens of thousands of our articles. Additionally, new editors may not be entirely aware of Misplaced Pages consensus on the use of databases (especially of particular databases). Some, like GNIS, have their own entry at WP:RSNP. However, creating a separate page (such as Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial databases) would both help keep a record of community consensus on these under-discussed sources, encourage communication outside of the insulated communities within WikiProjects, and drive Misplaced Pages towards a more consistent and purposeful use of databases. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Perennial" means "frequently discussed" in the phrase "perennial sources". It's unclear as to what, if any purpose, creating even more entries on the RSP list would serve for sources that are "under-discussed", except to create a database of all possible databases. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes if you mean 'should a list of both reliable and unreliable database-style websites be centrally maintained'? GiantSnowman 20:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  That is what I mean, yes, GiantSnowman. If you feel the wording should be changed I'd like to discuss this in the discussion section so we don't bulk up the survey :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, sounds like it could be useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• No WP:RSP already exists and would be a fine place to put entries about databases. Separating out the databases (and it's not always clear where to draw that line, what with websites being procedurally generated, etc.) would only decrease the attention paid to them and thin the pool of community members who contribute to the discussions about how to use them. XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• No. WP:RSP is bloated and its purpose isn't to categorize every possible source ever used, or even ones that are frequently used. The point is to categorize sources that are frequently discussed at WP:RSN. If editors are adding too many "under-discussed sources" to the central WP:RSP list, the solution isn't to create WP:RSPD as some pseudo-sublist of WP:RSP; it's to remove entries that aren't linked to much discussion. Soccerway has been mentioned 3 times at WP:RSN and neither of them were actual discussions about the source. Olympedia, on the other hand, has been discussed twice. The first time, nothing happened since the issue that drove the discussion was mooted after one outside comment. The second time someone started a discussion solely about adding it to WP:RSP for the sole purpose of adding it to WP:RSP, without providing any real opinion of their own on if it's reliable. I don't really see the purpose of creating a "perennial database" list if 2/3 of the provided examples haven't actually been perennially discussed at RSN. What would we even be basing this list on? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• No Am I missing something important? I'd have thought WP:RSP could handle them and about the most one really says is that they are in general reliable but are PRIMARY sources rather than secondary so can't be used for notability or interpretation just straight facts. NadVolum (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• No, not a separate subpage. Part of what makes RSP useful is that you can quickly ctrl-F and search it to get a temperature check on a source you are unfamiliar with. Spinning anything off onto subpages should be resisted for as long as possible (ie. unless it reaches the point where RSP is so big that people are having trouble loading it.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• No (and maybe). RSP should have this covered where necessary. The real problem is contributors scraping from databases without validating information against independent reliable sources, which seems to happen far more frequently than it does with non-database sources. To follow up on important points made above. These databases are (extremely) widely used as sources on WP. In many cases, their general reliability has been accepted without proper (if any) discussion; where there has been discussion, it has often been contained within a narrow interest group, which on occasion includes parties who are involved in or have close links to the databases. Due to their proliferation, perhaps it is necessary to discuss all of these databases individually. If so, as a consequence of those discussions, it may then be useful to maintain a separate (to RSP) list of the most commonly scraped databases/websites with a summary of the community consensus on their reliability (especially for historical data). _wjemather 11:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• No RSP is sufficient. --Jayron32 12:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes we need to do something to halt the creation of articles sourced only to sports tables.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  How would this stop that? We already have plenty of guidance that tells people not to do that. This adds nothing to our existing guidance. --Jayron32 15:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  When criteria for article creation can be based on facts and not coverage (see WP:NSPORTS and WP:NGEO as SNGs that support this type of article creation), we need to acknowledge this guidance is neither effective nor coherent, Jayron32. There are many databases (such as Olympedia) used for this purpose. RSNP is based on discussion, perhaps we need one for databases based on use to at least improve these article creations. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  That will no longer be the case once the pending RfC closes. Subproposal 5 has overwhelming support and specifically provides that we can no longer have new articles bases solely on databases, as there will need to be at least one example of SIGCOV in the article from the point of creation. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• No, it's so rarely appropriate to source an encyclopaedia article to a database that this is not needed.—S Marshall T/C 16:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• No The purpose of this page is to determine if the sources are reliable. They are. They should not be used as exclusive sources to start articles but that is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether they are reliable. This discussion has dragged on for months and is trying to kill NSPORT by death by a thousand cuts and is getting very tiring. Please stop. Smartyllama (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Is there a way to better draw users to The Misplaced Pages Library? I feel like any such list is going to be incomplete without emphasizing the free databases that we have access to through wikipedia. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• No - no, better to not fragment when RSP can handle it; no, it seems unnecessary as such are seldom used; and no, databases in general is not suitable for RSP because they are not perennial RSN discussions so there is nothing there to capture. It seems just unnecessary inventing of a fork topic where there is no previous need. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• No per my concerns in #Do we need a separate list? below and similar ones raised by e.g. Aquillion above. {{u|Sdkb}}  02:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• No, I concur with the "bloated" argument, and would support not doing this. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• WikiProject Football already has a list - Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/Links - which probably needs updating. GiantSnowman 20:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  That's exactly what made me think of this, GiantSnowman! I was like "That's such a great resource they've built there, I wonder if it would be positive for the wikipedia as a whole to have something along those lines" but instead of being just a resource list it was similar to RSNP. Databases are kind of a beast of their own compared to sources like journalism or academia, but not any more or less reliable necessarily so I thought splitting them off from RSNP might be significantly more productive. Hopefully others agree. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The reason I mention unreliable as well as reliable in my !vote is because it would also help as a place to director editors to who add unreliable databases (Transfermarkt is a classic example) in good faith. GiantSnowman 20:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Perennial" has negative connotations to me. These websites are actually incredibly useful. GiantSnowman 20:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  The word came from Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, GiantSnowman. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I know, I'm just noting the usefulness of the sources! GiantSnowman 20:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we need to rename this page to WP:Frequently disputed sources or WP:Frequently discussed sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Do we need a separate list?

I absolutely support us having more centralized information on perennial sources, but I question whether we should create a new separate page, which just adds to our growing maze. Shouldn't we just add entries on these databases to WP:RSP, as has already been done for some? {{u|Sdkb}}  21:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussions related to the NSPORTS proposals such as this thread, for example (I'd list the project page but don't want to waste too much of your time), indicated that the current wiki approach to discussing databases was creating problems both in terms of guidance on how and when to use them as sources as well as differing local consensuses on particular sources. My personal view is having its own page would be most useful (as I see databases as quite a different type of source as the journalistic or academic ones commonly discussed at RSNP), but it is possible that having a section of RSNP dedicated to databases and creating a guideline or essay on databases would be beneficial as well. I've only been here a year so I'm not experienced enough to be confident on the best way to solve the nuanced issues that came up in the NSPORTS discussion, but thought at least this RfC will bring some positive discussion on the topic. Apologies for the wall of text, although I would like to get your thoughts on it, Sdkb. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

My concern is mainly that it's really easy to create a new page or system, and 9 times out of 10, what ultimately happens is that it fails to gain much traction but isn't ever deleted or marked historical, either, so it just exists as largely a fork of another page, making things more confusing for newcomers. The ultimate direction we want to be heading is to have a single database with hundreds or even thousands of entries for sources discussed at RSN. This database will be automatically referenced when you add a citation in the edit window, providing immediate warning to editors who might be about to use an unreliable source. RSP is the early version of what will one day become that database, so we should be putting our energy into developing it, not spinning off separate pages which will come to have their own norms and have to one day be folded back (likely with some difficulty/controversy) into the larger database.

I should note that this isn't just a hypothetical concern for RSP. There are a few forks of RSP, including ​User:Syced/Wikipedia Reference Search, ​User:Headbomb/unreliable, Template:Predatory open access source list, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Misplaced Pages/Questionable1, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Sources, and Misplaced Pages:New page patrol source guide (and likely others). Each of these applications has a distinct purpose, but fundamentally they're all doing the same thing (listing out sources and rating their reliability), and it'd save us a massive amount of wasted duplicate effort if they all drew from one centralized database rather than each maintaining their own. I should also note that there are some editors who have long objected to the existence of RSP because the use of any source needs to be evaluated in context (which is true, but I think most editors recognize that RSP on balance is a positive) and another group who resist the idea of expanding RSP for fear it'll become unwieldy or less accurate (which I think is a genuine but misguided concern). Best, {{u|Sdkb}}  23:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think these are good points. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel there's should be a more refined "rate/rank a source" (from 1-10), and it would be open for any registered editor who has been on Misplaced Pages for over 5 years. Folks could post the questionable information (from that source) in a log file which would show what content exactly got a source to be possibly restricted. Just using cancel culture for sources doesn't bring about a teachable moment in how to spot misinformation. CaribDigita (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a better way than this deprecation (or depreciation as some seem to think it is) system. Not sure if that 5 years would be too high a barrier to entry though. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A 5-tier system had previously been suggested at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 1 § Add more levels of reliability?, though there hasn't been enough interest to implement it. One of the challenges of adding more tiers is defining them. — Newslinger talk 10:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It is a challenge, but it is a benefit too. We would be forced to define instead of following this not very defined deprecation (or depreciation as some seem to think it is) system. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Split list into sections?

I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, but when I have attempted to edit the table entries lately, I have experienced significant lag due to its massive size. I don't want to remove entries or split this into multiple pages—I think it is convenient to have everything it one location—but I think it would be prudent to split the table into multiple sections (like an A–M and N–Z section). Any objections? —Compassionate727  15:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, splitting the list into sections would break the table sorting feature. One solution is to make a separate page that contains this same list, broken down into smaller sections like the ones you described, and create a bot to sync edits between these two lists. Of course, this would require some effort to implement. — Newslinger talk 02:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Should have shortcuts for all the entries. Countless people get linked here to no avail.Moxy- 02:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Each entry has an ID that is specified in the line immediately above the source name. For example, the first entry for 112 Ukraine has this: id="112_Ukraine". You can link to the specific entry on the list by treating the ID as a section title of an article. The link to the 112 Ukraine entry is WP:RSP#112 Ukraine. (In links, Misplaced Pages treats the underscore character _ as an equivalent to the space character .)

Shortcuts like WP:NYT can be created and added to the list whenever someone feels a need to do so. Most of the entries aren't linked often enough for editors to bother creating shortcuts for them. — Newslinger talk 02:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiHow ?

can we use wikihow as a reliable source?

Link : https://www.wikihow.com Religiousmyth (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Religiousmyth: WikiHow is user-generated and therefore unreliable. Dexxor (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's for sure not a reliable source. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Case-by-case reliability. They say they have an Editorial Process; they have a panel of experts including medical professionals; They have a review process including "check mark" labeling of articles that "received an additional layer of review." and they got reliability endorsements by other reliable press. Not that it carries much weight, but it is used as a wiki-source hundreds of times. Wikihow may be user-generated/submitted content, but it appears to have more extensive review process as compared with, say Misplaced Pages. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

MSNBC

I think MSNBC's reliability should change due to it being controversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/MSNBC_controversies Master106 (talk)

You should open a conversation at WP:RSN to establish a consensus for that change. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll post it there. Master106 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Buzzfeed - End of News Operations Pending

As of March 2022, Buzzfeed is no longer a reliable source. Their entire premise a news organization is lacking and the remaining writers are in the stringer role.

The notable articles from buzzfeed in the past may be reliable sources, but in the general case they do not resemble a journalistic organization as of March 2022.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/22/1088117006/buzzfeed-news-buyouts

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/22/buzzfeed-investors-have-pushed-ceo-jonah-peretti-to-shut-down-newsroom.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/business/media/buzzfeed-news-editors-newsroom-cuts.html Loopbackdude (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Loopbackdude please enlighten us as to how this source in particular negates their reliability? CUPIDICAE💕 15:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It's far too early to make a decision on this; Buzzfeednews is under a process of reorganization; but unless and until we see the work that gets put out after the reorganization, there's no way to make a decision one way or the other. If that reorganization ultimately results in the entire outlet closing shop, then there will be no more news from them to evaluate; that's not an unreliable source, that's a defunct source. The existing writing remains reliable, but if they don't write anything more, then there's nothing to assess for reliability. If they newsroom does continue in some form, we should wait until we have some data on the new form. For all we know, the editorial policies and practices will continue with just smaller staff and less pieces going to print; there's nothing wrong with that. --Jayron32 15:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If you ignore the history of the organization quality, I guess. So it is your position buzzfeed can still exist as reliable source with 3 editors and some content managers paying for articles by the word? The news articles highlight that a majority of the "respected news editors" have moved out the door. Sure we can give this two weeks to see what further content escapes the "Buzzfeed News" division in turn around mode. Probation mode in my mind. Loopbackdude (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Loopbackdude, thanks for sharing those articles. It's useful information to be aware of in evaluating future BuzzFeed articles. It may end up being a situation like WP:NEWSWEEK, where the community establishes a cutoff date for reliability. But it's definitely premature to declare post-March 2022 BuzzFeed as questionable or unreliable simply based on their restructuring plans. Schazjmd (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

WaPo also reporting on it. Premature to say it's now unreliable. --Chillabit (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I concur. This development is not encouraging, but as Jayron32 says, it's possible that they will just produce fewer stories that are each still individually good. It might take months to notice a difference and have the evidence for it to establish it clearly. XOR'easter (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Color-coding

I have two suggestions:

1. The legend headers should also show the background colors. Now the color definitions are not clear to me. Why differ pink from red?

2. The colors should essentially be the same as the nice CiteHighlighter tool shows. Pink is not used by that tool, and purple (plum) is used but for another purpose, news aggregator websites.

Comments? @Novem Linguae: Tomastvivlaren (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

1) That sounds like a good idea. I went ahead and made a bold edit to implement this.

1a) That unreliable and deprecated are so close to each other in color and a little hard to differentiate is a valid concern. I imagine that was done because they are both shades of red, and therefore convey unreliability.

2) This page has a lot more age, traffic, and consensus than my CiteHighlighter script. As the senior page, I don't expect they'd be interested in changing their color coding to match my tool.

Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing the colors in the legend. In Special:Diff/1081061833, I've switched out {{box}} for {{legend}} to keep the line heights consistent. — Newslinger talk 02:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The color scheme should remain as is, WP:UPSD uses it too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer RfC

The RfC for the Skeptical Inquirer was recently closed at WP:RSN § Skeptical Inquirer at Arbcom. The closing statement states that there is consensus for option 1 ("Generally reliable for supporting statements of fact") and option 2 ("Marginally reliable for supporting statements of fact, or additional considerations apply"). Since the closing statement does not specify the topic areas (e.g. general topics vs. politics) or aspects (e.g. staff vs. contributors) of the source that the options apply to, it is up to us to interpret the closing statement and the rest of the RfC in a way that would fit the format of this list.

One potential solution is to have a split entry classifying the Skeptical Inquirer under "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise" for claims unrelated to living persons, and under "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" for claims related to living persons. Many editors in the RfC regarded SI as more reliable for non-BLP claims than for BLP claims, which this representation would reflect.

@Eggishorn: Thank you for closing the RfC. As the closer, would you like to make any comments that would help us interpret your closing summary for this list? — Newslinger talk 07:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

SI uses a "newspaper model" for fact-checking. This is less rigorous than the fact-checking in traditional print magazines, but now common for online sources and not an indication SI is self published. Extra care should be exercised in evaluating the qualifications of the author and how the particular piece fits within the publisher's area of expertise.

CSI engages in advocacy, and some SI articles will not be an independent source for WP (for instance interviewing their own lawyer concerning ongoing lawsuits.)

As for any source consideration should be given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy. fiveby(zero) 14:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

SI does not need to go on RSNP. As the close indicated, this is a matter that can be discussed on a case by case basis. I don't see a benefit to adding it to RSNP nor do I think it is wise for us to relitigate it here. If the closer wishes to further clarify their conclusion they can do this here but involved editors should probably keep away imo. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Trying to add an entry at RSP will just invite drama (and this is not a "perennial" source). Case in point: Fiveby's proposal is tendentious nonsense. Newslinger's is at least sensible. Alexbrn (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Newslinger:, I apologize for being AfK for a little while. I have been working of some very time-sensitive tax return stuff for clients yesterday and today but I will try to respond more fully tomorrow. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think it would be yellow with additional considerations apply and a don't use for BLPs. Any objections to adding that? PackMecEng (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  I would rather wait a bit longer for clarification from the closer. There's no rush. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  It has been a couple weeks since the close and getting close to that since they have last commented anywhere. I don't mind waiting a couple more days but given their lack of discussion on their talk about it and lack of engagement here, it should be added soon or possibly overturned. PackMecEng (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish, but what do you propose the additional considerations are? BilledMammal (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Additional considerations apply is standard nomenclature for coding it yellow per WP:MREL. Specifically when it comes to BLP topics. PackMecEng (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  My interpretation of the close is that additional considerations beyond BLP apply, but the close is very non-specific - it is why I want to give Eggishorn time to return and provide additional details. BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  If there are others we can certainly add more to it. I just think it is good to get a baseline, something broad we can build off of. @Eggishorn: Do you have some additional thoughts? PackMecEng (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps at this point this should be brought to close review? It was questioned on the closer's talk page, as well as here. With no further elaboration at this point, I'd rather see a more standard closure with a closer available to answer questions than interpret a vague closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm honestly not sure how to list it at this point. The close seems to be a case of 1/2, so maybe yellow with a note about the considerations to apply? — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  That's why I'd prefer a close review, as there's no real way to summarize it. ...establishes a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy doesn't actually help, since the discussion was about how the use of the source fits with existing sourcing and content policy. Seeing as Eggishorn has not been active to elaborate, a better close would help a lot more than trying to summarize this one. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's been a month; I think a consensus to overturn the close and allow it to be reclosed by a more active editor is needed. BilledMammal (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Which, I believe, means going to WP:AN, oh good.

  1 2 3 not it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  To be honest, SFR I think you probably have the most good will from both sides to take it there peacefully. Either that or Tryptofish if they're willing. If I took it there it will become a shitshow so I'd rather not. — Ixtal ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  You can't see because this is the Internet, but my finger has been on my nose for the past hour and a half. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we find out if arynews.tv is a RS?

This one https://arynews.tv/ is used, if I searched correctly, on 139 articles. Not being familiar with this site, how can I request we review the reliability of this site. Cheers! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Raise one or more specific example(s) At WP:RSN following the instructions at the top of that page. This page is just an index of what has happened there. Alexbrn (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The Straits Times

I've made a slight change to the list for The Straits Times (ST), to be more in-line with its RfC. The previous summary had lacked important information such as the fact that it was the country's newspaper of record, which was mentioned multiple times in the RfC. The RfC had also generally agreed that the paper is generally reliable for general issues except for politics, especially local ones, due to influence by the government and therefore possible bias. Therefore, additional considerations are to be made. However, bias ≠ unreliability. In my view, ST is probably not much different to SCMP and the like, whereby they are also generally reliable with additional considerations for political issues in relation to the host country. SCMP is classified as generally reliable on the list – without even a split for political topics – and it's highly doubtful that ST is on a much lower tier than SCMP, no one treats ST as such.

Paraphrasing some of the users opinions on the RfC, there is no evidence that ST in unreliable (e.g. fake news, disinformation, etc.) ST is treated as such by other reliable sources, and that bias is not the same as unreliability. Obvious links to the government means common sense should be applied when using as a source on local politics, and statements in that topic area should preferably be attributed. Hence, I had split the classification into two, as the previous status may jeopardize its usage for various other topics related to the country, especially non-political ones, as it is the largest and oldest English-language newspaper in the country. I welcome additional comments about my change, if any. John Yunshire (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This discussion should be held at the same place the original RfC was discussed: WP:RSN. Alaexis_¿question? 17:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Amnesty International RFC never closed or reflected here

I think the result of this RFC was obvious (1), but I was involved so don't think I should be the person to add AI to this list, but can some other regular review the RFC and add an entry for AI? nableezy - 23:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's so obvious, but maybe folks at WP:CR can help. Alaexis_¿question? 05:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Its been closed, but the closer would rather somebody else update RSP. I can do it, but again Im not sure I am sufficiently uninvolved to distill the closure in to an entry (generally reliable for facts, in text attribution for views would be my reading of the close). Could a regular here do that? Newslinger? nableezy - 16:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I added it, Nableezy view of outcome seems correct, I never added one before so if anyone wants to verify? Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

My reading of the close is that we also need to be careful about how it presents those facts; I think the RSP entry should mention that. BilledMammal (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I amended so that "presentation of facts" is explained (ie consider using less intemperate wording where necessary) @S Marshall: Is the entry a fair reflection of your close? Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Tolerable, yep.—S Marshall T/C 13:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• WikiProject Reliability pages
• A-Class Help articles
• High-importance Help articles
• Misplaced Pages Help Project pages
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press