This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Horse Eye Jack (talk | contribs) at 14:12, 19 May 2020 (→CGTN: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:12, 19 May 2020 by Horse Eye Jack (talk | contribs) (→CGTN: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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. |
 | Controversially classified sources Fox News (RSP entry) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) (RSP entry) are the most controversially classified sources in this list. The most recent Fox News RfC is from 2010, and there has never been an RfC for the SPLC. If you disagree with the classifications of these sources, please start an RfC (request for comment) on the reliable sources noticeboard to determine the current consensus instead of directly editing your preferred classification into the list. If you are unfamiliar with RfCs, please ask here, and other editors will be glad to assist. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page. |
|
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: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | This project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Status of WikiLeaks
Two discussions on WikiLeaks (RSP entry) were recently archived. The main objection to WikiLeaks is that it is a primary source, which means that it should be used with caution, and only to supplement information in reliable secondary sources. There is disagreement on whether WikiLeaks adequately authenticates its content. WikiLeaks is currently classified as "generally unreliable". Should WikiLeaks be reclassified as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" to be more in line with primary sources like Hansard (RSP entry)? — Newslinger talk 03:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Daily Kos
The website's entry attributes a "far-left bias" to it. However, Daily Kos says: "Daily Kos is a group blog and internet forum focused on center-left politics, the Democratic Party and center-left liberal American politics." It provides zero indication for a "far-left bias" of its content. Rather, it mentions the website endorsing Hillary Clinton, who is far from being a left-wing radical.
Given that American conservatives and right-wingers in general keep spreading propaganda decrying US liberalism, and centrist or centre-left politics in general, as "far left", socialist, communist, Marxist, radical or extremist, which is ridiculously out of touch with the facts, political science and the rest of the world, I smell a rat here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, and edited to "progressive." It's certainly a biased opinion site, but it's not remotely on the far-left part of the spectrum. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes – I didn't dispute the "bias" part, only the "far-left" part. Thank you.
Done --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes – I didn't dispute the "bias" part, only the "far-left" part. Thank you.
One way to avoid disputes around contentious labels is to use the phrase "biased or opinionated"
, instead. The phrase can optionally be qualified (e.g. "biased or opinionated for politics"
) for a reduction in scope. — Newslinger talk 13:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The Forbes contributors section conflicts somewhat with WP:BLPSPS
The forbes contributors section description is currently somewhat out of line with current policy WP:SPS / WP:BLPSPS. We should probably expand it slightly to clarify this matter. --TheSandDoctor 18:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Added a mention of WP:BLPSPS to the Forbes.com contributors entry in Special:Diff/949958491, as this issue was mentioned in a couple of the listed discussions. Thanks for pointing this out, and feel free to improve it further. — Newslinger talk 13:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- That's great, Newslinger! Thank you. --TheSandDoctor 16:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Sky News
Is there any information of Sky News being a reliable source? Just want to ask, when it isn't mentioned in the article. However, this page proves that it is indeed a trusted news source like for BBC News. Bryn89 (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Skimming through the RSN searchresults , I get the impression it's considered generally reliable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
New rating?
Is there any support for assigning a new rating "commentary/opinion" for sources that are mainstream and have a good reputation but offer exculsively opinion and analysis, without any purely news/non-opinion pieces, so their entire output would be handled by WP:RSOPINION? I am thinking it would be a good designation for sources such as Foreign Policy, Reason.com, New Statesman, or New Republic (RSP entry). This new rating would apply only to commentary with a good reputation for facts; commentary sources that have a reputation for fake news (such as Quadrant (RSP entry)), would be rated "generally unreliable". buidhe 04:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've always seen the classifications as an evaluation of the reliability of a source's factual claims. Even opinion pieces contain factual claims (e.g. a review of an album is likely to contain claims regarding the artist's history and the songs' compositions). The suitability of a published opinion depends on the accuracy of the facts that the opinions are based on. If an article is considered unreliable for facts, then the opinions in the article are discarded as undue weight unless they are mentioned in a reliable source. If the article is considered reliable for facts, then its presented opinions may be considered for inclusion, subject to due weight. There was a recent discussion of this matter with respect to the Daily Mail (RSP entry) at "Daily Mail and RSOPINION", which led to the discussion at WT:RS § Adding clarifty to RSOPINION. — Newslinger talk 11:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Technical idea: make the header row of the table sticky
It'd be nice if the header row of the table stayed on screen, even as you scroll down, similar to what happens at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data. Does anyone know how to do that? {{u|Sdkb}} 00:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've brought it to Help_talk:Table#Sticky_table_headers?, where I see I'm not the only one with this question. {{u|Sdkb}} 00:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data uses the
position: sticky;CSS value for this. I tried to implement this here (using the style sheet at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/styles.css), but was unsuccessful. The main problem was that anchor links (e.g. WP:RSP#Associated Press) still made the entry flush with the top of the browser window, which caused the entry to be covered up by the header. Also, the sticky header worked on Firefox (desktop), but I wasn't able to get it to work on Chrome (desktop), the mobile site, or the mobile app before I noticed the anchor link issue. — Newslinger talk 13:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data uses the
Wording of inclusion criteria
I think the the wording of the inclusion criteria (WP:RSPCRITERIA)
For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions that mention the source's reliability, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three participants for all other discussions.
should be tightened to:
For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions that mention the source's reliability, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two
qualifyingparticipants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than threequalifyingparticipants for all other discussions.Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.
The revised criteria would exclude long discussions about other sources from being considered "significant discussions" if they do not mention the source in question. For example, the listed discussions from the former entry for The Spectator are reproduced below:
- "Is Alex Massie in the Spectator a reliable source for a known and unchallenged legal distinction?" (2016)
- "Deseret News" (2016)
- "The Monthly" (2018)
- "Is Evolve Politics an unreliable/unsuitable source?" (2018)
Discussions 2–4 are problematic because they are not about The Spectator, and each features only one editor who briefly mentions The Spectator. While this technically satisfies the current wording in WP:RSPCRITERIA, I do not think this is consistent with the intent of the original discussion on the inclusion criteria. The proposed new wording would exclude discussions 2–4 altogether.
I've already removed the entry for The Spectator in Special:Diff/952666985, but am just realizing the wording issue now. — Newslinger talk 11:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Semantic Scholar
A Semantic Scholar collaborator has become active on cite template related pages, e.g. User talk:Citation bot#Request to add link to Semantic Scholar s2cid when an open access link is not available. I don't know if that opens an opportunity on learning more about the copyright situation of some of Semantic Scholar's content (which is an issue if I understand the explanation in the RSP listing for this source correctly). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Special:Diff/942395819 was not aligned with consensus so it should just be reverted. Nemo 17:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Removed in Special:Diff/954859522 pending resolution of dispute. I personally agree with Nemo_bis in that there is no cause for concern about Semantic Scholar's copyright status, but other editors in the listed discussions ("Semantic Scholar" and "Semantic Scholar clarification request") expressed differing opinions. The dissenting comments were, in my view, enough to would classify the website as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply", as WP:COPYLINK is a valid "additional consideration". — Newslinger talk 17:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Whatever this gets resolved as, it should be made clear that SS is just a general repository that hosts a bunch of papers, there may or may not be a copyright concern, but as far as reliability is concerned, you trace it back to the original publication, not to SS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- That's a very good point. Semantic Scholar is a search engine like Google Scholar, and the reliability of the indexed documents depends on the reliability of the publications in which they are found. The copyright status of documents hosted by Semantic Scholar is not a reliability concern, but it does affect whether the documents are usable on Misplaced Pages. — Newslinger talk 11:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
NPR
Per discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#NPR, please change NPR to green with the following text:
- There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPRs's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution.
--Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Done in Special:Diff/954858539 with minor adjustments. Thanks for guiding the noticeboard discussion. Feel free to adjust entries on your own, since everyone is welcome to edit this list. — Newslinger talk 17:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- The advice "Feel free to adjust entries on your own, since everyone is welcome to edit this list." isn't working out for me. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#(Infomercial voice) But Wait! There's still more!! (News about The Daily Mail). --Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- See below - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Good call. That RfC is already producing a lot of productive discussion, and there will be a record of it in the RfC list that is part of The Daily mail entry. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- While anyone can edit this page, it still needs to adhere to consensus. The change, the revert, and the RfC are all part of WP:BRD, so it looks like the process is working as intended. — Newslinger talk 00:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
RSN discussion on RSP summary wording re: Daily Mail
Regarding the Daily Mail - some felt a proposed changed needed nailing down with an RFC - Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Discussion_on_WP:RSPDM - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
CGTN
Can we get CGTN added to the list now that the discussion has closed? We have a clear census of general unreliability . Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Categories: