Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Color "additional considerations apply" as purple and "no consensus" as yellow at RSP

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Color "additional considerations apply" as purple and "no consensus" as yellow at RSP. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Why on earth is it over there as opposed to here or RSN? - David Gerard (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I did wonder that, or at least sort out the disagreement over "no consensus" first. The discussion at VPI shows there's disagreement. Maybe along with 'reliable source, but not for this particular issue', which is also listed in two different ways. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Separating into two colors was also sort of the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 10#No consensus versus mixed consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Solely meta-RSP matters don't discuss the reliability of a source. Though I don't oppose notifying RSN as well, I feel like there's separation in topic between these two pages and posting at RSN would be a little off the topic of discussing the reliability of sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion about splitting colours had a lot of detractors, I'd feel on much firmer ground with more easily discernable consensus.
Discussion about what colours to use at RSP or other aspects of it's formatting don't belong on RSN, but notification is always an option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

David was the only detractor against the very idea of splitting.
Since there's popular demand I will notify when I start the actual proposal (that was the Idea lab) at VPr I guess. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Split "additional considerations apply"/"marginally reliable" from "no consensus" at RSP

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Split "additional considerations apply"/"marginally reliable" from "no consensus" at RSP. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The Observer

The Observer separated from The Guardian in late April 2025, and has been given a new URL for post-The Guardian ownership articles. I have not seen any WP:RSN discussions about either since late 2024, so the Observer may need to be separated from the Guardian entry at least partially. Xeroctic (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

There were discussions of it before that, though. If you have concerns about its reliability you could start an RSN discussion, otherwise I don't see a problem with GRel status. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia article

There is now a Wikipedia article about this list at Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Feel free to help expand the article if you are interested. The {{Press}} box at the top of this talk page is full of news coverage. — Newslinger talk 08:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

what is the need for this article ? why is it in article namespace?Cinaroot (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

When an aspect of Wikipedia becomes notable, an article is sometimes made about it. See Category:Wikipedia for a collection of articles about Wikipedia itself. — Newslinger talk 06:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we change article name to Reliable sources ? and mention Perennial sources in body Cinaroot (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

also Wikipedia:Reliable sources is enough to explain about reliable sources imo. Cinaroot (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm also not sure about the name of the article. If you have a better suggestion, feel free to discuss it on Talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, or start a requested move. The purpose of an article-space page is to describe the article subject to a reader who may not necessarily be a Wikipedia editor. For example, the academic publications about RSP and the media coverage of RSP usually aren't relevant in project space, but they are in article space. — Newslinger talk 08:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Times of India

Hi. I just want to know that on what circumstances do we use TOI as a references in any wikipedia article? Fade258 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

It may very well depend on what you want to use it for. As WP:TIMESOFINDIA says it isn't always the best source . -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ActivelyDisinterested, I have reviewed the Perennial sources regarding TOI and I saw in many BLPs that there is a use of TOI as a reference and I saw in WP:TIMESOFINDIA it mentioned that additional considerations apply. Is that applicable to the article? Fade258 (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Additional considerations mean that there isn't a clear yes/no answer, it will depend on what it's being used for. When it's used in BLP the issue is likely going to be paid advertorials, and handling anything overly promotional as if it was promotional material from the subject.
When you say "Is that applicable to the article?" do you have a particular article in mind? This is a situation where the more specific the question the easy it would be to answer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ActivelyDisinterested Thanks for your reply. Though there is an question about the reliability of TOI. I have reviewed some of the articles published by TOI which was added in the most of the articles and that looks good to me. Regarding applicabe article, currently I do not have any article but I am planning to create which I am doing research. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

See the summary, just watch for indications of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Paid reporting in Indian news organizations for that specific article. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Aaron Liu, Thanks for your time and feedback. Though I have already reviewed the perennial sources but I have doubt on it's use. Fade258 (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Have you checked the section I mentioned? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have already checked your mentioned section which I already have some knowledge about this but, I want to listen from other users regarding the use of TOI. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

MREL subpage

Since the MREL classification has been a recurring topic of discussion here, I've been working on a taxonomy of MREL sources, which can now be found at the subpage WP:RSP/Further classification. The groups are determined based on the reasoning presented in the RSP summaries. The goal is to provide information on the types of MREL sources, along with clarifying the differences between them, and to help with the related discussions.

The page also includes a classification of the 109 individual MREL sources. Initially, I wasn't planning to include this, as my focus was on the overall system, but I had done a brief classification as part of my review, and rereading some of the discussions convinced me that it may be useful. That said, I found that the evaluation was more subjective than I expected. Broadly speaking, I considered a source to qualify for a group when the group description is part of the justification for the MREL classification, in a way that wouldn't just apply to most or all sources. While I have included specific numbers below, they shouldn't be overly emphasized. Review would be appreciated, as the current version is just a first pass.

Description:

• There are three primary groups: variation in reliability within the source, the source is marginally reliable, and unclear/no consensus (groups 1 through 3). Every MREL source is classified in at least one of the primary groups. There are also three additional groups: the source is used for opinion, it is only reliable for specific primary-sourced information, and it is no longer updated (groups 4 through 6). Some of the groups could potentially be divided further, e.g. based on the type of concerns associated with each source (self-published, poor editorial control, etc).

• There is considerable overlap between groups. For example, most MREL state-controlled media fall under both groups 1 and 2 (different reliability depending on topic, marginal reliability on some topics). Likewise, there can be different levels of reliability with at least one unclear aspect (groups 1 and 3), marginal reliability with at least one unclear aspect (groups 2 and 3), etc. Even among sources that only qualify for a single group, many of them have unique additional information beyond what is captured by this taxonomy, which might qualify them as an overlap if more detailed categories were added to the classification system.

• Out of 109 MREL sources, the number of sources that qualify for each group are 68, 85, 53, 9, 2, and 4. In terms of percentages, 78% of sources are in group 2, 62% are in group 1, and 49% are in group 3. The sources that qualify for only one group are a minority (25/109, or 23%). These numbers should be considered approximations, as per the above caveats.

I'm also aware of the recent discussions discussing a potential split. This page will be relevant whether or not that happens, and could potentially be used to help with a transition. However, it does raise the potential issue that the "no consensus" sources generally can't be cleanly distinguished from the others. As a result, the method of dividing sources would have to be determined, and in many cases it would likely require some amount of discussion. I suppose I've divided the sources as well, but allowing them to be in multiple groups greatly simplifies the issue. "No consensus" is usually not the only result, and if the groups had to be mutually exclusive, it would be possible to move some sources between their presumed groups by minor changes to their summaries, e.g. "no consensus for X...consensus for Y" compared to "consensus for Y...no consensus for X". The specific numbers (again, noting the caveats above) are: among 51/109 sources recorded as no consensus (53 in group 3, but two of them qualified under a different criterion), only 8 of them had no overlap with at least one other group, and 21 of them overlapped with two or more other groups. Even among those with no overlap, some of them include potentially useful information in their descriptions that goes beyond simply identifying a lack of consensus. Sunrise (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:NEWSCIENTIST" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:NEWSCIENTIST has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 25 § Wikipedia:NEWSCIENTIST until a consensus is reached. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 04:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Forbes vs. Forbes Contributors.

At fault of my own, I got a potentially green reliable source confused with a red unreliable source. Now what I want to know is this: If Forbes is considered reliable for some reason, why is it still in the green if "Contributors" can just write whatever they want too? Shouldn't that make Forbes as reliable as IMDB? Maxcardun (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Forbes publishes its own editorial, non-contributor content. The contributor content is indeed as reliable as IMDb but the actual editorial news and articles stuff is generally reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Maxcardun For example, [1] is "green", or WP:FORBES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Explaining a bit more, the linked article is by Forbes staff, not a Contributor, according to the byline: By Conor Murray, Forbes Staff. Murray is a Forbes news reporter covering entertainment. This would indicate if it was written by a contributor instead of staff.
Whereas this article [2] clearly says By Ian Nicholas Quillen, Contributor. as the byline to differentiate. -2pou (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

To explain even more, pay attention to whether it says "Forbes Staff" or "Contributor". Aaron Liu (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

If this is the case, should it be annotated the way Sports Illustrated is - one entry, yellow, with an explanation about which articles are likely to be reliable and which aren't? Detachedspork (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Did you look at the entries just below WP:FORBES? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

There was some concern (including from me) in discussion #19 of the contributors entry about Forbes.com changing the byline in all of an author's articles when the author is promoted from contributor to staff writer. The difficulty of tracking down whether the author was a contributor or staff writer at the time of an article's publication could justify a reclassification, but this would need more discussion and possibly an RfC to gauge the prominence of the issue. — Newslinger talk 22:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Reconsider The UK Telegraph wording

• Current status:* “Generally reliable (excluding transgender topics)” (see Wikipedia:TELEGRAPH ).

• Proposed new status:* “Generally reliable (excluding both transgender topics and intersex/DSD athlete topics).”
• Rationale:* Currently, in Talk:Imane Khelif, some editors are arguing for the reliability of Wikipedia:TELEGRAPH articles on Imane Khelif since it's not strictly about transgender issues.
• Wikipedia:TELEGRAPH's coverage of Imane Khelif (and other DSD athletes) has been very much in the same sensationalistic tone as their coverage of transgender issues most strikingly in articles written by their Chief Sports Writer, Oliver Brown https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/o/ok-oo/oliver-brown/

Detachedspork (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The current wording depends on a long RFC, changing the wording isn't something that can be done on a suggestion and would likely be highly controversial. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

isn't that the point though? Detachedspork (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

To make any change would require starting a discussion on WP:RSN after which you could start a RFC on the matter (see WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCOPEN), which would be closed in a few months. Really you would need to show that there are secondary sources saying that the Telegraph has a long term issue with the accuracy of it's reporting in the area of DSD. My point being this isn't really a solution for the issues with the Imane Khelif article. Any change to the RSP likely won't happen for months.
Any source whether generally reliable or generally unreliable isn't always reliable or unreliable. For a specific instance you are better off discussing it on the articles talk page, and if necessary asking about the specific source and the specific content that it is being used to support at WP:RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Media Bias/Fact Check

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Media Bias/Fact Check

 – — Newslinger talk 20:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)