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)

New World Encyclopedia

Additions of this source trigger the "deprecated source" tag, which links to this page, but there are no entries for this source on this page (unless I've missed it?). Should there be, or should such edits be otherwise tagged? The current state is potentially confusing to users, since they're directed here but find no information. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The tag may be better off pointing to WP:DEPS, the information page which explains what deprecation is. As far as I can see, the New World Encyclopedia has never been formally deprecated through a discussion at RSN, and is as such correctly not listed as deprecated on this page. The most recent mention of it at RSN (in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 370#Deprecate sources repeating citogenetic claim (discovery of alcohol & sulfuric acid)). According to that discussion, it is an internet encyclopedia produced by the Unification Church that selects and rewrites certain Wikipedia articles through a focus on Unification values – so clearly an unreliable source.

The edit filter which warns for the use of deprecated sources is Special:AbuseFilter/869. I can't find any documentation there on whether it is intended only for sources which have been deprecated via RfC, but it looks as though it was initially set up in response to the Daily Mail deprecation RfC. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

All deprecated sources are listed on this page. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

New world encyclopedia was added to the filter yesterday by Ohnoitsjamie with the summary "Adding alchetron and newworldencylopedia (both user-generated sources; the latter is a fork of Wikipedia)". The source isn't deprecated, which has effects beyond the edit filter, as there hasn't been a RFC to do so (DEPS says a RFC should happen and that "the restrictions are only applied if there is community consensus"). A separate filter for UGC/CIRCULAR sources could be helpful, as it could include wording and a link to something more appropriate than DEPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the edit filter message should be amended. (Also, I wonder if the edit filter passes the message any parameters so that maybe we could display the offending line/source?) Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I did not realize that there was a formal policy around documentation for that filter, I'm happy to remove my entries. Alchetron is a user-generated wiki, and newworldencyclopedia is a POV fork of Wikipedia. Ideally both should be blacklisted, but unfortunately there are a lot of existing links that will take a long time to clean up. I previously had both of these on one of my disruption filters, which I didn't like because most users add these links in good faith. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

How about we just start an RfC to deprecate all of the sources you added to the filter? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with that; should the RfC be posted to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard or somewhere else? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It should be on RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with both deprecation and an RfC; a Wikipedia fork is inherently unreliable (per WP:WPINARS) and one which intentionally ignores neutrality for the sake of promotionalism even more so. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

There's been several RFCs recently for forks or UGC, just so they can be added to the filter. The deprecation process is overkill for such sources, policy is already clear they shouldn't be used. But filter 869 is the only tool available to warn editors before they add such a source as a reference, and the warning of that filter is specifically about deprecation. A new filter, "This is UGC, CIRCULAR, FORK are you sure you should be adding it?", would be useful, but I wouldn't know how to even start getting consensus for such a thing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussions are at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested, but I'm sure @Ohnoitsjamie could unilaterally create such an uncontroversial filter. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking about creating a new filter until discovered 869; I'm happy to do that as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

investing.com

Hey, I wanted to add a website covering the historic exchange rate of USD/TRY of investing.com as a reference. But then it said: "This site is blocked. This source is considered unreliable by our community, and therefore is not allowed. Please choose a different reliable source."

But investing.com is not listed here in WP:RSP. Don't all perennial sources need to be listed here in the WP:RSP article and explained what part of it is a bad source? Only the written articles of investing.com or also historic exchange rates? WikiPate (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@WikiPate Are you sure that's what it said? The message you saw should've been MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext, which mentions the blacklist and not deprecated sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes that the exact text. You can try it by yourself by trying to add the investing.com website that's shown first in the Google search:

https://www.google.com/search?q=historical+data+usd+try+investing.com

I cannot add the investing.com URL here because for that imvesting.com is also blocked.

investing.com is not on Wikimedia's global blacklist. I couldn't find Wikipedias blacklist. Where is it? And can I see the discussion somewhere if only news articles of investing.com are considered spam? WikiPate (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Please read the first link in that message.

Blacklisted sources that aren't perennial (see the "inclusion criteria" section here) are not included at RSP. Consult the blacklist archives for those. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Explanation of 'contentious claim'

It should arguably be explained somewhere what is meant by a 'contentious claim'. A claim that is contested by any editor? A claim that is known to be contested by someone IRL? A claim that an editor considers likely to be contested by someone IRL? 62.73.72.3 (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

In practice it means any claim that is challenged by any editor, in theory it also applies to any claim that will be challenged in the future but I'm sure its clear why thats purely theoretical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Presumably an editor challenging is doing that based on contradictory RS, at any rate it should be fairly obvious when a claim is contentious (calling it a WP:CLAIM implies that anyway). Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's related somewhat to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing; contentious claims may not need exceptional sourcing, but they need good sourcing, and all of the examples of "exceptional" claims are also contentious claims. User:Collect made an essay about this at Wikipedia:Contentious which I agree with. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Washington Free Beacon

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Washington Free Beacon

 – Aaron Liu (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Suggested clarification on Insta and other social media dicsussions

I came to this page with a question about citing Instagram. The Instagram discussion is essentially a reference to four other places:

"Instagram is covered by the following policies and guidelines: WP:SOCIALMEDIA, WP:RSSELF, WP:SPS and WP:UGC".

Needing to click four links to find the answer I was looking for is a bit daunting. It would have been less daunting, and would have saved time, to know what I learned when I checked them. RSSELF and SPS are exactly the same content, in different places. Also UGC is a subpara of SPS. The answers that this is referring people to are fully contained in two places, not four.

So I suggest changing the reference from four places to two, for example only WP:SPS and WP:SOCIALMEDIA, dropping RSSELF and UGC. A second-best fix would be to keep all four but note that RSSELF has the same content as SPS and that UGC is a subpara of SPS. This edit would make the instructions more clear and less daunting.

As a separate, related, question, why don't other social media sites - I quickly checked Facebook and Twitter - get generally consistent instructions? These policies are not cited for the other networks - instead some are linked in text, eg, "As a self-published source, it is considered" and others are paraphrased or ignored. More consistent description of how to treat social media sources in this chart would seem better and more clear. Sullidav (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Question about student media

The section on student media says this: However, given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions. Is this a complicated way of saying that it's just a primary source? Because the phrasing as-is implies that student media could be used as a notability qualifying source for other subjects and I've never seen it applied that way. But I don't want to cause a substantial change in meaning without seeking other editors' input first. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I dunno. All I know is I would advocate to allow student media to count towards notability for things that aren't about home institutions. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking is because it has implications for an AfD that's going on right now. If there's been an RfC or anything that gives some sort of precedent, that would be tremendously helpful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's been any discussion solely about this topic, but Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 46#Are student-run college newspapers considered reliable sources? has consensus that it does provide notability for things outside of said college. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

filmreference.com

The 2019 discussion said that the site is blacklisted. A 2022 discussion that asked to remove 3,141 citations also seems to have seen no action. Do we add it to the perennial list as unreliable? Do we start removing the citations? Jay 💬 09:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

It's listed under Advameg. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Jay, as a general rule, it would be better to "replace" the citations instead of "removing" them.

We could probably tag all the uses (a one-time WP:AWB run), which would help identify them as needing replacement. Maybe something like {{better source needed |reason=filmreference.com is on the spam list; please replace with a reliable source |date=May 2025}} would work? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure, who do we ask for the AWB run? Jay 💬 15:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. I would also link to the Advameg RSP entry in the replacement. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Or in the edit summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen Advameg in the discussions, but did not understand the relevance of it wrt rating filmreference in the reliability scale. Jay 💬 15:34, 8 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)