Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Removal of edit
My edit to the ongoing RfC on the ADL was removed citing WP:ARBECR. I am under the impression that the RfC is open to users generally. I do not see any policy or warning about it being only open to XC editors. May someone please confirm whether I have the right to post there or not? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diff=1229936088&oldid=1229935646 Enbylvania65000 (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Under ARBECR, discussions related to the Israel-Palestine conflict are restricted to editors who are extended confirmed.
 * However, that specific example gets a little complicated; given that we have split Israel-Palestine into a separate sub-question, my impression is that editors who are not extended-confirmed should be able to respond to Part 2: antisemitism and Part 3: hate symbol database. However, such editors would need be careful to ensure their !vote doesn't not mention Israel, Palestine, or the conflict between the two.
 * In other words, my impression is that if you resubmitted your !vote after correcting those issues it should be fine. However, this is a grey area, so it may be removed again. BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I find it ridiculous that I can't mention the conflict that is the central issue behind the entire RfC while others in the same question can. I find it ridiculous that people can claim that there is no relation between Part 1 and 2 when denying my argument and then the same people can claim there is a relation in their own argument. But I will abide by these ridiculous rules as it is important to me that my point gets heard. Enbylvania65000 (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Where did you hear about the discussion? I find it strange that you have no edits for years (and your user page says you are semi retired) then suddenly pop up to !vote in an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I outlined my reason why. I am Jewish. I am afraid for how Wikipedia policy can exacerbate antisemitism in the real world at a time of increased persecution. I also fear the precedent it sends to other marginalised populations that we cannot define or discuss our own oppression without the approval of people who are not members of our group.
 * I semi-retired years ago in disgust over how in a discussion on Wikipedia policy on deadnaming, people who are trans and have direct stake seemed to be outright ignored and their opinion discounted almost as if it was *because* of their direct stake. I now wonder if that was a mistake. I now see the stakes as too high to continue to remain uninvolved.
 * As for where I heard about the RfC, I heard it from Times of Israel via a friend in Discord. I would have likely participated in Section 1 as well if I could, but Section 2 is a much higher stake issue for me. I did not participate in Section 3 as I don't feel informed enough for what I think ought to be a very technical discussion. Enbylvania65000 (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My view is that the subject of this discussion is intrinsically enmeshed with the matter of the Israeli/Palestine conflict and is thus covered by the broadly-construed provision. The entire crux of the discussion is based on definitions of anti-Semitism as it relates to positions on Zionism. signed,Rosguill talk 15:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would think the same, except we’ve explicitly split Israel-Palestine out - almost by definition, this means the other sections should be unrelated to the conflict. BilledMammal (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Our Zionism/AntiZionism and IHRA definition pages are all tagged Arbpia for a reason. I'm not that concerned about the database RFC but even then, non EC editors showing up out of the blue would still be a little concerning. Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They're different areas of coverage by ADL, so there is a possibility that different considerations could come into play, but with the discussion approaching closure it's clear that the main points of contention involve discussion of ideas regarding Zionism as a central feature. Section 3 on the other hand is maybe a bit more distinct, with editors raising concerns largely unrelated to Zionism and focused on ADL's reference-work in identifying neo-Nazi symbology. signed,Rosguill talk 16:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally, something doesn’t become part of IP just because editors start discussing IP. For example, if there is an RfC about the 2024 Election at Joe Biden, non-ECP editors can continue participating even if there is significant discussion about Biden’s role in the current war, so long as those editors avoid joining those specific discussions.
 * In other words, if the scope of the discussion is sufficiently broader than IP - and with IP split out that is clearly the case here - then non-ECP editors can participate in the aspects outside of IP. I believe this has come up in previous RSN discussions and the decision was to allow those editors to participate. BilledMammal (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No argument there. This case is different, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with BilledMammal: parts 2 and 3 are not, generally, part of PIA. Some commenter's rationales are, and non-ECP editors should not be engaging with those (or making such arguments themselves) but I see no justification for excluding them from the discussion as a whole - especially part 3. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As long as the arguments are unrelated to I/P, there is no policy-based reason to exclude the votes. FortunateSons (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How can I know whether the debate on whether I am allowed to post a comment on part 2 or not is settled? Enbylvania65000 (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone will probably restore your edit for you if it does settle in favor of allowing your to participate. BilledMammal (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I very much disagree with @Rosguill's attempt to extend the contentious topic restrictions to issues 2 and 3, for the reasons mentioned in my back and forth with @Rosguill at my user talk page, and I agree with @BilledMammal. Indeed, it would be helpful if someone here could issue a definitive ruling on this point, as my position is that @Rosguill, intentionally or not, is stifling this important discussion, and often in a way that disadvantages editors seeking to defend the reliability of the ADL. Coining (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Arbpia/CT is "broadly construed" so for example, a while back there was a discussion about whether David Miller fell into Arbpia and it was decided that parts of it did, there is a "partial" template which is obviously not available for this. So it is then a matter of editorial agreement and for me, it is a clear cut "partial" and quite possibly it should just be full, given the overall background. Selfstudier (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * By that logic, everything related to Arab countries or Israel, or Muslims or Jews, is covered by the contentious topic restrictions governing the Arab-Israeli conflict. That simply cannot be the rule. It is way too broad. Antisemitism (issue 2) existed well before the Arab-Israeli conflict -- it precedes by millennia the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel. The ADL itself was established in 1913. And hate symbols (issue 3) are a much broader topic than the Arab-Israeli conflict. I think that in essence this is an attempt to claim that antisemitism itself is a contentious topic (or that hate symbols themselves are contentious topics), but because Wikipedia doesn't have a determination saying that is the case, the effort is being made to shoehorn everything into the designation for the Arab-Israeli conflict. Coining (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Broadly construed" is the rule, what it means is usually pretty obvious and where it isn't so obvious, a short discussion soon resolves it. As for antisemitism it depends, the article for Antisemitism is not restricted but the Working definition of antisemitism is. Also, you should realize that only less experienced editors are caught by this, those with less than a 500 edit count, where experience has shown that the benefits in such exclusion outweigh the occasional losses. Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Even Zionism is not inherently linked to the Israel/Palestine conflict; indeed, it was a topic that existed well before there was such a conflict. It can certainly be discussed in that context, but then, Twitter can be discussed in the context of Elon Musk but that doesn't make every statement about Twitter a BLP matter. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If anti-Zionism isn't antisemitism, the symmetric property implies that the antisemitism section isn't inherently about anti-Zionism. This is a ridiculous double-standard and I agree with Thryduulf and BilledMammal. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No-one actually disputes that some AZ is equal to AS, so your math is wrong. Selfstudier (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Deprecation
I'm thinking 'Deprecate' shouldn't be one of the options for standard RFCs. It's always contentious and often misunderstood (as simply being worse than unreliable). That's not to say we shouldn't have it or use it, I think we should, but the standard discussion should be about how reliable a source is rather than if technical methods should be used to discourage it's use. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Broadly in agreement. At worst, and only in cases where a source has a history of being abused across articles, the question of deprecating (such as adding to the blacklist) should be handled as a separate section asking “if the source is determined to be unreliable, should it be added to the blacklist” or similar. And to make abundantly clear, the vast majority of sources shouldn’t need this extra question - if the discussion is about specific topic area(s) then the question is moot as that generally wouldn’t be added to the blacklist. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, it seems somehow to create a drift towards ever more harsh judgements of sources. Deprecation should be the end of a process and not a potential outcome at the beginning. For example comments such as 3 but I wouldn't object to 4 don't actually make a lot of sense. In fact, I believe that we should not deprecate a source unless it has been designated generally unreliable first (there are possible exceptions to such a rule but then that is like every other WP rule). Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there could still be need of discussing deprecation as a first measure, but I agree that that should be the exception. That it being proposed in the current DT discussion shows that there's a certain level of misunderstanding going on, as it's just not a feasible outcome. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 18:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There was actually an RFC to try to remove deprecation, but it failed. You could run another one - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link? I vaguely remember the RFC, but can't find it in the archives here. If those vague memories are right this is a different question, this isn't about the use of deprecation but how the RFC header should be formatted (I could be wrong about that). -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 19:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ah right - well, I'd say discussion belongs on the main board - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you perhaps vaguely remembering Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. BilledMammal (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was just talking to someone about this recently. I don't think that deprecation should be on the table, except for the most egregious cases, like websites that churn out made-up AI-generated stories. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree for the reasons stated by Philomathes2357 in their agreement. Further, having deprecation as an option in RSN RfCs limits the procedural nuisance that would otherwise arise by making deprecation a multi-step process. Finally, we should not obliviate an option from consideration by the community because of our belief that community is not cosmopolitan enough, or is too unsophisticated, to understand its meaning. Whether or not that's true, less autocratic and more inclusive methods -- such as explanatory notes -- should be tried first. Chetsford (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Some of the sources listed at RSP as "generally unreliable" are not actually generally unreliable. So, if there was a separate deprecation process, I would want to be able to !vote for options 1 and 2 there and then, during that deprecation process. I would not want to have a choice between only options 3 and 4. Subject to that qualification, I do not have a problem with the exclusion of deprecation as an option in RfCs on sources that have not already been classified as generally unreliable in a previous RfC. James500 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Header tweak
I've tweaked the RSN header, mostly adding [, ask yourself ''Do we need another discussion on this source? Has something changed?''].

&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This duplicates the sentence directly below RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. Having the same sentiment twice is not going to get editors to read it, extra clutter just means that editors are less likely to read the header at all.
 * This is especially true when the edit notice that appears when you start a new section has an even blunter sentence stating that you shouldn't open an RFC. So I don't see how stating it for a third time is going to have anymore impact.
 * Instead of duplicating the whole thing would highlighting the pre-existing sentence be a better option, see example here (the formatting still needs work, it has issue on some screens). -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 01:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't duplicate it at all. Above it says check that these discussions about the source haven't happened already, and that you're not just threading old grounds. There's 50+ discussions on Daily Mail. Over 45 for NYT and Twitter. 30+ for IMBD. Near 20 for CNN. We don't need more discussion on those sources unless something drastic happens to them.
 * Below is says don't start an RFC about a source unless it's widely used and there was multiple discussions about it. That's because you shouldn't jump to an RFC as a first resort. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok I think I've slightly misunderstood you intent, but I still think having to sentences for two very similar issues isn't necessary. Would modifying the current sentence on RFCs be a way forward? Adding a part on not starting a new RFC unless there is material reason for doing so. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 15:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that extra note is necessary. The header already tells editors to check the archives, and as a regular lurker, I don't see people opening discussions about over-discussed sources too much. Ca talk to me!  12:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Page is very large right now
And a big chunk of it happens to be a single closed RfC. Would it be OK to manually archive it, so that the page size can be reduced? — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I had been thinking the same, loading the board is glitchy at the moment. So I would support manually archiving it. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 01:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objection, I'm going to archive it now, manually. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 14:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Appropriate post?
I've been lurking here quite a while, and today started a new section but then on reflection, deleted it. Diff

I want to make editors aware of declining standards of Reach plc's local UK titles, but I appreciate that RSN isn't the place for general discussions of reliability that aren't related to specific contexts (I did include a couple, but overall I was talking generally). If any experienced editors are willing to take a look at the diff and give me feedback I'd be grateful. I feel like the potential for misinformation ending up in Wikipedia is high, but not sure the best way to address it. Orange sticker (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry this talk page doesn't get a lot of traffic. Your should re-add your diff to the main board. It's always helpful to include context, but if you just looking for advice or general feedback that's also fine. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 14:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Manual archiving of the Al Jazeera section
I'm thinking of manually archiving the Al Jazeera section later today, as discussion appears have moved on to starting a RFC and the board is creaking at the seams. Moving 200k into the archives would bring it back to just buggy not broken. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 14:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)