Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Cartoon image near lead
I removed the cartoon image near the lead. I think this image is sarcastic and distracting to the point of this article, and takes up a lot of space, especially when you read the page from a phone. Per WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content., so I have removed the image for now. I think it might be better positioned in the beginning of the "Legend", but personally I do not think it is beneficial to the article, even if it has been on this page for 5 years as mentioned by another editor. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's distracting for the point of this project-page, and since it's not an article, there aren't really any rules apart from consensus. Until I see an alternative I like better, I'm at keep it there. Previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/Archive_6. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's a great example of the dangers of poor sources. American Apple Orchards PAC aka O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly care for the image either and would be fine with its removal. Some1 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not all serious, we're allowed a little bit of humour. Keep or replace with the xkcd. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 09:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This xkcd image is far better than the current image. I would support that as a replacement if outright removal of the current cartoon does not reach consensus. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The image is perfect as is and illustrates clearly that not all sources are equal. Margaret Hamilton next to a stack of code illustrates nothing, and the XKCD one illustrates that sources are needed, not that reliable sources are needed. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But she has surely assembled the good sources! ;) That said, you make sense to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Headbomb that neither of the proposed alternatives are better. I don't have any particular attachment to the current image so if someone can come up with a better alternative I wouldn't mind changing it, but neither of these are. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think no image is the best. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I like having an image, so long as it's material to the text. The use of an image, especially one as pertinent as this one, sets up the content in a helpful way.
 * The four-panel cartoon is is the only image identified that is material to the text it accompanies: it shows the use of sources, but also that not all sources are reliable. That's the page's entire point.
 * The Hamilton photo is a great photo, for Margaret Hamilton (software engineer); not so much for this page. It says nothing at all about sources or their quality (except perhaps a pun about source code, which would be too arcane for a large number of non-programming Wikipedia editors who are the target audience for this page). The XKCD cartoon is is about the need for sourcing, and would be fine for WP:Reliable sources or WP:Citation needed; but it makes no point about the reliability of sourcing, so does not carry the point here. So far, the four-panel cartoon is the only one identified that is apt for this page. TJRC (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support removal of the cartoon. Ridicule is not part of the scientific method. The kind of mockery that the cartoon engages in is not helpful in discouraging pseudoscience: . James500 (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * RSP isn't very much about fighting pseudoscience, is it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's very much about fighting it, though it's not its exclusive mission (that would be fighting bad information in general, of which pseudoscience is part of). But this page is also not about changing minds. I couldn't care less about the feelings of WP:LUNATICS offended that no one is taking seriously their claims that water has memory, or that CNN is controlled by reptilians.
 * What it's about is explaining and documenting that not all sources are equal. And the cartoon explains that very succinctly. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The cartoon does exactly what @James500says it does which is antithetical to the headline, "The key to fighting pseudoscience isn’t mockery—it’s empathy". The cartoon could not be more mocking if it tried. Thankfully, we are free to remove it in the absence of evident consensus for the image being retained. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "The key to fighting pseudoscience isn’t mockery—it’s empathy" That's one opinion, and it certainly isn't universal. Moreover the point of the cartoon is to illustrate that not all sources are equal, and that if you bring a non-reliable source, people will ignore it, and rightfully so. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The cartoon does not explain "that not all sources are equal". The cartoon does not say that any sources are reliable. The cartoon does not explain which sources are unreliable, or what they are unreliable for, or why they are unreliable. The cartoon does not say whether there is any difference between being unreliable and being less reliable, and does not admit that uncertainty sometimes exists. The cartoon does not explain that a source may be reliable for some things even though it is unreliable for others. The hypothetical source described in the cartoon bears no resemblence to most of the sources listed at RSP. There are no ancient books that claim that apples cause cancer. RSP should not include jokes about the World Elephant or (even if only by implication) the World Turtle. I do not think that showing that cartoon to someone who "brings" an unreliable source is going to help to convince them or anyone else it is unreliable. I think it is more likely to cause offence and prolong disputes. And individuals who cannot be reasoned with need to be blocked, not insulted with a cartoon. James500 (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @James500 makes some excellent points about how the cartoon is actually potentially offensive, in addition to being unnecessary and in no way actually clearly didactic. I had not considered the offensive nature of the cartoon, and it is with this added reason that I see the building consensus for removal is becoming even more compelling than I had initially expected. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a good illustration for WP:AGEMATTERS. For an article about perennialy unreliable sources, not so much. Would it be a COPYVIO to use the front page of this article from The Sun (UK, Murdoch stable, now there's a surprise): Freddie Starr ate my hamster. Fair use? It is the archetypal example regularly cited in UK commentary, though there are more egregious examples. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, but would fail the strict demands of WP:NFCC/WP:NFCI. Got anything good pre-1929? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I found a sort-of-alternative which I added, but IMO it doesn't really fit. This is more an example of "Even generally reliable sources sometimes get it wrong." I wonder if they published a redaction? JMF's example is a much better fit, arguably even fake news per "The man behind the hamster story was the British publicist, Max Clifford, at that time Starr's agent, who concocted the story as a practical joke." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced it's really illustrating WP:AGEMATTERS. Yes, the books is described as ancient, but "apples cause cancer" isn't a previously-respectable but outdated theory.
 * As for a non-free image: per WP:NFCC#9, non-free images are only permitted in articlespace. Suggesting non-free images here is an absolute non-starter. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Quote from book: "Put ye sliced apples on a beach, and behold, crabs shall appear!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not see how WP:AGEMATTERS really applies here as well. Also, it looks like some people want the image removed, some don't really care, others want a new image, but there is no consensus to keep the existing image. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see strong support for keeping it from:
 * Objective3000 "American Apple Orchards PAC aka O3000, Ret"
 * Headbomb
 * TJRC
 * And weak support from:
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång
 * Anarchyte
 * Caeciliusinhorto-public
 * Solomon Ucko (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No consensus to change = no change. Basic wikipedianism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support removal and inclusion of second alternative. It's supposed to be a witty cartoon, but really isn't that funny or relevant to the source list that intends to be a more formal summary of source reliability. The cartoon in question would be better suited for WP:RS or WP:FRINGE rather than this list of perennial sources, specifically the latter. The second alternative (Margaret Hamilton) is a lot more relevant, as it indirectly represents the concept of "stacking" source discussions from an enormous archive, which is very much reflective of this project page and purpose. Will have a search on commons and see if I can find any more alternatives. CNC (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support removal. As the kids say, the current image is pretty cringe. I'm not sure having an allegedly funny image in the lede contributes anything. Apocheir (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment None of the alternative images seem compelling. Margaret Hamilton standing next to papers doesn't tell us anything. The Wikipedian protestor comic is actually kind of funny, but it's about a lack of sources at all rather than unreliable ones. The Dewey Defeat Truman press photo is pretty exclusionary to anyone not well versed in midcentury US presidential politics.  Bremps  ...  03:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that is why outright removal, without a replacement, is looking like the best option supported by the largest consensus at the present time. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support removal. None of the three images are clearly relevant to this particular page rather than, say, WP:RSN or many other source-related guidance pages. I support removal without replacement. Also, removal will reduce page size... a bit.--FeralOink (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is Al-Jazeera green?
There have been 12 discussions but no RfC. The last one has just been archived without reaching any conclusion and the previous one was "closed" with the closing editor noting that "No consensus is going to come from this thread." It seems that it should stay as "no consensus" until a proper RfC is conducted. Alaexis¿question? 21:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * What news has it published that is un-reliable? And was the piece you're refering to by an editor of the paper? Or an independent contbutor Op-ed piece which is just aired in the paper under free speech? CaribDigita (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a procedural question. The discussions about the reliability should take place at WP:RSN. Alaexis¿question? 05:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you request a formal closure of that discussion (has that not already been requested? I kinda assumed that would be a done deal). The volume and depth of past discussions regarding Al Jazeera deserve thorough accounting on this page (without looking, I would guess it's among, if not the, most discussed source listed). signed,Rosguill talk 21:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. I didn't think about it since it wasn't an RfC. I suppose I'd need to unarchive it first somehow? Alaexis¿question? 05:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I had misremembered it as being an RfC. In that case there’s no basis for changing it since it we’d need an RfC to potentially supersede past RfCs. signed,Rosguill talk 13:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, we have never had an RFC on Al Jazeera. BilledMammal (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Color me surprised twice over then. Given the length and frequency of the discussions, that seems overdue. signed,Rosguill talk 14:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * On a purely procedural basis, the previous discussion which was closed as "no consensus is going to come from this thread" was a proposal to change the reliability listed from generally reliable to something else. In general when a discussion proposing a change comes to no consensus we don't change the status quo, so that seems fine to me. The most recent discussion is super long and I haven't read it thoroughly, so I have no opinion on whether that shows that consensus has changed – if it has then of course we should update the RSP listing. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * RSP works slightly differently - if there is a "no consensus" result, that is what we list, even if there was previous a consensus for. BilledMammal (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it? Do you have another example of that? When the framing of the RfC is (as in the case of the Al Jazeera discussion) "should we change X to Y" it seems perverse for "there is no consensus to change X to Y" to result in us making the change!  It seems to me that the Al Jazeera discussion is distinct from the "How reliable is X" RfC format where "there is no consensus on how reliable X is" is a completely valid outcome. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Does it? Doesn't it depend on context? Like of a general RfC result in a no-consensus then the new consensus is no consensus... But if a specific proposal to change the status quo is no consensus then nothing changes in regards to the consensus. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that. VR (Please ping on reply) 05:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Fox News RfC seems to be that; it was a specific proposal to change the consensus ("Should we downgrade Fox News to "generally unreliable" for politics starting in November 2020?"), and one of the results from it was that there was "no consensus" on its general reliability, resulting in it being downgraded. That seems reasonable; if there isn't a consensus against downgrading it then there also isn't a consensus for maintaining its current rating, regardless of whether the proposal was the standard four option RfC or a specific proposal.
 * Other cases where sources were downgraded to "no consensus" on the basis of a "no consensus" close include the Daily Dot. BilledMammal (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Fox News RfC in 2020 was closed as The result of this RFC is that there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News. The Al Jazeera discussion was closed as No consensus is going to come from this thread. Though they both use the phrase "no consensus" the meaning of those two sentences is substantially different.
 * (As for the Daily Dot RfC, the format of that RfC was "how reliable is the Daily Dot?", which I don't think is entirely analogous for the reasons I gave above. At any rate, though the closer found no consensus as to whether the source is generally reliable, they did find consensus that the source should be used with attribution in cases where the publication is known to be biased or for when it is the source of a contentious claim of fact. This is very different from the Al-Jazeera thread which was collapsed as unproductive!)
 * At any rate, the time to propose changing the Al Jazeera RSP listing on the basis of the previous discussion was when it was closed; it's been six months and we've had another discussion in the intervening period! If people want to make a change to the Al Jazeera listing which is going to stick, the most effective way of doing that is going to be to hold an actual RfC now, not to argue about how we should have reacted to a discussion six months ago being hatted as unproductive. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that an RfC would be needed to definitely settle this. Alaexis¿question? 20:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite clear on how you're interpreting No consensus is going to come from this thread? I took it to mean no consensus on Al Jazeer'a reliability, since that was the main topic of discussion. XDanielx (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to make a voting system on Wikipedia. As in X amount of persons (of long term Wikipedians) regard institution as "credible" or "non-credible" type thing?  I think it should be an on going thing.  The one thing I fault Fox fox is leading statements which have no factual basis.   "The American public.... are/aren't"   "The American people.... are/aren't" is opinion often masquarading as fact.  But you know what CNN sometimes does it too not as blatantly. But I think there should be a ranking criteria also for journalists i.e. Alex Jones etc. After all it all comes down to a free speech issue. CaribDigita (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I worry about a binary... There are so many sources for which IMO the answer isn't credible or non-credible its well it depends on the context (for example Bassmaster magazine is an extremely credible source for how many people a fishing lure company employs or who won a bass fishing tournament but has no credibility when it comes to 8th century Persian dynastic feuds). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * who wrote the Al-Jazeera entry.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm still in a bit of shock seeing how lots of sources were classified in the late 2010s and then it became almost impossible to change anything because it's the status quo. In this case it was added as generally reliable based on the interpretation of a single editor (with all due respect to u:Newslinger). Other sources became deprecated based on a few "garbage source" !votes with no real arguments.
 * Of course, one could say that the fact that the status of AJ hasn't changed since means that it's indeed generally reliable. I don't think that this is the case, as the discussions in the newer threads at RSN show. Alaexis¿question? 20:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What "other sources" are you talking about? If you want to make an equivalent comparison, at least provide some tangible examples instead of saying things like "other sources being unfairly deprecated by biased editors". Not your quote, but it gives me the impression you're complaining about an otherwise exhaustively discussed topic and the consensus it led to. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 21:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's focus on AJ. I don't want to derail the discussion. Happy to give examples some other time. Alaexis¿question? 19:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. There seems to be a definite status-quo entrenched by senior editors who don't want to budge on their fifteen-year-old opinions ;) Scanf (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Normally no consensus results in keeping the status quo, but this wasn't "there was no consensus to change Al Jazeera to no consensus", this was "there was no consensus about the reliability of Al Jazeera". At least that was my interpretation of the last discussion and its close. We also have to be careful in drawing any comparisons to procedures in other areas - e.g. an AfD outcome is binary, an article must exist or not, so a status quo default makes sense there (what else would we do?). WP:RSP isn't like that - there's an option which explicitly captures a lack of consensus. If we're in agreement that there isn't consensus on Al Jazeera's reliability, it seems very clear that WP:MREL is the most appropriate status. XDanielx (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There will always be a lack of consensus on a source which reports facts which are inconvenient for some editors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if this accusation of editorial bias had merit, the state of consensus (or lack thereof) is what it is, there's no process for overruling a (lack of) consensus that we disagree with. XDanielx (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion review (Al Jazeera)
Here is my review of the discussions listed in the Al Jazeera entry:


 * 1)  (2007)
 * 2) * This discussion was about the video "Rigged Markets" (archive of original link), an episode of the Al Jazeera English program People & Power, cited in the Naked short selling article.
 * 3) * The discussion was brief and involved 3 editors.
 * 4) * 1 editor considered Al Jazeera generally reliable, and 1 editor considered the English edition of Al Jazeera generally reliable.
 * 5) * 1 editor described Al Jazeera as "a propaganda outlet run by a Persian Guilf [sic] government".
 * 6) * Since this discussion was brief and had low participation, it deserves low weight.
 * 7)  (2009)
 * 8) * At the time of discussion, aljazeera.com was the domain of Al Jazeera Magazine, which was is unrelated to Al Jazeera ;  until it  the domain was acquired by Al Jazeera Media Network in 2011, after which Al Jazeera took possession of the domain.
 * 9) * Since Al Jazeera Magazine is a defunct publication with different content than Al Jazeera, this discussion should be excluded from the evaluation of Al Jazeera's reliability.
 * 10) * A note informing editors of Al Jazeera Magazine past ownership of aljazeera.com should be added to the entry description.
 * 11)  (2009)
 * 12) * This discussion was about the Al Jazeera English article "US 'likely behind' Chavez coup", cited in the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt article.
 * 13) * The discussion involved 8 editors.
 * 14) * 6 editors considered Al Jazeera reliable or generally reliable. Among them, 2 editors considered Al Jazeera biased for Qatari politics or Middle Eastern topics.
 * 15) * 1 editor described Al Jazeera as "pro-Mukawama", which appears to refer to muqawama, the Arabic word for "resistance". The editor considered Al Jazeera unreliable for Venezuelan politics.
 * 16) * In this discussion, there was consensus that the Al Jazeera article is reliable.
 * 17)  (2011)
 * 18) * This discussion was about the Al Jazeera English live blog "Libya Live Blog - March 18", cited in the Libyan civil war (2011) article.
 * 19) * The discussion involved 6 editors.
 * 20) * 5 editors considered Al Jazeera as reliable as other news organizations. Among them, 4 editors recommended caution in using live blogs in general, as they primarily consist of breaking news.
 * 21) * 1 editor questioned the site's disclaimer, "Al Jazeera is not responsible for content derived from external sites." 2 other editors from the above group remarked that the disclaimer was a routine warning referring to links to and embedded images from third-party sources.
 * 22) * In this discussion, there was consensus that Al Jazeera is to be treated as a standard news organization, with the standard caveats for news blogs and breaking news.
 * 23)  (2012)
 * 24) * This disussion is about the Al Jazeera English article "Iraq outrage over US killing video", cited in the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike article.
 * 25) * The discussion involved 6 editors.
 * 26) * 4 editors considered Al Jazeera reliable or generally reliable. Among them, 1 editor opined that Al Jazeera may "have a point of view" expressed in this article.
 * 27) * 1 editor objected to the use of content from the article for reasons unrelated to Al Jazeera's reliability.
 * 28) * In this discussion, there was consensus that the Al Jazeera article is reliable.
 * 29)  (2012)
 * 30) * This discussion was about Al Jazeera's general reliability with respect to the Syrian civil war article.
 * 31) * The discussion involved 7 editors.
 * 32) * 3 editors considered Al Jazeera English generally reliable in this topic area, and another 2 editors considered Al Jazeera English acceptable or "nominally reliable".
 * 33) * 5 editors considered Al Jazeera Arabic biased for topics related to the Qatari government, including the Syrian Civil War. 3 editors also considered Al Jazeera English biased for the same topics.
 * 34) * In this discussion, there was consensus that Al Jazeera is a usable source, but with caveats. There was consensus that Al Jazeera Arabic is a biased or opinionated source with respect to politics related to the Qatari government. There was no consensus on whether Al Jazeera English is biased or opinionated.
 * 35)  (2013)
 * 36) * With only 1 editor participating, this discussion does not meet WP:RSPCRITERIA and should be delisted.
 * 37)  (2014)
 * 38) * This discussion is about a YouTube video of an Al Jazeera English People & Power episode cited in the Dorje Shugden controversy article.
 * 39) * The discussion involved 8 editors.
 * 40) * 6 editors considered Al Jazeera reliable or generally reliable.
 * 41) * 1 editor described the video as a "hit piece" and considered it unreliable. Other editors advised this editor to find and cite reliable sources that refute the Al Jazeera video.
 * 42) * In this discussion, there was strong consensus that Al Jazeera is generally reliable.
 * 43) * Though not mentioned in the discussion, it is important to note that the video was uploaded by YouTube user "tashidelek17", who appears unaffiliated with Al Jazeera. Thus, the YouTube video is a copyright violation and should not be linked on Wikipedia per WP:COPYLINK. This consideration is unrelated to reliability; the episode itself can be cited directly with a legitimate link or without a link.
 * 44)  (2018)
 * 45) * This discussion is about the Al Jazeera America article "Desert Hawks: Paramilitary veterans group stakes out US-Mexico borderlands", cited in the Arizona Border Recon article.
 * 46) * The discussion was lengthly and involved 9 editors.
 * 47) * 3 editors considered Al Jazeera usable for the intended usage, and 2 other editors considered the content supported by the source to be an appropriate addition to the Wikipedia article.
 * 48) * 1 editor raised concerns regarding Al Jazeera being "government owned in [a country] where there is no freedom of press", citing Qatar's ranking in the World Press Freedom Index. Another editor contended that Al Jazeera was biased in favor of the Qatari government, comparing it to Voice of America.
 * 49) * In this discussion, there was consensus that the Al Jazeera English America piece is a reliable source for the proposed use.
 * 50)  (2020)
 * 51) * This discussion was about the Al Jazeera English article "'Birds have landed': French-made Rafale fighter jets reach India".
 * 52) * The discussion involved 11 editors, excluding, a confirmed sockpuppet of a previously blocked account.
 * 53) * 2 editors considered the claim in the Al Jazeera article to be a minor error, 2 editors were unsure whether it was an error, and 1 editor remarked that the claim was previously true at some point.
 * 54) * 1 editor raised concerns regarding Al Jazeera with respect to Al Jazeera's state funding/ownership and legal disputes, and Qatar's low press freedom, comparing Al Jazeera to RT . 3 editors counterargued that Al Jazeera's state funding does not automatically make it unreliable despite being a source of bias, and compared Al Jazeera to CNN, BBC , and ABC News ; 2 of these editors explicitly considered Al Jazeera generally reliable.
 * 55) * In this discussion, there was consensus that the claim in the linked Al Jazeera English article and the raised concerns do not impact Al Jazeera's "generally reliable" classification.
 * 56)  (2023)
 * 57) * This discussion is about Al Jazeera's general reliability, with a focus on its coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The discussion starter proposed to change Al Jazeera's "generally reliable" designation to "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply".
 * 58) * The discussion was extremely long and involved 55 editors, excluding, a sockpuppet of a previously blocked account.
 * 59) * 25 editors considered Al Jazeera generally reliable with no qualifications.
 * 60) * 5 editors considered Al Jazeera generally reliable for most topics, and marginally reliable for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
 * 61) * 3 editors considered Al Jazeera generally reliable for most topics, and generally unreliable for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
 * 62) * 2 editors considered Al Jazeera marginally reliable with no qualifications.
 * 63) * 1 editor considered Al Jazeera marginally reliable for most topics, and generally unreliable for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
 * 64) * 9 editors considered Al Jazeera generally unreliable with no qualifications.
 * 65) * 4 editors did not opine on Al Jazeera's general reliability for most topics, but considered Al Jazeera generally unreliable for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
 * 66) * Some editors believed that Al Jazeera is biased on topics related to the Qatari government and the Arab–Israeli conflict. This assertion of bias was generally uncontested.
 * 67) * Several editors believed that the discussion should have been a request for comment.
 * 68) * Several editors advised splitting the Al Jazeera entry to distinguish between Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic.
 * 69) * A couple of editors cautioned against using Al Jazeera's live updates or breaking news in general.
 * 70) * Editors who disputed Al Jazeera's reliability cited issues with its reporting on the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion and other topics for which it has a conflict of interest, its state funding, it being banned or restricted from multiple countries, and Qatar's lack of press freedom. Some editors who considered Al Jazeera unreliable compared it to RT.
 * 71) * Editors who affirmed Al Jazeera's reliability contended that the cited inaccuracies did not impact the outlet's general reputation, or believed that the reports were either accurate or unconfirmed (rather than incorrect). These editors did not believe that Al Jazeera's bias in select topic areas negatively impacts its reliability in all topic areas.
 * 72) * In this discussion, there was consensus that Al Jazeera is generally reliable for most topics. There was consensus that Al Jazeera is generally usable (either generally reliable or marginally reliable) and biased on topics related to the Qatari government or the Arab-Israeli conflict.
 * 73) * The discussion was closed by in Special:Diff/1186411587 with the closing summary "No consensus is going to come from this thread, and editors seem unable to restrict their comments to details of the source and not other editors." and the edit summary "enough".
 * 74) ** I interpret the closing summary and the edit summary to mean that that the closure was intended to halt the discussion because there was no consensus to implement the discussion starter's proposal (reclassifying Al Jazeera as "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" on the list), and not that Al Jazeera should be reclassified as "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" on the list.
 * 75) ** Would you like to comment on your closure?
 * 76) * As a recent discussion with high participation, this discussion deserves high weight.
 * 77)  (2024)
 * 78) * This discussion was about Al Jazeera's reporting on false rape allegations during the Al-Shifa Hospital siege. Al Jazeera removed the video from their website, but retained their live blog entry "Israel forces raped, killed women during raid on al-Shifa, witness says".
 * 79) * The discussion was extremely long and involved 34 editors.
 * 80) * 19 editors expressed a positive sentiment about Al Jazeera or explicitly considered Al Jazeera generally reliable.
 * 81) * 3 editors explicitly supported designating Al Jazeera as generally reliable for most topics, and marginally reliable for the Arab–Israeli conflict.
 * 82) * 9 editors expressed a negative sentiment about Al Jazeera or explicitly considered Al Jazeera generally unreliable.
 * 83) * Editors who viewed Al Jazeera negatively criticized the outlet for not publishing a formal retraction through its own website and for retaining the live blog entry. These editors expressed concern over Al Jazeera's instances of publishing inaccurate information, its state funding or ownership, it being banned or restricted in multiple countries, and Qatar's lack of press freedom. Several editors compared Al Jazeera to RT.
 * 84) * Editors who viewed Al Jazeera positively countered that the outlet's former representative disclaimed the disputed story on social media. These editors did not believe the cited examples were sufficient to affect the general reliability of Al Jazeera, and criticized the reliability of some of the articles that were used as examples.
 * 85) * Some editors consider Al Jazeera biased for topics related to the Qatari government or the Arab–Israeli conflict, with 1 editor describing the outlet as a "soft power tool" for Qatar. This sentiment is generally unopposed, but most editors in the discussion did not consider this bias to impact Al Jazeera's general reliability. Several editors compared Al Jazeera to BBC.
 * 86) * Several editors noted a distinction between Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic.
 * 87) * In this discussion, there was consensus that Al Jazeera should retain its "generally reliable" designation for most topics. There was weaker consensus that Al Jazeera should retain its "generally reliable" designation for topics related to the Qatari government or the Arab-Israeli conflict.
 * 88) * As a recent discussion with high participation, this discussion deserves high weight.

Based on this review, I believe there is consensus to retain Al Jazeera's "generally reliable" designation. I recommend the following changes:
 * Note in the entry description that aljazeera.com was operated by the then-unaffiliated unaffiliated and now-defunct Al Jazeera Magazine until it  the domain was acquired by Al Jazeera Media Network in 2011.
 * Note in the entry description that some editors consider Al Jazeera biased on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest.
 * Note in the entry description that Al Jazeera's live blogs should be treated with caution, per WP:NEWSBLOG.
 * Explicitly link Al Jazeera Arabic in the description instead of referring to "Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting".

Since this review was time- and effort-intensive, I strongly urge editors to convert the next RSN discussion on Al Jazeera's general reliability into a formal request for comment, which would ease the burden of evaluating discussions in the future. The RfC should explicitly ask editors to separately evaluate:
 * Al Jazeera English, Al Jazeera Arabic, and other Al Jazeera channels
 * Al Jazeera's coverage of general topics, the Arab–Israeli conflict, and topics related to the Qatari government

Any feedback or corrections on the above review are welcome. —  Newslinger  talk   02:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC) Edited: clarifications on aljazeera.com and Al Jazeera English articles; minor copyediting. 09:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC))


 * @Newslinger, thanks for the comprehensive review of all discussions going back to 2007. I appreciate your time and efforts and I'm sure others do as well. I agree with all your changes. One question I have is: "Note in the entry description that aljazeera.com was operated by the then-unaffiliated Al Jazeera Magazine until it was acquired by Al Jazeera Media Network in 2011." What is the practical purpose for writing this in the entry? Is it that Al Jazeera's reporting until 2011 should be evaluated differently? VR (Please ping on reply) 03:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem. The aljazeera.com technical note would inform editors that any links to the aljazeera.com domain that were cited or archived before Al Jazeera's 2011 acquisition of the domain are links to Al Jazeera Magazine content, and not Al Jazeera content. (According to the Wayback Machine, Al Jazeera took over aljazeera.com at some point between 27 February 2011 and 19 March 2011.) The "generally reliable" status and other details of Al Jazeera's list entry would not apply to aljazeera.com links that were cited or archived prior to the domain takeover. Instead, Al Jazeera Magazine content would be treated like any other source without a list entry.For comparison, the Daily Mail entry includes the sentence "The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliated Charleston Daily Mail, and reference links to that publication are still present" to clarify that dailymail.com links previously pointed to a different publication.I've amended the discussion review to state that Al Jazeera Media Network (AJMN) only acquired the aljazeera.com domain, and not Al Jazeera Magazine, since I am unable to find evidence that the now-defunct Al Jazeera Magazine was acquired by AJMN. This means that Al Jazeera Magazine can also be described as "unaffiliated" with Al Jazeera. —  Newslinger  talk   09:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it. I would suggest "Note that the domain name "aljazeera.com" only started hosting Al Jazeera English content starting 2011; links to aljazeera.com prior to 2011 refer to Al Jazeera Magazine, which is different from Al Jazeera English". Do you know the domain name Al Jazeera English was hosted on prior to 2011? VR (Please ping on reply) 15:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Al Jazeera English was on the subdomain english.aljazeera.net from some point in 2003 to 10 November 2011. It looks like blogs.aljazeera.net was also used for Al Jazeera English news blogs from some point in 2009 to June 2012. The entry already lists aljazeera.net as one of the domains listed in the "Uses" column.Thanks for the suggested wording. I've incorporated it into below. —  Newslinger   talk   10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Newslinger. To clarify on point 11, you're interpretation that there was no consensus for the proposal is correct (rather than there being no consensus on the reliability of the source). -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (Al Jazeera)


In addition to my suggested changes in, the above proposal includes the following modifications:
 * Removes the Al Jazeera English alias from the "Source" column, since it is a language-variant channel that is easily identified by name
 * Removes the Aljazeera.com alias from the "Source" column, since the domain is already listed in the "Uses" column
 * Updates last discussion year to 2024
 * Changes "state-owned" to "state-funded" for consistency with the Al Jazeera Media Network article, which describes Al Jazeera as "funded in part by the government of Qatar" and categorizes it under Category:Publicly funded broadcasters
 * Adds 's suggested phrasing for "aljazeera.com", but with the word "unaffiliated" to match the language in the Daily Mail entry

Feedback and alternative proposals are welcome. If you have a substantially different alternative proposal, please create a new subsection below.

Pinging all editors who have commented in this discussion.

—  Newslinger  talk   10:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "State funded" isn't entirely accurate; it downplays the level of control that reliable sources say that Qatar has over the organization. Perhaps "state sponsored"? BilledMammal (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But the control isn't really state control... Its family control... Its just that the same family controls the outlet and the state. Similar situation to the Mediaset assets when Burlesconi was in power with the added wrinkle of a hereditary aristocracy. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For extra context, I think The Guardian summarizes it well: The Al Jazeera Media Network, which is funded by the Qatari royal family, insists it has editorial independence. But the network is widely seen by foreign governments as a soft-power tool for the Gulf monarchy. See also the Department of Justice's letter saying Despite assertions of editorial independence and freedom of expression, Al Jazeera Media Network and its affiliates are controlled and funded by the Government of Qatar.
 * Al Jazeera denies these claims and maintains that it has editorial independence, but it seems like this is widely viewed with suspicion given the royal family's role in creating in the network, and just given that Qatar is an absolute monarchy with explicit legal restrictions on freedom of speech and press. For example, Penal Code 136 imposes a penalty of life imprisonment for certain "propaganda".
 * I think "state funded" is fine if we separately elaborate a bit about concerns of monarchical control. The "conflict of interest" text hints at these concerns, but perhaps another sentence would be good to elaborate. — xDanielx  T/C\R 15:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Qatari royal family is essentially the government of Qatar. The AJMN article says it is "a private-media conglomerate ... funded in part by the government of Qatar". "Publicly-funded" isn't right either, given that Category:Publicly funded broadcasters says, "Articles in this category relate to public broadcasters that receive funding from the public, either directly or through their government" and this in the wikilinked page: "Public broadcasters receive funding from diverse sources including license fees, individual contributions, public financing, and commercial financing, and avoid political interference or commercial influence." I recommend the phrase "state sponsored" as suggested by BilledMammal --FeralOink (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Newslinger's proposal. Just want to add that this workshop should be for evaluating previous consensus, not forming new consensus. If a new consensus is needed, it should be done via RfC at WP:RSN.VR (Please ping on reply) 12:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - and thanks to Newslinger for digging through these discussions to summarize them. signed,Rosguill talk 15:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally support - it's is a very well-researched summary of consensus, and a clear improvement. As mentioned above, it might be good to elaborate slightly about concerns of potential state control, but that's relatively minor and could always be left to a followup discussion. — xDanielx  T/C\R 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note - there's now an ongoing discussion on RS/N. — xDanielx  T/C\R 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support This all seems reasonable and logical. Chetsford (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support in general, I am not that clear about Al Jazeera's live blogs should be treated with caution, per the policy on news blogs, this seems like a change in the definition of newsblogs, which I have always assumed meant blogs hosted by newsorgs, like here. I assume this stricture should also be the case for all the big newsorgs, most of whom now do liveblogging and where afaik, there have been no complaints about those to date. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support with caveats - Al Jazeera English is usually a high-quality news and investigative reporting source for current and historical events, excluding content about the USA or Israel-Palestine, e.g. it was my favorite source for news in the Donbas, especially for women's issues. Perhaps qualify about not using for Israel-Palestine news? Secondly, regarding "funded in part by the government of Qatar": Where does the other part of the funding come from, and is it more than, say 5% of total funding? "State sponsored" seems accurate, see my reply to XDanielx above for details.--FeralOink (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Post-implementation (Al Jazeera)
Thank you all for the feedback. Per the above consensus, I have implemented proposal 1 as written, and with the active noticeboard discussion added to the "List" column. (Since the noticeboard discussion is still in progress, it has not yet been evaluated.) The changes are at Special:Diff/1230365377.

Regarding potential elaboration on the "state-funded" phrasing, further discussion on Al Jazeera's relationship with the Qatari government would be better suited for the discussion on the noticeboard. Arguments in noticeboard discussions are taken into account for future versions of this list entry, whereas comments on this talk page are limited to interpretations of previous noticeboard discussions.

The current noticeboard discussion appears to be evolving into a full RfC. When this happens, I urge the RfC starter to ask responding editors to evaluate the aspects of Al Jazeera that I mentioned in the section, and to list the RfC as a centralized discussion. —  Newslinger  talk   08:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Researchgate
Should we mark it as no consensus? like we have to see if an article has been peer reviewed or not. I wouldn’t say its exactly unreliable or reliable. xq 00:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * RG is diffusion platform and inherits the reliability of wherever the paper comes from. Paper from an OMICS journal, the source is unreliable. Host a paper from a Wiley-Blackwell journal, the source is (probably) reliable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with Headbomb but am additionally negative because Researchgate is notorious for spamming. See the following.
 * ResearchGate spam listing on Scientific Spam website;
 * According to this Nature article full text, section Tactical Breakdown: "Some of the apparent profiles on the site are not owned by real people, but are created automatically – and incompletely – by scraping details of people's affiliations, publication records and PDFs."
 * In WP's own article, criticisms section: "...emailing unsolicited invitations to the coauthors of its users. These emails were written as if they were personally sent by the user, but were instead sent automatically unless the user opted out... "


 * Please consider this before concluding No Consensus, which shouldn't be acted on by editors as an implicit "Okay to use"... but often is.--FeralOink (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That comes with it being a social network and is already considered. That's why we say check what the paper actually is. If it's published in Journal of Foo, it inherits the reliability of the Journal of Foo. If it's a random document, it's got the reliability of a random document. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point, thank you! One more thing please? ResearchGate has a major problem with unauthorized uploading. Elsevier and American Chem Society sued for copyright infringement resulting in 200,000 article takedowns by ResearchGate. A German court (Researchgate is a German company) ruled against ResearchGate. I don't know if it will be extended EU-wide. Is this relevant for our purposes, of sourcing Wikipedia articles? If an article a source gets removed, that's a dead url in our Wiki article, but is that the extent of it for us? If so, it doesn't seem like a problem.--FeralOink (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Noticeboard proposal to halt editing and mark this page as historical
An editor has proposed halting all editing on this page and marking this page as historical. If you would like to read or comment on this proposal, please see. —  Newslinger  talk   17:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Great analysis by of ADL status update by one of our own
@WWB Nails it Again... And does us a big favor of laying out "reality" to the press.

LINK: https://www.thewikipedian.net/p/anti-defamation-league-reliable-sources

'''Did Wikipedia "ban" the Anti-Defamation League? The truth is more complicated'''
 * Contrary to news reports, Wikipedia's decision doesn't group with ADL with the National Enquirer—it's closer to HuffPost and Rolling Stone, sources useful for some topics, but not for others

Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 17:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation weighs in (or clears the air) on ADL update
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2024/06/26/wikimedia-foundation-statement-volunteer-processes-reliable-sources/ Ocaasit &#124; c 22:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Discogs as a source for images of albums/music CDS and ONLY those
Discogs is currently listed as an unreliable source on the list of perennial sources because it is a user-generated source. I'm not here to dispute that. However, Discogs is also a source for images of music CD covers/booklets or. I think it should be an acceptable source for those and only those.

Here is my reasoning: while the scans could be manipulated, I do not believe there is any issue with such manipulation at Discogs. Furthermore, other sources that have scans of e.g. books are generally considered to be acceptable as far as I know e.g. I have not seen anyone proposing that using a book in the public domain that is hosted on the Internet Archive is unacceptable, even though anyone can upload there. Lastly, just like with content summaries of books, track lists in Wikipedia articles frequently don't cite any sources, as someone simply copying the track listing from the album booklet is considered appropriate. I find it absurd that using a scan from Discogs would be worse than using no source at all and relying on editors to copy information to Wikipedia accurately, especially for less common albums not owned by a lot of editors.

I think Discogs should be considered to be an acceptable source for such scan and, I can't stress this enough, only and exclusively those. Not for any of the user-generated content. Input is welcome. Cortador (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Page size
This page is presently 407kB long. It is difficult to load this page with a browser, and even more difficult to edit it. Are there any sources that are not sufficiently perennial, or sufficiently important, that they need to be included? Alternatively, could this page be split? James500 (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think splitting a totally reasonable idea and have tagged the page accordingly. Other extremely long lists have done this, usually alphabetically. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to cutting sources just to make the page shorter. If a source has been discussed repeatedly, and a consensus reached, there should be an easy way for editors to learn about that. But splitting is completely appropriate. John M Baker (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There have been repeated proposals to this effect, but frankly there is no easy division that does not greatly reduce usefulness as a quick reference guide. It's long because there's a lot of entries and they need to be somewhere. I must note that a short while ago you were proposing this page's complete removal as useless, so it's not clear the degree to which your advice on its modification for usefulness should be considered - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Splitting the table means you can't sort it properly any more with all entries. Cortador (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ to split. The obvious choice would be A-M and N-Z. Otherwise sectioning alphabetically (A,B,C,etc), and collapsing each section could help with browser loading time if not mistaken? Similar to the French wiki version. CNC (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Agree with and  that the usefulness of a single-page presentation is paramount in terms of sorting and searchability, so I discourage arbitrary splitting or shortening of this page. There are many more readers of this critical page than editors. Therefore, as long as it loads in an adequate manner we should not alter the page to cater to editors. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 23:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On a technical level something should be done to alleviate WP:CHOKING concerns. Mfko (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Fuzheado The entire point of this page is to centralize information. We could have a distilled parallel list of some commonly discussed sources on a user subpage, though.  Bremps  ...  03:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment What do people think about splitting combined with transclusion like at List_of_Latin_phrases_(full) (except with a single sortable table)? 174.92.25.207 (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No good way to do it.—Alalch E. 17:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Since the page will keep growing, some sort of split seems the standard response for pages that get so big they cause technical problems. Would it be possible to make a searchbox on the first page that will cover the entire RSP? WP:CHOKING seems to be the written guidance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, if we do split it, we could perhaps divide Sources into a few subsections, that might make editing easier. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Sources section on this page could look something like
 * Searchbox
 * link to sources 0-L
 * link to sources M-Z
 * A little similar to 2019_in_film, articles like that used to have big-ass lists of films, mostly American ones. They still have big-ass lists of dead people... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this really a question about the inclusion criteria for this list, and whether it should be adjusted? I'd say that if there hasn't been an RFC for a source in X years, then it's not really perennial anymore. (Not sure what X should be, but it's at most 10.) Maybe we should add something about that. Apocheir (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Æo (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I like Gråbergs Gråa Sång's partitioning idea! An alternative source division schema could be a link to each of the four major source reliability categories of Green, Yellow, Red, and Grey. Each would have its own page.--FeralOink (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should partition by color. I think that would reinforce the incorrect idea that these "reliability categories" are absolutes, rather than depending on context. There is no black-and-white line between reliable and unreliable sources; rather, different sources are reliable for different kinds of claims. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There probably are some frivolous entries though maybe not enough to make a big difference. I was thinking of removing the entry for "bestgore", who would ever try and cite that really? Hardly perennial. VintageVernacular (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised as to what people will try to cite. Some entries, particularly the blacklisted ones, have useful context as to why they were blacklisted in the first place. But I agree that there are some entries that are stretching the definition of "perennial". Mfko (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment A split is treating the symptoms rather than the root cause. This page has attracted an enormous amount of cruft over the years and desperately needs to be pruned, the inclusion criteria adjusted, and sources aggregated (as seen below with the medical preprints for example).
 * For example, several entries could simply be aggregated under a generic banner of "this is user-generated content, don't use this". (Stack Overflow, Quora, TV Tropes, Ethnicity of Celebs, Land Transport Guru, SourceWatch, WhoSampled). There are plenty more entries in the list but these stuck out the most.
 * There are also problems with the definition of "perennial" as there are several entries that haven't been discussed for 14+ years such as Spirit of Metal. Of course on the flip side, you have entries like "The New Yorker" that haven't been discussed as well but are obviously reliable. Where is the line drawn? Are there really that many people attempting to cite Spirit of Metal to warrant its inclusion on the list? Mfko (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with merging the user-generated sources together in most cases. Some entries that are blacklisted or deprecated might warrant still being listed on their own. There are also some edge cases, like sites that host both UGC and professionally written content (e.g. Atlas Obscura), or UGC sites when used by reliable news organizations (e.g. YouTube) that we might have to handle on a case-by-case basis. But generally, the run-of-the-mill generally unreliable UGC sites could all be condensed together. See also the section below.
 * Your comment about the definition of perennial echos my earlier comment about the inclusion criteria for this page. Apocheir (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally disagree. This sounds like trying to put a plaster over the problem, if we are too look at the root problem which is size. At the moment the page is at 2.5KB, it should be around 2KB per CHOKING issues referenced above. Grouping together entries like user content isn't going to solve the problem here, not by a long shot. I'm not opposed to sources that haven't been discussed in many years being taken out, but not convinced even this would see the minimum required 20% decline in size either, probably more like 10% at best. Also it's complicated as some sources haven't been discussed in a long time, but otherwise are regularly used on WP, so not being discussed isn't necessarily a barometer of having no benefit for inclusion either. Sometimes you have to look at some of these entries and simply consider "could someone find this useful"; the answer is someone probably could, even if not regularly, regardless of if it's inclusion is necessary. Overall I'm generally opposed to unsustainable solutions such as "trimming" in these cases. It reminds me of when articles reach 20,000 words; instead of simply splitting as required, editors suggest trimming unnecessary content; as if it's going to reduce the article size by 50% to a readable size (which never happens). It'd be a shame to get to the point of trimming entries, which naturally proceeds into excluding further entries based on similar criteria, simply because we are unwilling to split the article in a conventional manner. CNC (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Split alphabetically – While we're at it, given the size of the page we might as well split into three (I propose 0–F, G–M, and N–Z, eyeballing roughly equal length), not two. We can have likely have a transcluded (full list) page too. Remsense  诉  19:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That works for me.--FeralOink (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This page is very useful for pressing "ctrl-f" and splitting into multiple pages would double the work required every time the page was used. Slow editing is an acceptable price given that the article does not have to be edited that often. Support merging the use-generated sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not just slow to edit; did you notice the transclusion proposal? Remsense  诉  18:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder is there's an "information page" on en-WP that gets edited more often than this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose alphabetical split as this would create a new problem after solving another. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 17:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per @Remsense and @Ivanvector's proposals below. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose splitting that doesn't result in a single list that editor can check against. So I would support the transclusion option. As to inclusion criteria the change that should be made is the comment about needing an RFC for inclusion, this causes editors to jump start RFCs on RSN for sources with no prior discussion just so they can get the source listed here. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 10:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @ActivelyDisinterested, I commented on that here: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/Archive_9 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Levivich, although I don't know how to stop it from happening. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 11:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I do too. I've seen more than one RSN RFC where people ask "Is there actually an issue?", and that sometimes help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe the inclusion criteria should explicitly exclude discussions/RFCs that only seek RSP inclusion, but that might be better discussed in a separate thread. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 14:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Transclusion possibility
Sorry if an annoyance, but does the proposal to split, while also transcluding the segments onto a (full list) page move the needle for any of the oppose !&zwj;votes? As I see it, this would seem to enable equivalently easy or easier editing and searching for all users. Remsense 诉  18:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was just going to say that - we already have plenty of pages that work that way. WP:RFPP comes to mind, as do the main pages of both WP:AFD and WP:RFD. For AFD and RFD all active discussions are transcluded to a main page that can be Ctrl-F searched, while clicking on an edit link takes you to edit the subpage of each individual discussion for AFD or to the daily page for RFD. WP:EDR also works that way, and is a page with multiple long tables. I think it would even be technically possible to transclude subpages onto a main page in one continuous sortable table, I think our highway exit list and election results tables work that way, but with as much info as is on this page it would be a nightmare to edit. Anyway, we wouldn't be reinventing the wheel here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In fact I just tried to demo what it would look like in my userspace, see User:Ivanvector/RSP split proposal. It doesn't work because there's something with include tags on the original page that break how I think the transclusions should work, and relative links to templates that of course don't exist in my userspace. I'm sure I could figure it out but this isn't how I was planning to spend my Saturday - if someone else wants to run with it then please be my guest, otherwise I will probably look at it again next week. This did get the page from 426kB down to 28kB, though.
 * Another thought I had while doing this is that we could change the page so that there's a master template for entries, and then each entry transcludes that template. That would be a task for someone who knows more about templates than I do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, never mind all that, I got it working by just bulk removing the "onlyinclude" tags that I don't know what they're supposed to do (nothing about it in the instructions). Works now at least superficially; take a look. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks fine, the tags are to do with . When it comes to transclusion, @174.92.25.207 would be the editor to ask around here it seems. CNC (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support transclusion along with merging entries - but it sounds like that will be a separate project. Mfko (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I generally dislike transclusion, but it seems like a sensible solution in this situation. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 10:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Duplication at Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Currently_deprecated_sources
The table at seems to duplicate portions of the table here at. There is a risk of the content going out of sync. At the very minimum, it would be better to have some sort of template to excerpt rows from the bigger table.

I think the table in on this page should be preferred. It includes all the information in the other table. It also has incoming shortcut links. I propose removing the section on the other article and redirecting its shortcuts here after checking all information is accounted for. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that duplication is a perennial annoyance. Mind you, merging that into this will make this page even longer - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I synced most of the remaining information into this page. For the Uses column, I just assumed it was already merged. Any increase in visible page length is barely noticeable because most of the information was already on this page. This is what remains to be done:
 * Minor formatting proofreading
 * Reaching consensus on whether we should keep the transclusion to display the table on the other page
 * Decide whether we should readd the dedicated columns for rll, efd, and sbll
 * 174.92.25.207 (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Issues I see is the dmy dates for RfC's conflicting with the year format and the list of discussions should start on a new line instead of after the abuse filter. I understand the reason for merging duplicate content, it's a good effort. CNC (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @174.92.25.207 Looks a lot better now, thanks. CNC (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like WP:TASNIMNEWSAGENCY is missing from WP:DEPSOURCES. - Amigao (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ @174.92.25.207 did you cross reference the lists, or are there potentially more DEPs missing? Tasnim was added by myself very recently, but no idea if there are other additions missing as well. CNC (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:GLOBALTIMES is also missing. - Amigao (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ have you by any chance cross-referenced others? CNC (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I missed WP:GLOBALTIMES. I went over each row of WP:DEPS, CTRL+F'ed the name on WP:RSP, and added the onlyinclude tag, but I missed one. I might double-check the rest later while I figure out how to make the styling consistent.
 * WP:TASNIMNEWSAGENCY was not in the original https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources&oldid=1231902085 that I based my work off of. To maintain integrity during the merge, I used CTRL+F which wouldn't have made me add it. Perhaps someone with Lua experience could tell us if the onlyinclude and WP:RSPSTATUS could be synced automatically. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's good to now be working with a single list and to worry less about future version control issues. - Amigao (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @174.92.25.207 There is an issue with the table currently from Yahoo! row which is breaking all table templates. It showed up when you finished making changes on row ZDNet (two below).  If I had to guess there is a threshold in template transclusion going on, hence the error has moved up two rows since adding two new entries. I don't want to revert to a stable reversion prior to the changes you made, as I think they are beneficial and necessary, but otherwise needs must if it can't be fixed asap. CNC (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like Post-expand_include_size. So that's where the error showed up. I could replace efn with manual syntax. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A revert won't fix this and this might not be related to my edits. A previous revision, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&diff=prev&oldid=1232139584 currently appears broken with bare "Template:Sbll"s at the bottom of the table. At the time of its writing, https://web.archive.org/web/20240702142217/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, the table appeared fine. All of that was after my last edit.
 * Yesterday or the day before, I saw "Template:Editnotice load" and other stuff go from working to broken while clicking edit. I initially thought it was caused by my editing, but it suddenly started working later, and that must have been due to some template edited elsewhere. Even the revision before my first edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&oldid=1231862941, has "Template:Broken ref". I am having a hard time tracking others' template changes down, I will try to trim some stuff from sbll, WP:RSPSTATUS, etc. as a hotfix. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ I edited the templates and cut this page's WP:PEIS in half and it is now 1,159,805/2,097,152 bytes 174.92.25.207 (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Unhide links copied here leading to discussions with headings containing URLs
Please replace all instances of  with. According to WP:EDITFILTER, only administrators can modify filters. I ran into the edit filter for "LTA 1307" which is appropriate for normal articles, but this page's subject is special. Linking to Wikipedia discussions should be out of the scope of an edit filter meant for spam and abuse.

This finishes implementing the technical move of information from. Doing this edit does not implement the user-facing merge under discussion. That is separate from the trend I see that consensus is probably leaning towards deduplicating the information, no matter if the final display on the other page is technically implemented using whatever kind of transclusion or not at all. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 03:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 15:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Amazon
I know it shouldn't be used for user reviews that are self-published, but can it be used for merchandise-related items? If so, then it should be tagged as a partially reliable or situational source. Kazama16 (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)



Times of Israel
i think this source is unreliable source. Any thoughts? Gsgdd (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're looking for WP:RSN. This is the talk page about the list of perennial sources itself, not the noticeboard for discussing sources' reliability. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Merging some entries
To reduce the number of entries in the list, I propose we merge some into broader categories.

Merge entries: Academia.edu + ResearchGate, add HAL Open Archives, Zenodo into "academic repository"
Before 

After

&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Merging into an "Academic repository" source makes sense to me. (Also, RG, Academia, and Zenodo have similar characteristics, based on the the Nature survey in ResearchGate thread.) Consider including MDPI and Semantic Scholar in the merge? I'll check if they are even present in our RS/Perennial sources.--FeralOink (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * MDPI is a specific publisher, but Semantic Scholar goes in Academic Repositories, yes. But there's a zillion such repositories, so it's hard to track them all. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Broaden arxiv to preprints
Before 

After

&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable to me. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 01:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Telegraph RfC and "no consensus = no change"
That's it. If you read that, I apologise for likely wasting your time. CNC (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. As a proposal, I think it's best not to include the The Telegraph RfC until matters are resolved. There has already been some good faith reverting from myself and @ObserveOwl, and while the close remains "active" as of writing, it doesn't appear worthwhile for inclusion until matters have been resolved. In hindsight, my initial summary including a quote from the closure wasn't the best idea.
 * 2. I have opened a "Request for clarification" regarding the idea that an NC RfC close would mean no change in RSP, an argument that has been repeated numerous times in the general discussion. It's only open to those who promote these idea.

Worldatlas.com
Is world atlas reliable? Used in a lot of articles but it feels a little clickbaity to me. — 48JCL 00:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @48JCL, WP:RSN is the right place for that question. RSP is just a list of of sources that have been repeatedly discussed there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thx — 48<b style="color: #007d96; text-shadow: 2px 2px 4px; font-family:Trebuchet MS">JCL</b> 18:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wen Wei Po
Should the outcome of this RfC, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306, be reflected at WP:RSPSOURCES? - Amigao (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Can Rotten Tomatoes be used for birth info
Why can’t rotten tomatoes be used for birth info if the same birth info is used on IMBD Tnays20 (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * No. Neither RT nor IMDB should be used for birth dates. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tnays20 IMDb itself is not reliable. (Please see WP:IMDB.) Finding something there does not help Rotten Tomatoes' credibility at all. @Firefangledfeathers is correct. Neither source should be used for any biographical details. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But I was told by the user:Laterthanyouthink (talk) that he remembers an earlier talk page discussion about RT bios where the editors concerned agreed that it was acceptable for DOB. And that he added some notes and other sources on the talk page of the article. Tnays20 (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's the RfC from last summer regarding Rotten Tomatoes. The consensus was that it's okay to use for movie reviews and ratings as it's core purpose. However it's not a reliable source when it comes to biography details as it's not a journalism site and it doesn't provide any information as to how the material is obtained or verified. Which is a huge red flag when it comes to using such pages as a reliable source for BLPs. Kcj5062 (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)