Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    ↑ To top of page

    [edit]

    I noticed the white WP:DISCOGS / WP:RSDISCOGS links in the Discogs table row don't work. But then I realized nearly all the white boxes are broken links to Wikipedia:WP:Foo pages that don't exist. For Discogs, the first one is garbled with the extra pipe symbols: 

    <span class="wp-rsp-sc plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WP:DISCOGS|WP:RSDISCOGS&redirect=no WP:DISCOGS|WP:RSDISCOGS]</span>

    going to 'Bad title... contains unsupported characters: "|"' when clicked; but the second white box: 

    <span class="wp-rsp-sc plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WP:RSDISCOGS&redirect=no WP:RSDISCOGS]</span>

    is more straightforward and still bogus, leading to an empty "Start the Wikipedia:WP:DISCOGS page.". There's no Wikipedia:WP namespace within the Wikipedia namespace. Also, why is each white box followed by a 

    <span style="display: none">[[:WP:RSDISCOGS]]</span>

    that would link to the redirect, except it's hidden by the span style? -- Skierpage (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mathglot Could you resubstitute when you have time? Seems to be caused by us replacing /2's shortcut templates with regexes. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I can probably fix this by replacing instances of title=Wikipedia:. Hold on... Aaron Liu (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    should this source be reliable?

    [edit]
    Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § should this source be reliable?
     – Aaron Liu (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Marking Business insider

    [edit]

    It was decided that it's unreliable according to this RfC, can someone change it? Or should I do it myself? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Anyone is welcome to modify rows themselves following Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Instructions.
    2. As mentioned in the closing statement, the RfC declared Business Insider's AI content was unreliable, not all Business Insider content.
    Aaron Liu (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Disagree: "The Daily Telegraph is a reliable source"

    [edit]

    The Daily Telegraph is listed as a reliable source (with the exception of on trans issues). However, there is much evidence that it is not a reliable source as it is one of the most right-wing of UK newspapers (and generally our newspapers are on the right). It has a strong right wing bias on economic issues among other things and on international issues such as repeating pro-Israel propaganda. It generally reflects establishment views, for example, it published articles defending Andrew Windsor after he was accused of rape by Virginia Giuffre (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/01/27/photo-clears-duke-york-bath-sex/). Helensclegel (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Helensclegel, welcome. Have you read through all of the previous discussions on the Daily Telegraph linked in the table and in footnote r? If you have information and arguments that were not already brought forward in any of those discussions, you could start a new discussion at the noticeboard. However, if your concerns were brought up in any of the earlier discussions, it would be a waste of time since those arguments didn't sway consensus at the time. Schazjmd (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks, i'll take a look ~2025-39218-87 (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Should Slate (magazine) be included in the perennial sources list?

    [edit]

    Hello, I was informed by ActivelyDisinterested that I should post this here instead of on the noticeboard, so here is my discussion post. Also, note that Doc Strange reiterated his support for Slate's pop culture analysis on my previous post.

    Slate was on the perennial sources list until it was removed on March 9, 2023 by @Levivich. Discussion regarding this removal was held on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 8#Slate, where it seems they note that the three RSN discussions (1, 2, 3) never actually discuss the reliability of Slate.

    Since then, two additional discussions on Slate with its name in the title have been posted to the noticeboard:

    Given that it seems to meet WP:RSPCRITERIA, should Slate be added to the perennial sources list? I am not sure whether the first discussion qualifies since it discusses a specific column rather than the source itself.

    If it doesn't qualify, would it meet the criteria if I were to open another discussion on the source? Per Special:Search/insource:"slate.com", there are 13,372 articles that cite Slate; hence, I think there would be some value in writing up some guidance on the consensus of Slate's reliability. John Kinslow (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like we need a fresh discussion with some evidence that there is a question about the reliability today, in the past, or for the publication's entire history. I'm not familiar with Slate and I don't remember the conversation you're pinging about, unfortunately. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    RSP isn't a list of every source or often-cited sources, it's a list of often-discussed sources. I don't think Slate is discussed often. Levivich (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps a Small Unnoticed Double Standard, It Appears.

    [edit]

    There are many sources here which have strong standards when it comes to presenting accurate information, but for which the issue is that they put a strong political spin on said information. The National Review and Mother Jones are both publications with considerable reputations for journalism with a basis in fact, both of a similarly admitted and considerable bias, the National Review being somewhat older but both of a similar age.

    In many respects they are practically mirror images of each other across the political spectrum. Yet Mother Jones has a consensus as a perennial source whose statements simply "may" need to be attributed, while the National Review has no consensus and its statements "should" be attributed.

    I argue that both should be stated as being generally factually reliable, both should be stated as being strongly biased, both should be attributed whenever used, and the language used should be more similar regarding due weight. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is, of course, something you are going to back up with something beyond "because I say so" and merely forgot to do so and not merely some cheap whataboutery. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_253#RFC:_National_Review
    Every single person who stopped to weigh in on the last discussion about the National Review did not dispute that their articles are factually reliable, other than the person who raised the issue.
    Other than on this point, the "Summary" boxes are exactly the same in substance regarding them both being factual and both being biased, but the conclusions about how they should be used and if they are "generally reliable" differ. I need no outside sources to make such a claim, and to ask for an outside source for such a thing is cheap sophistry. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You may open an RSN discussion about this, to which my response will likely be that I am disinclined to regard any publication that engages in climate change denial (among other things) as a matter of course reliable, whether or not such output is primarily from specific departments, without a truly compelling reason to indicate it does in fact have such a reputation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    behindthename.com

    [edit]
    Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § behindthename.com
     – Aaron Liu (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Left vs. right leaning source categorization

    [edit]

    It would be helpful to have a Ground News style column that allows users to easily check the editorial leanings of each perennial source. Perhaps Ground News itself can be used as a source for that? RedrickSchu (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see how that would be useful to Wikipedia save for the occasions where we already mention it in the entry's summary. See also WP:RSPISNOT. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The entry does mention whether or not the source has a bias, but it doesn't say much about the direction. I was thinking it would help with quickly analyzing "how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements." For example if a right-leaning source published an article that was critical of a left-wing organization, it could be described as a partisan statement, but if it was critical of a right-wing organization, there's probably more nuance to it. It could also help identify the right context for using no-consensus sources. RedrickSchu (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What you described is indeed an intuitive idea of it, but luckily not what weight depends on. WP:Due weight is about repetition across different sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the major complaints about Wikipedia (from people like Larry Sanger, see WP:ABOLISHBLACKLISTS) is that the perennial sources list is ideologically biased. It'd be interesting if the table has an "editorial leaning" column that we could sort by and see for ourselves whether that complaint holds any water. Some1 (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be interesting. I think it's important to have transparency for both ideology and factuality ratings, and also viewpoint diversity. That's why I enjoy checking the Ground News rating system. The Interactive Media Bias Chart in particular is very revealing- notice that there are more center-left than center-right sources in the green box of medium-to-high reliability. It could be that the alleged bias is a result of a systemic failure among right-leaning journalists, but it could also be that the few reliable right-leaning sources are being discriminated against here. I think the issue is worth investigating. RedrickSchu (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so too, but unfortunately, I don't think the "community" feels the same way. Some1 (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding a source

    [edit]

    I asked over on WP:VPT and was recommended to ask here instead (was hoping to see if there was a technical stop-gap available.) I would like to add a source to WP:RSP as a result of a recently closed discussion, but the page has hit a technical limit. Last month WP:RSP RFC 2025 was closed and I presume work is ongoing there, but in the meantime, is there any stop-gap or temporary mitigation that could be used to make additions to the list? Thanks! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It’s mentioned in the first banner that shows up when you try to edit. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    🤦🏻 I saw the don't add new things to this page notice and clicked out of it before I saw the overflow page. More fool me! Thank you for prompting me to look again. @Aaron Liu Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&oldid=1328079770"