Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Active discussions

Reason (magazine)Edit

Reason (magazine) now has two qualifying RSN discussions: 1 2. The publication should probably be added to the RSP list, though I am not sure whether it should be concluded as "generally reliable" or "no consensus". feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 05:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion #1 primarily discusses due weight and primary vs. secondary sourcing, and concluded with no consensus on Reason's reliability. Discussion #2 focuses squarely on Reason's reliability, and I see consensus in this discussion that Reason is generally reliable. Because discussion #2 is more recent, more focused on reliability, and more highly-attended, I think Reason should be classified as "generally reliable".

Guy Macon's description from discussion #2 is fine, but I would make a few adjustments to exclude the direction of bias (libertarian) and include a mention of due weight from discussion #1.

Source Status
Discussions Uses
List Last Summary
Reason 1 2 2020 There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinions. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight. 1    
How is this? — Newslinger talk 00:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I see more of a reliable in context or no consensus for #2. I think the point thats repeatedly been raised that the majority of Reason’s content is opinion and commentary needs to be noted either way, there will be a lot of people confused about why their “article from a WP:RS” isn't usable if we don’t put a disclaimer. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps create two entries for Reason, one for news articles (green) and one for opinion and commentary (yellow)? feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 12:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I think having it as green is fine as long as we make the wording about commentary, analysis, and opinion pieces more explicit. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions for wording? Similar entries include the one for Mother Jones (RSP entry) and The Nation (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 02:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to slightly modify “that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinions.” to "that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles.” I think thats the smallest most concise change which would get the point I think we should be making across. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Source Status
Discussions Uses
List Last Summary
Reason 1 2 2020 There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight. 1    

Does this look good to you? — Newslinger talk 02:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, I just want to make sure we can clearly remove the articles like the ones used at The New York Times and Twitter without a whole new argument. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Feminist, the entry is ready as soon as you give the thumbs up. — Newslinger talk 02:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure. I don't see anything wrong with it. feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 02:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  Added in Special:Diff/959891256. Thank you both. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The Hill (newspaper) contributorsEdit

Previous discussion: /Archive 1#The Hill (newspaper) added as generally reliable

The Hill (RSP entry) includes this:

The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources.

I participated in one discussions about The Hill, as did User:Feminist, who wrote this entry. At the time, I researched the subject some more and found this article in CJR by Lawrence Lanahan, who is described as "Baltimore-based freelance journalist". I was going to post additional comment rebutting the claim that contributor pieces are self-published, but the discussion was moved into archive by a bot before I finished my comment.

Anyway, CJR wrote about The Hill's contributor model in 2014 and said The Hill has one editor who "oversees the 200 writers in the network, and gives a light edit to the incoming copy. And because The Hill, given its subject matter, vets contributors for potential conflicts, much of the editor's work takes place before one word is typed."

I'm not sure there was a consensus to include "and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources" and the statement is just not accurate, because WP:SPS applies to sources that typically lack any editorial oversight.

I'm also not a fan of saying "receive minimal editorial oversight". Sure, that is at least partly accurate, but same applies to the vast majority of op-eds and editorials, including those published in respectable newspapers. For instance, the entry for The Wall Street Journal says: "Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces." While I did not review any archived discussions about WSJ, I'm pretty sure that if WSJ op-eds and editorials were to be discussed now, many editors would say those have minimal editorial oversight.

How about changing The Hill entry to something like this:

The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces and contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines.

Many thanks. Politrukki (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on my understanding, WSJ editorial writers are in a stronger (employment, editorial, etc.) relationship with the newspaper than The Hill contributors are. Basically, The Hill publishes editorials from a much wider range of authors, many of which do not publish regularly on The Hill, or at least not to the extent of WSJ opinion writers. In this regard, The Hill opinion pieces are more akin to Forbes contributor articles than WSJ opinion pieces. This means I prefer the original wording to the proposed change. I welcome input from other editors. feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 16:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the Columbia Journalism Review report. While I still don't think The Hill's contributors are vetted as well as the publication's staff writers, the fact that The Hill only publishes 5–8 contributor posts per day compared to its 45 editorial staff members (as of 2014) distances The Hill contributors from contributors. Unlike, The Hill appears to use contributors only for opinion columns.

Since this is information not found in the past discussions, do you mind creating a new discussion on the noticeboard that focuses on The Hill contributors? As an aside, I note that some of the past discussions in the entry do not meet the current inclusion criteria, and should be delisted. — Newslinger talk 00:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, you can remove the brief discussions. IIRC, I added the entry for The Hill before the inclusion criteria for discussions were implemented. feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 12:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I would like to avoid all unnecessary bureaucracy. That's why I mentioned the CJR piece even though I knew I was kind of bringing a new argument to the table. I will use RSN if that is the least awful out of all the awful options.
The listing has been used (example #1, example #2) as a circular argument, i.e. contributor pieces are self-published because Perennial sources says so.
Would you and Feminist, or anyone, kindly explain how you, in January 2019, reached the conclusion there was a consensus for listing contributor pieces as self-published, so that I can accept your conclusion or reject it? Politrukki (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm striking my proposal, which is not based on the reading of current consensus of past discussions any more than the view that contributor pieces are self-published. Politrukki (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
The inclusion criteria have tightened since the entry was created, and some of the listed discussions are no longer considered significant enough for inclusion:
Significance of listed discussions in The Hill's entry
  1. The "Independent Political Report" (2012): Not significant. Only 1 editor comments on the reliability of The Hill.
  2. NRA PAC contributions to Congressional candidates (2014): Not significant. Discussion heading does not mention The Hill, and only 1–2 editors comment on the reliability of The Hill.
  3. Political wrangling on article: Endorsements for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 (2015): Not significant. Discussion heading does not mention The Hill, and only 2 editors comment on the reliability of The Hill.
  4. Need help to fix an article that is seen as NPOV by several editors (2016): Not significant. Discussion heading does not mention The Hill, and only 1–2 editors comment on the reliability of The Hill.
  5. Is there any support for having an annual cull of RS acceptable for Wikipedia? (2017): Not significant. Only 1 editor comments on the reliability of The Hill.
  6. The Hill, Fox News, and Daily Caller reliable sources? (2018): Significant
  7. Discussion (Breitbart) (2018): Not significant. Only 1 editor comments on the reliability of The Hill.
  8. Washington Examiner (2019): Significant
  9. John Solomon (2019): Significant
  10. Sources at Media bias in the United States for claims of censorship of conservative content (2019): Significant
Among the four significant discussions, editors who refer to The Hill contributors mostly describe them as self-published or equivalent to contributors (RSP entry):
Comments regarding The Hill contributors in significant listed discussions
  1. The Hill, Fox News, and Daily Caller reliable sources? (2018)
    • "that the Hill's various "contributor blogs" are opinions and are not usable except with in-text attribution (much like Forbes's contributor blogs)"
  2. Washington Examiner (2019)
  3. John Solomon (2019)
    • "There's already consensus here that articles written by Hill contributors should be treated as self-published. See WP:RSP."
    • "he is an opinion contributor to The Hill. [...] The fact that that his work is marked as 'opinion' and 'not the view of the hill' does not show that these pieces are treated any differently than other opinion pieces in reliable sources. They should be used in accordance with the standard RS opinion policy."
    • "We already know that The Hill contributors are essentially unedited opinion columns"
  4. Sources at Media bias in the United States for claims of censorship of conservative content (2019)
    • "I consider it generally reliable for topics related to American politics, with the usual exceptions (opinion pieces use WP:RSOPINION and non-staff contributor pieces are self-published sources)."
Based on the above, I believe the current summary in The Hill's entry is representative of past discussions. Since you have just introduced new arguments in this discussion based on the Columbia Journalism Review article, it would make sense to start a new noticeboard discussion that focuses on The Hill's contributors. The noticeboard discussion would be indexed in the list and factored into the summary. — Newslinger talk 06:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding notability to the inclusion criteriaEdit

The inclusion criteria currently allows entries for all sources that have been evaluated in an RfC or the required number of significant discussions. Historically, sources that are non-notable (i.e. ones that do not have a Wikipedia article or redirect) and sources that are excessively niche in scope (e.g. standalone books) have been excluded from the list even if they meet the criteria.

With the recent RfC authorization in WP:RSNRFC, we can expect to see many more non-notable sources that meet the current inclusion criteria. Personally, I don't think entries like the one on three peerage websites (discussion and RfC) are significant enough to be included in this list. If we included every self-published or user-generated website that is used incorrectly, the list would be too bloated and cumbersome to use efficiently.

To address this, I am proposing the addition of a notability requirement to the inclusion criteria. The proposed wording also considers RfCs with low participation ordinary discussions, and reorganizes the existing paragraph into list form:

Sources should meet both of the following requirements before being added to the list:

  1. The source's name must link to one of the following pages:
  2. The source must have been adequately discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard in at least one of the following ways:
    • At least one uninterrupted request for comment (RfC) on the source's reliability. RfCs are interrupted if they are withdrawn, deleted, or prematurely archived or closed (excluding the snowball clause) before the standard seven-day period elapses. RfCs with low participation do not qualify for this criterion, and are considered ordinary discussions.
    • At least two significant discussions that mention the source's reliability. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.

Suggestions for something more specific than "low participation" would be much appreciated.

Is this a reasonable revision, and does anyone have any other approaches? — Newslinger talk 03:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any real objections to the above, but I'm wondering if a cutoff is really necessary? This may be my computer-literate bias showing, but cmd/ctrl-F searches are equally easy regardless of page length. signed, Rosguill talk 20:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC) (one of the three royal sources to be depreciated) is cited nearly 10,000 times on Wikipedia (see    ), around one third of the citations the Daily Mail had before it was depreciated, and significantly higher than many sources on this list (over double that of RT for instance). I think in order to be included in the Perennial sources list a source should satisfy at least one of two criteria, 1. a notability critera (Point 1. proposed by Newslinger above) 2. a usage criteria (i.e. cited over 1,000 times or some other citation threshold). In addition the source must also satisfy Newslinger's RfC and discussion criteria (Point 2.) proposed above. This would prevent clutter of non-notable sources with relatively few uses, while allowing more obscure, problematic sources with significant usage to remain on the list, and also allowing notable depreciated sources that have had all their citations removed to remain on the list. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Not a good idea - we have five usages of The Sun, but it's still deprecated, and editors keep trying to use it - David Gerard (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@David Gerard: I'm not suggesting the citation criterion in isolation from the notability one, my idea is that the two criteria were complimentary, The citation counts should be the maximum number of citations that a source ever had on Wikipedia (provided that the links were added organically, and not spammed), prior to systematic removal (ala the Daily Mail, which you have made excellent progress on) which would reflect the likelyhood that the source would be attempted to be added in the future. Given that is cited 9,500 times I think it would also be likely that editors will keep trying to add it also. The Sun is clearly notable and would pass the notability criterion with flying colours, regardless of how many articles it is cited in, and should definitely be on the list. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I see your point. Requiring a source to either have an article/redirect or be cited a certain number of times would allow for the peerage sources, and exclude sparsely used non-notable sources. Where should the line be drawn, in terms of the number of citations? — Newslinger talk 03:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that less than 100 is insufficient and over 1,000 is definitely sufficient, maybe 500, 250? You would expect that usage of sources on wikipedia follows a power law distribution i.e many sources are cited only a handful of times (the long tail), while relatively few sources are cited many times. Ultimately where that cutoff is made is ultimately arbitrary, but should probably include the top 10-20% of self-published sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Somethng like this might be an idea? I'd like a proper RFC before deprecation, I'm not sure it's needed before green/yellow/pink - though those need at least two decent discussions, I'd think. The source need not have an article of its own, that's orthogonal to the issue with a common bad source - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
David Gerard, we already have a requirement for RfC before deprecation. I don't see any confusion here: WP:DEPS is for deprecated sources, whatever their notability, and this is for perennial sources, i.e. sources that have been discussed multiple times, regardles of status or indeed notability. I don't mind looking at a threshold for what constitues perennial (I'd say three at least). Guy (help!) 09:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait, am I reading this right, any source which does NOT have a Wikipedia article is presumed to be reliable and cannot be added to the "perennial sources" list as unreliable UNLESS it already has an article? I'm not sure that makes any sense to me. Why does not having an article make a source suddenly reliable? --Jayron32 03:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    No, absolutely not. WP:RSPMISSING states that "A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present", and the first sentence of RSP describes the list as "non-exhaustive". If an unreliable source is determined not to meet the criteria for inclusion, then it would still be unreliable, but it wouldn't be listed here. There's no presumption of reliability at all. — Newslinger talk 03:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    But if we've already had the discussion on the unreliablity of a source, what is to gain from keeping it off the page merely because it doesn't have an article? How does Wikipedia benefit from people NOT being able to find out the source has been shown to be unreliable? Why would we not want to let people know that? --Jayron32 04:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    The purpose is to keep the list accessible and manageable. The vast majority of websites are self-published sources, and if the entries on this list were proportionally representative of all websites on the Internet regardless of notability, it would be a sea of red drowning out entries of commonly encountered sources. I understand that it's possible to use a web browser to search for specific sources on this page, but making this list indiscriminate would reduce its usefulness for people who read it to learn more about sources that are widely used.
    In my opinion, non-notable unreliable sites that are repeatedly cited in an inappropriate way belong on the spam blacklist. — Newslinger talk 05:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

    I'd concur, but it'd be much harder to swing. We regularly get a couple of new Sun links a day, and they're always inappropriate, but would it be SPB material? I suspect that would be very hard to swing, with the regular advocates for deprecated sites insisting it's not a ban even when it should be - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    The Sun is notable, so I'm not suggesting blacklisting it. Non-notable unreliable sources would include personal blogs and websites, such as those peerage sites. — Newslinger talk 10:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger, They can go on WP:DEPS but they don't need to go here because this ios for "perennial sources", not just deprecated ones. Guy (help!) 09:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. — Newslinger talk 08:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong with the de facto inclusion criteria we have been using?

  • Is it a source that editors have asked about on the RSNB multiple times?
  • Is it a source that a lot of editors have tried to use and then been reverted for using an unreliable source?

-- Guy Macon (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the de facto inclusion criteria does include notability, since I've been removing entries of non-notable sites (e.g. Special:Diff/927881907) when they appear on rare occasions. If there is consensus in this discussion not to restrict the inclusion of entries in this way, then that would be fine too, but we need to finish the discussion first. — Newslinger talk 06:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm. Liliputing only has two mentions on the RSNB, one in passing. I don't know how many times it was used as a source and then reverted but I would guess very few. Could it be that both sets of criteria give the same result? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Guy Macon. I'd hope the two defacto criteria he mentions would be enough.
This is an extremely valuable tool, and I'd be against anything that reduces it's value. I never noticed that notability is one of the de facto criteria. To start, how about prominently mentioning other lists, such as the blacklists, within this article?
I've also wondered if we need to find ways to manage the length of this list. Is that a concern driving this discussion? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the length is one of my concerns. The accessibility concerns related to length were previously discussed in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 1 § Accessibility concerns, and the maintainability concerns were discussed in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 2 § Criteria for inclusion. The latter discussion resulted in the first version of the inclusion criteria, which this list has been using since January 2019. — Newslinger talk 01:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, this list serves the function of forestalling endless rehashing of the same arguments around the 'pedia (Is Breitbart reliable? Is CNN fake news?). I think it's good to focus here on perennia;l (i.e. commonly discussed) sources. Lilputing doesn't qualify IMO.
We also have WP:DEPS for deprecated sources. That can include any source which is deemed to be generally unreliable. DEPS is used to maintain an unreliable source highlighter script, for example, and is linked from filter 869 and its messages. Liliputing does qualify there.
I don't see a problem with this. Guy (help!) 09:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as most users would use the search engine to check up on a source rather than reading the whole thing. This would limit the checkability of a source and effectively increase its use as the editor in question would find no entry for it and assume its reliable or at least undetermined, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The proposal isn't getting enough traction, so I'm going to withdraw it unless more support emerges. My concerns about the length of this list can be partially addressed through technical solutions, and I have a couple of Wikitech-hosted projects in the pipeline that I look forward to sharing in the next few months. — Newslinger talk 02:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Global TimesEdit

Is the now closed discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Global Times specific enough for us to change what we say for the Global Times? It appears to be the only discussion we’ve had on the Global Times specifically since 2014 (the 2019 discussion was a combined discussion of six sources and it was noted that among them GT was the least reliable) and consensus is clear but participation was light.Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't as yet - generally speaking, I don't think there should be a rush to list things here unless consensus is clearly overwhelming. There's a vexed and ongoing argument about just how independent various state-owned media are and where they therefore go on the reliability scale - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The Global Times is already listed here. They also aren’t one of the edge cases we’re concerned about with state-owned media, these guys are worse than RT. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I think more participation would be helpful here, probably in the form of an RfC. — Newslinger talk 02:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Can add CGTN to the discussion as well. NoNews! 06:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Questioning reliabilityEdit

Although I have been around for four years, this page was brought to my attention by User:Philip Cross. I admit I am wet behind the ears. Whose brain-fart was it to ram all of the western corporate media into the reliable pile and all detractors such as RT/Press TV in the "unreliable" pile? --Coldtrack (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Simply put because these are state propaganda exercises with absolutely no independence of editorial judgement or ability to think or write freely. "All detractors" is not a term which equates only to the press organs of authoritarian pariah states like RT and PressTV (which doesn't even try to hide its being a mouthpiece for the Revolutionary Guard and their ayatollah mascots). You will notice that the most egregious western corporatists (Breitbart, The Sun, The Mail, et al.) are also rightly marked unreliable. Did you think people thought RT was reliable? I don't believe anyone takes what they say seriously, it's more like a parody or satire. GPinkerton (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
As you can see on the RSP page, the brain-fart discussions are linked for your convenience. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Coldtrack, anything that's on the RSP list is there because people have repeatedly come to WP:RSN and asked if it's reliable. We don't add things prospectively. The fact that Russian state sponsored media promotes falsehoods and conspiracy theories is not our problem to fix. Guy (help!) 09:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The page was only created in July 2018.[1] I assume the reason was to avoid a repeat of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. TFD (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The original proposal for this list is at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 59 § Casual musing. The first comment in the discussion suggested that a list would be easier to reference than multiple "protracted discussions", but the discussion does not mention any elections. — Newslinger talk 08:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be. There are five sources in the original list. All four sources described as right-wing are considered unreliable while the one source described as non-partisan is described as reliable. One editor complained that it was egregious to list position on the political spectrum and that field was omitted in the final list. TFD (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Entries in this list are derived from past discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard. See the entries for Press TV (RSP entry) and RT (RSP entry) for details. As discussed in the May RfC on RT, the body of evidence against RT's reliability is particularly strong. — Newslinger talk 08:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

All right. Question 1 - how does alleged "independence of editorial judgement or ability to think or write freely" mean that those who possess this can be "relied upon". Surely the ability to "write or think freely" would give one the freedom to tell lies, right? If not - what stops him? Similarly question 2 - if a news network happens to report a certain government's position, how does this mean that the source is "unreliable"? Is someone claiming that it is impossible for a government to be right? In particular, a government not favourable to the west. Question 3 - who demonstrated that Russian media promotes so-called "falsehoods" and so-called "conspiracy theories". Question 4 - what the hell does anyone mean "egregious western corporatists (Breitbart, The Sun, The Mail, et al.", this bundle says NOTHING that the so-called "reliable" sources don't regurgitate san evidence. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I listed 30 in-depth reliable sources in the RfC on RT that explain how RT is a propaganda outlet. The verifiability policy states that "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and RT is considered generally unreliable because its reputation is the opposite of what is required of reliable sources. If you would like to start a new discussion on RT or any other source, feel free to do so on the reliable sources noticeboard, although it is highly unlikely that the community will find consensus for your view in light of how recent the RfC on RT is. — Newslinger talk 18:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah you're damn right I won't find any consensus for suggesting RT is reliable. And that statement brings us a step closer to establishing what is reliable (i.e. "we are the masses and it tickles our ear as opposed to that source"). After all, if it were to be deemed reliable, the whole of Wikipedia would have to be rewritten not to look like a George Soros fanzine. I cannot see the relevance of something being a propaganda outlet unless one can demonstrate why propaganda need be false. And is it as if the "reliable sources" do not promote propaganda? and I mean, copious propaganda? The rest of your statement is a run-of-the-mill regurgitation of site policy which nobody has demonstrated that the "reliable sources" adhere to and the opponents of corporate media (i.e. "the reliable sources") do not adhere to. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
This talk page is for the maintenance of the list itself. If your objection is to the reliable sources guideline, you can propose changes on the talk page of that guideline. If your objection is to the Wikipedia community's evaluation of RT, you can ask for reconsideration on the reliable sources noticeboard. However, new arguments introduced on this page do not influence specific entries on the list, because this list is just an index. Wikipedia is based on consensus, and you must obtain consensus somewhere if you wish to have your point of view represented. — Newslinger talk 18:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Newslinger for burying your head in the sand after yourself raising some issues deviating from the purpose of the article. Survival of the fittest I see. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You are in the wrong location for proposing the changes you suggested, and I have shown you the right locations for doing so. Whether you follow up in the right locations is up to you. — Newslinger talk 18:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
All right I take your point. I wish to make one more comment and after this, it really is fine by me if it sits festering with no reply ever as I will not be coming here looking for changes. To be honest, I wasn't really doing so in the first place; I just wanted to know why the BBC & CNN are reliable while RT & Press TV are unreliable. Of course, I am sure defenders of this standpoint will laugh off the list of binaries such as the positions on the White Helmets, the positions on Palestine, the positions on Kosovo, the positions on Venezuela inter alia as a gigantic coincidence. If you ask me, the term slothful induction comes to mind, because if those on the "reliable" list are not Grade A propagandists for the western regimes then someone tell me how pro-west propaganda might look, and what would be different? The A-list say that Russian & Syrian media promote disinformation over the White Helmets. The unreliable "Sun" paints them as the cuddly band of non-dangerous fanatics, and the "reliable" BBC does the same but using different rhetoric. To the person above who questioned whether people believe RT, I'm afraid to inform him/her that RT ranks 2nd for foreign media in the US after BBC World, and ranks 1st for online subscribers and viewers. So yes people do rely on it, while independent surveys (reported in corporate media albeit low-key) show that figures ranging from almost half to well over half of citizens per western state do not believe their media, that is to the the ones you laud as "reliable" (i.e many that were on a Saddam-has-WMD drive even long after the Iraq War). I'm done. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Coldtrack: Your questions have already been answered. CNN and the BBC can meet reliability criteria because they are independent news organizations. PressTV and RT are both state propaganda agencies that report what their governments want the world to think, nothing more, never less. Where are you getting your proof from that "almost half to well over half of citizens per western state do not believe their media"? Is that something RT reported? Did you imagine Wikipedia is based on the purported beliefs of "almost half to well over half of citizens" rather than actual global consensus and reliable sources? No-one but Bashar and his wife believes the lunacy Russia puts onto the airwaves about the White Helmets, so you'll not find it in anything normal people would describe as a reliable source. GPinkerton (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
To be honest, I wasn't really doing so in the first place Yeah, I think everyone is aware of that. Not sure what the purpose of any of that was, other than to froth at the mouth about some great wrongs. Grandpallama (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Grandpallama - The "answer to the question" I have been provided does not cut the mustard. The mantra that is being regurgitated over and over (ie. CNN and the BBC are so-called "independent" news organizations. PressTV and RT are "state propaganda" et al) is a distinction without a difference. I responded to that here[2], and to date nobody has demonstrated even one fraction why one is reliable and the other isn't. To be honest, any fair-minded observer is able to see that the so-called "reliability criteria" is framed specifically to single out the sources which please the architects of this project. You would really have to think that the reader is stupid if one is "independent" when he writes for Rupert Murdoch, or that the BBC is "reliable" while Press TV is "unreliable" on the so-called "rectitudes" of the White Helmets or the so-called "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" when the BBC make no secret of the fact that what they report from Syria adduces those two headsprings. In other words, the "unreliable" sources call them terrorists, and the "reliable" cartel present them as the "cuddly band of non-dangerous fanatics dedicated to saving lives". Result: The White Helmets are good people and not bad, because they say they are. Circular reasoning (see begging the question). As regards where I saw that the majority in the west don't trust their media may have been from a corporate source ultimately, and I think it was, but I spotted it on Twitter a month or so ago. When I find it, I'll post it to your talk. If it were acknowledged on RT it would more likely have been on an op-ed (you know, the ones who write what THEY want and not what the Kremlin tells them) and would likely have been an acknowledgement more than a leading news headline. But then what would it matter if it were RT when nobody has ever provided me with a reason to disbelieve them. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Please don't post anything to my talk, whether you find it or not. Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Coldtrack: A shorter version of the answer you have already received would run something like "so-called facts you have seen on Twitter are not reliable anything, and neither are your opinions about Twitter fit material for judging the reliability of reliable sources". You appear to be obsessed with the usual propaganda produced by Bashar's friends in Moscow and Tehran, whose line runs something like "if Bashar is bombing them, they must be evil (and we must bomb them as well)". Of course there isn't the slightest evidence for their ludicrous claims about civilians in Syria (claims like: "if we, the al-Assad clan killed them, they must be evil") , still less of a global conspiracy of all people everywhere to malign and attack the world's only righteous among the nations: Iran, Syria, and Russia, a clutch of banana republics which one could hardly find in the Africa of the cold war. State propaganda agencies from belligerents and aggressors in a war are not reliable sources for that war, nor for anything else. RT and PressTV take orders from their respective governments' press offices. You may believe them, but most never will, and rightly so. GPinkerton (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@GPinkerton: - I heard you the first time when you called Press & RT "state propaganda" so to avoid repeating myself, I refer you to my response which rebuffed this point. Remember the discussion was reliable sources and not the dynamics of the Syrian Civil War. But don't worry, the dog-whistling for your support of the Jihadists (i.e the so-called "moderate" fanatics) was shrieking long before you made the remark. You have not demonstrated one reason Rupert Murdoch is reliable and RT is not. You refer to Russia and Syria as "aggressors" for no other reason than the fact that they are fighting against your "moderate" Al-Qaeda affiliates; my heart bleeds. The rest of the accusations of this block being an aggressor lies entirely within your "reliable source" bundle, ie. corporate media (so by "reliable source", I was grimly mocking your standpoint). If they are not western-regime mouthpieces, someone tell me how might pro-west propaganda actually look. Anyhow I don't know where you get this information that it is only Russian, Syrian and Iranian media which reports as it does: Chinese is exactly the same. I read Ukrainian sources which you would dismiss as "pro-Russian" although in reality they are simply anti-Maidan. I have a Bulgarian wife who knows about the Helmets from Bulgarian media, albeit not pro-government. We also know of at least one Serbian journal to report the way you don't like. Face it, your champagne bubble gets smaller ans smaller. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
PS. Also stop trying to be amusing with your "Twitter not reliable" comments. I said I found the survey on Twitter; it was linked by someone else. I'm not sure how to break this to you but many of your "reliable sources" such as Hilary Clinton use Twitter as well. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Coldtrack: Are you now arguing for Bulgarian and Serbian media outlets to be added to the reliable sources list? It's difficult to know what you're suggesting, if anything. I'm not going to defend Murdoch - why would I? Most of his outlets are not considered reliable here, and even so he's a private individual and not an authoritarian pariah state. You make a lot of very strange and wrong assumptions, and I can tell you that your idiosyncratic view of the Syrian war that you learnt about seventh-hand from your wife's interpretation of some unspecified Bulgarian media report (the same Bulgaria well known for having the worst conditions of media freedom almost anywhere in Europe, with the fewest journalists, and the most corrupt?) is not going to right great wrongs and change Wikipedia's entire worldview to a pro-Kremlin or pro-al-Assad position with some catacorner claims about Kiev and cuddly jihadists. You'll wait all your life for that bubble to burst. If you have something to add, find something less laughable to suggest. Where do you see Hilary Clinton listed as a reliable media organization, as you appear to claim? GPinkerton (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Where is Hilary Clinton listed as a reliable source? Answer: ALL corporate media regurgitates points that she and her buccaneers make where you're concerned (Syrian Civil War). If you know where she has said one thing about Assad or Moscow and your corporate media have denounced it saying something else, kindly share it with us. You are absolutely right about Bulgaria having poor freedom press, but in saying so you have overshot the runway, because Bulgarian state media also parrots the western narrative. The article denouncing the White Helmets came from an Ataka journal, but then Ataka is far-right so that is a good a reason as any to deem them unreliable - though any sentient human being knows the real reason it would be unreliable is because it does not conform to your pre-determined bias over Syria. Murdoch owns the Times, but Sky was considered "reliable" back from the time he owned it. And lo and behold, they have never questioned Hilary Clinton's position on Russia or Iran or Syria either, nor her husband Bill's, nor Israel's, nor the EU's, nor every other globalist embodiment. It is one monolithic entity, and who dares challenge it is a "crank". Honestly, how dare one raise concerns expounded by the BBC, I mean the BBC - the paragon of unbiased reporting!! Don't make me laugh or my ribs will ache! --Coldtrack (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I’ve been interacting with Coldtrack at Nazi analogies and on my talk page after I warned them for edit warring, at this point I think its fair to say that WP:Tendentious is on the table. Editor appears to be here to WP:RGW, we’re getting rants about the Clintons, Israel, and the EU not constructive contributions to wikipedia. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye Jack: Yes the most recent comment puts a name to the POV: they're against "globalist embodiment". (Whatever that process looks like.) And Атака is basically what would happen if you gave Nazism a really low budget, no votes, and lots of Eastern Orthodox religion. What a surprise its media organs lean towards the rather higher budget ultra-nationalist Orthodox regime in Moscow and their Damascene and Iranian friends, and repeat their media outlets! But oh no, it's all (still, somehow,) Hillary Clinton's fault! WP:Tendentious and WP:RGW is definitely the right description, with WP:FRINGE beliefs and sources mixed in. And of course, no Kremlin-backed conspiracy theory could ever be complete without references to George Soros, Israel, and the EU. Presumably these things keeps someone in that Moscow palace awake at night, but that should hardly affect our judgement here. GPinkerton (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
With regards Horse Eye Jack, I am deeply suspicious about elements of this user's behaviour and I will in due course be raising concerns. Right now, I have business to attend which prevents my ability to draft reports. With regards TENDENTIOUS, I wouldn't go throwing stones in glasshouses. I am very open about my political persuasion and find myself in conflict with opponents who pretend that they are being objective when it is clear that they are apologists for the opposing processes. Neither Horse Eye Jack nor the bulk of editors to post on this thread are in a position to pretend that they are neutral over any political matter because the watchwords they use expose their political orientation. For example, "Kremlin-backed conspiracy theory", really? This assertion carries the burden of proof. One does not meet this burden by claiming, "ah but the reliable sources say it is a conspiracy theory, therefore it must be". That is begging the question, a fallacy. But then the very fact that one should even hold up Israel and George Soros as a force for good really and truly reveals one's own political imperatives. Without asking any of you, I already know your standpoints on Israel, Palestine, the "moderate" terrorists in Syria (covered), Iran, Venezuela, Kosovo, China, North Korea, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, NATO, the EU, Brexit, the UN, western intervention; the list goes on. If either of you wish to shock me by telling me you support Palestinian statehood and that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal then go ahead, but do not even try to enter a political debate with me over any of those matters because if you do, I'll blow the bollocks off you. I'll embarrass you all. BOTH my parents are retired diplomats and I know more about the actualities of world events than Joe Public will learn in his entire life. In fact, I do not even need Press TV myself as I am perfectly capable of framing my own argumentations if I did happen to write. I came here merely to talk about reliability standards and unsurprisingly this discussion descended into "our sources are right and yours are wrong; yours support aggression and we only want to bring democracy to places". I would have quit this discussion if others did not add to it to try to proselytise for their preferred media. I'm not exactly sure what GPinkerton means by "Ataka is what you get if you allow no votes and Eastern Orthodoxy" because as far as I am concerned, Ataka is well capable of standing up for its own battles against neo-con domination. Their position being non-mainstream is hardly a factor that must mean, "they are wrong and others are right". Despite being Ukrainian, I am not Orthodox, I am atheist. I have no affiliation to Ataka but GPinkerton deliberately refused to grasp a simple point. First he said, "Bulgarian media standards are poor" and then I notified him that the Bulgarian regime is pro-west, a NATO member and an EU member and their "piss-poor media" lift their world affairs reporting straight out of the CNN playbook. Ataka's publication on the other hand may indeed be a lot of things that GPinkerton and Horse Eye Jack do not stand for as individuals, I'll go along with you there, but it is the exact diametrical opposite of a "government-backed mouthpiece". In short, Bulgaria's state-monitored and not-free media parrot the western narrative, while an independent source from the country reports external matters differently. For GPinkerton in one post to say "Bulgaria is known for poor media standards" (clearly thinking that the criticism of the White Helmets was from BNT) to then denigrating "Ataka" in the next post when he found out it was them slating his darling White Helmets while BNT was peddling their "righteousness" from the start, he suddenly reveals knowledge of Eastern Orthodoxy and a low budget. In other words, his knuckles were dragging the ground from the start, and they still are; he knew nothing about Bulgaria's internal reporting system. He got his tail between his legs over this one, and that is what happens when one is sublimely ignorant. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Coldtrack: Definite tendentiousness on show here: to assume that any- and everyone that doesn't join the cult of Bashar must be in league with his/Putin's/the ayatollahs' enemies is a hilarious false dichotomy. The pariah states are in league with each other, but their opponents are the whole world, not some cabal dictated to by Clinton (a has-been for years now) and Soros (a perennial lightning rod for anti-Semitic hatred and conspiracy theories churned out by various far-right sections of eastern Europe). Bulgaria's media is terrible across the board, Bulgarian state-run or otherwise. It's the worst place in Europe to be a journalist. Атака being opposed to the Bulgarian government does not somehow rule out its organs being aligned with Moscow and heavily biased towards Putinist foreign policy, just as many far-right parties are willing to do in exchange for the money and the constant tirade of anti-EU/West/US/Judaism propaganda the Kremlin supplies and which the anti-Western press are everywhere eager to plagiarize. (Israel, Palestine, the "moderate" terrorists in Syria (covered), Iran, Venezuela, Kosovo, China, North Korea, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, NATO, the EU, Brexit, the UN, western intervention - one could hardly compile a more thorough list of Russian hopes, fears, allies and envy!) Your threats of "I'll blow the bollocks off you" (by which I assume you mean win an argument) are amusing but not realistic, judging by the inchoate mass of non-argument opinions you've adduced thus far. Think of something particular you want to discuss about the reliability of some off-Wiki source or quit, though if you're going to try and get Атака's newsletter written up as a reliable source I recommend you not bother and save yourself the wasted effort. Why even bother to edit here if you've inherited knowledge of "more about the actualities of world events than Joe Public will learn in his entire life" from your (presumably Soviet-era) diplomat parents? Who knew one could acquire understanding of today's current events in utero decades prior! GPinkerton (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@GPinkerton: TENDENTIOUS simply means editing in an NPOV manner and I can argue the same of you and your acolytes. Of course my parents are Soviet-era diplomats if they are retired. I'm sorry but is that supposed to be a problem? Are we automatically wrong for having sought professional careers within the country we were born? You've got a problem cousin. Everything in the world that does not conform to your pro-Pentagon propaganda and conspiracy theories is automatically "Russian-backed" and by extension, a world evil. So I was right then. I only listed a quick and small portion of world disputes just to prove to you that I knew your position on all of them and lo and behold, you didn't jump onto any to say, "well actually in Yemen I oppose the Saudi actions" or the like. And yet you dismiss a mass hotchpotch of matters around the globe (to which I could have added many many more) as "Putinist foreign policy" forgetting that it is actually your American regime which is fanning the flames of conflict in those regions. As for Africa, don't even get me started. I know the Clintons are has-beens, or have-beens, but what it is they "have been"? Answer: exactly what Trump and Boris Johnson are in 2020 - figureheads. The point I was making about Hilary Clinton is that her public comments on all of the conflicts I specified spawn not one variation from the so-called "reliable sources", so you might as well just declare her a "reliable source" because you are affording the accolade to the ones who genuflect to her. So Bulgaria is a bad place to be a journalist, and yet we see that it produces reports from across the spectrum: there is the government-monitored state media which parrots your "reliable sources", and there are those who work independently without hindrance, as in those who provide reports that frustrate your "reliable source" faithful. So the reality is, there is no fringe because your bubble is not as big as you make out. For a better insight just look at Kosovan and Palestinian recognition: the former is about half/half (more UN members recognise, fewer with non-UN), but the latter is overwhelmingly against your US/Zionist appeal for pity. When saying I would blow the bollocks off you in a debate, it means more than just win, it means I would humiliate you: particularly as you are someone ignorant on world affairs. To take Syria as one example: regurgitating "Assad bad Assad bad" may find it has agreement with a lot of people, but once it becomes clear that you repose faith in corporate media, your dog-whistling for "Pentagon good Pentagon good" will be heard by all ears, and everyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of Syria will know straight away that "Assad is bad" not because he is accused of committing atrocities against civilians (which he expressly denies anyhow) but because he and Russia are "attacking our guys" (that's what your sources were reporting), and as such you are holding up the "moderate" fanatics (yep, YOUR cartel introduced the word "moderate" to distinguish between terrorist organisations which is why your opponents shame you with it) as the darlings of the conflict. In other words, you approve the nice little Kidnapping for Ransom scheme your "moderate" Al-Nusra were engaging in as a way for masses of non-Syrians pretending to be Syrian to wage war on the Syrian government. Your ally Sheikh Tamim even admitted to your darling reliable Christiane Amanpour for CNN that Qatar was happy to go along with the caper as it supported the cause of Al Nusra and other "moderate" terrorist organisations operating there. So I'm wrapping up by saying, yes the likes of RT present their cases not that they pretend otherwise, but nobody on this thread has produced a single argument as to why BBC, Fox, DW or CNN are "reliable". If you are going to reply, don't bother trying to slate the organisations of this world to whom your globalist powers and their obeisant media are against, but just try building a case for why I or any reader should be convinced that the BBC is reliable. Good luck on your snipe hunt. --Coldtrack (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Vox (website)Edit

Should the entry for Vox have a disclaimer along the lines of Some editors say that Vox is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should also be attributed? Our article on Vox does note Vox is a liberal-leaning American news and opinion website also the last substantial discussion about it here made mention of it as well. PackMecEng (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

How do they identify their opinion articles? I'm not finding any with a quick skim. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
That is a good question actually, it does not appear to be clearly marked. Only thing I have found so far is this article which says “First Person” or “The Big Idea” are opinion sections. PackMecEng (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I've added Some editors say that Vox is a partisan source in the field of politics to the list. This part of PackMegEng's proposed addition is not controversial, having been noted in previous RSN discussions. Whether the latter part, regarding their opinion pieces, should be added as well, can continue to be discussed here. feminist | freedom isn't free 03:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
That covers the main part of concern. The other part I more or less copied from other entries and do not have overly strong feelings about. Thanks for making the change! PackMecEng (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

state sponsored Fake sitesEdit

Чому в списке только российские сайты и нет ни одного украинского, нет "радио свободы"? Пфе. Ya unikum (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

DeepL translates the above statement as:

Why are there only Russian sites on the list and no Ukrainian sites, no "radio freedom"? Pfft.

Hi Ya unikum, the very first source on the list, 112 Ukraine (RSP entry), is a Ukrainian source that is both blacklisted and deprecated. If there are any other sources that you would like to have the community evaluate, feel free to start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 01:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia BritannicaEdit

The section about public contributions is quite out of date: they haven't allowed that for over a decade. (Saying that as someone who contributed three articles, and was in the process of writing another when they shut the process down.) -- Zanimum (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Since no past discussions have mentioned that the Encyclopædia Britannica Online stopped accepting content submissions from the public, you'll want to start a new discussion about this matter on the reliable sources noticeboard. I see that there is a currently active discussion, so I recommend creating a new subsection at the end of that discussion. — Newslinger talk 02:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  Done. The discussion was archived at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298 § Encyclopedia Britannica, and I've updated the entry. Please feel free to make further adjustments as you see fit. — Newslinger talk 00:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Zanimum (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


This site is defunct, and is now a redirect to AXS. Are we keeping it on the list in case someone digs through the Wayback Machine? -- Zanimum (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and also to serve as a data point for what is blacklisted and designated generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 02:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


Dear colleagues,
I was consulting the list to find out the status of WikiTree as a source for genealogical information, but it is currently not included in the list. Before I start a discussion about it on the noticeboard, does anyone have experience in using it in an article, or of its suitability for biographies of old-time performers (i.e., not WP:BLP)? Thank you very much in advance.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 15:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
PS: On taking a closer look, it appears to be an aggregator of FamilySearch and Findmypast, which are deemed generally unreliable; so, this suggests WikiTree would most likely share that status too.
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 15:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pdebee, I think you're absolutely right. In addition to FamilySearch (RSP entry) and Findmypast (RSP entry), WikiTree looks similar to (RSP entry) and (RSP entry), all of which are considered generally unreliable due to lack of editorial oversight. — Newslinger talk 04:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The TimesEdit

Given that The Times is only second to The Daily Mail when it comes to upheld complaints by IPSO should it still be considered a reliable source? (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, this list only tracks discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard. Other information, including metrics from regulatory organizations, do not directly affect this list. However, if you would like to start a new discussion on The Times, feel free to do so on the noticeboard, where you can bring up the IPSO complaints. Judging from past discussions, I don't think most editors treat IPSO complaints as a major factor in their reliability evaluations. — Newslinger talk 04:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Question on list creationEdit

Hello everyone, I would like if someone who is familiar with the creation of this list could tell me whether it would make sense to create a similar but separate list for sources in Serbo-Croatian language, that are often and in large numbers used under the Balkan scope? Perhaps, at some point, this could be extended to the whole of Eastern Europe and the languages in use there, however, in both versions the geographically scope should be probably defined, beside lang, in line with ARBMAC / ARBEE. Thanks.--౪ Santa ౪99° 17:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Santasa99:, what methodology were you thinking of using for building the list? If you're just planning on writing it using your own opinions, there isn't much stopping you from just starting your own list, with the caveat being that its authority will be only as strong as your own personal arguments. If you're planning on building the list based on the consensuses of archived discussions, then WP:NPPSG may be a good place to log the assessments if the consensuses aren't strong enough to list here. signed, Rosguill talk 17:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Of course not, it would defeat the purpose to build something on your own - I was thinking, using the same methodology as with creation of existing Perennial sources list, although I have to admit I was pretty assured that simply following ongoing and registering previous discussions and results in individual RSN's would be only appropriate way - I mean, isn't the Perennial sources list created by simply registering results of the most recent RSN discussion outcomes ?--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
In that case, I'd suggest that we use WP:NPPSG for this (I'm effectively already doing that, although other than a few Albanian sources there's been little discussion about the Balkans on RSN since I've started). The difference between that list and RSP (other than the sorting) is that NPPSG has a lower bar for inclusion than RSP. RSP documents discussions that are truly perennial, or that at least have been thoroughly discussed in an RfC, whereas NPPSG documents any reliability discussion that includes a general reliability assessment. The name NPPSG is honestly a bit of a misnomer at this point but I've been lazy about renaming it. signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Some WikiProjects have assembled source lists that are focused on specific topic or geographical areas. See WP:RSP § Topic-specific pages for a list. If you would like to create a list, I recommend doing so under a relevant WikiProject so that it gets seen by more editors who would find it helpful. The methodology to use for this list would be up to you. Some of these topic-specific lists include more discussions from talk pages covered under the related WikiProject in addition to discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard. However, I'm not sure which WikiProject to place this under, since WikiProject Eastern Europe is inactive.

Rosguill's recommendation to use WP:NPPSG is a good idea, since it has sections for geographical areas and would be used by new page patrollers in addition to editors interested in the topic area. Regardless of whether you choose to create a separate list, adding entries to WP:NPPSG would ensure that they get seen and are made use of by more editors. — Newslinger talk 04:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Reliable sources/Perennial sources".