Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 31 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Reliability This page is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Shortcut

• WT:RSNWT:RSN

Note: This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the Noticeboard itself. Please post questions or concerns about sources and articles on the main project page: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For the record, the discussion about creation of this noticeboard took place here and here.

Section sizes in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Section size for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (31 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 687 687 RfC: Channel NewsAsia (CNA) and other Mediacorp-affiliated media 833 16,064 Survey (CNA) 11,858 11,858 Discussion (CNA) 3,373 3,373 RfC: Simple Flying 945 12,687 Survey (Simple Flying) 4,758 4,758 Discussion (Simple Flying) 6,984 6,984 National Post on Israel/Palestine 36,891 36,891 RfC: Meduza 1,149 5,885 Survey (Meduza) 3,834 3,834 Discussion (Meduza) 902 902 Politico spreading misinformation 4,632 4,632 BYU Studies 7,856 7,856 ArXiv.org preprint being repetitively added 15,731 15,731 Master thesis 2,204 2,204 CCTV and CRI english for Angus Tung 4,120 4,120 Old books 2,652 2,652 Arianism 1,395 1,395 Rudolf Steiner (Cambridge Scholars Publishing) 3,284 3,284 Consejo Minero 1,628 1,628 Jagannath 4,773 4,773 Grey Dynamics 4,969 4,969 Japanese Regional Newspaper? 3,290 3,290 Hope not hate 3,819 3,819 German government sources as self-published? 1,744 1,744 Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup § Publifye AS 488 488 Draft:Alexander Ziwahatan are the 3 sources reliable sources? 1,516 1,516 Asian Journal of Research in Computer Science 2,871 2,871 Shūkanshi (Japanese tabloids) 2,287 2,287 Playbill.com 1,942 1,942 Two sources 1,707 1,707 Total 145,122 145,122

This noticeboard has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jasper Jackson (8 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. Will Oremus (9 February 2017). "Wikipedia's Daily Mail Ban Is a Welcome Rebuke to Terrible Journalism". Slate. Kalev Leetaru (10 February 2017). "What Wikipedia's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship". Forbes. Samantha Cole (2 October 2018). "Wikipedia Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts". Vice. Omer Benjakob (9 January 2020). "Why Wikipedia Is Much More Effective Than Facebook at Fighting Fake News". Haaretz. Oliver Darcy (24 July 2020). "Wikipedia administrators caution editors about using Fox News as source on 'contentious' claims". CNN. Nishant Kauntia (30 November 2020). "The Edit Wars: How Wikipedia earned the ire of the Hindu Right". The Caravan. Samuel Breslow (29 September 2022). "Wikipedia's Fox News Problem". Slate (magazine). Asaf Elia-Shalev (18 June 2024). "ADL faces Wikipedia ban over reliability concerns on Israel, antisemitism". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. "Wikipedia declares Anti-Defamation League 'unreliable' on Israel, antisemitism: Report". Middle East Eye. 18 June 2024. "Wikipedia declares ADL 'unreliable' on Israel-Palestine conflict, antisemitism". i24NEWS. 19 June 2024. Josh Marcus (19 June 2024). "Why Wikipedia just labeled a top Jewish civil rights organization 'unreliable' on the Israel-Palestine crisis". The Independent. "Wikipedia labels prominent Israeli civil rights organization 'unreliable' on Israel-Palestine crisis, antisemitism". Arab News. 19 June 2024. Rob Eshman (June 19, 2024). "Wikipedia called the ADL 'unreliable.' It's a wake-up call the civil rights organization badly needs". The Forward. Retrieved June 20, 2024. David Goldman (June 20, 2024). "Wikipedia now labels the top Jewish civil rights group as an unreliable source". CNN. Retrieved June 23, 2024. Daniela Ginzburg (June 21, 2024). "Wikipedia deems ADL 'unreliable' due to Israel advocacy". Jewish News Syndicate. Retrieved June 23, 2024. Aaron Bandler (June 21, 2024). "Wikipedia Editors Label ADL Only Reliable for Antisemitism When "Israel and Zionism Are Not Concerned"". The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Retrieved June 23, 2024. Aya Youssef (June 23, 2024). "Palestine's battle against Zionist editing on Wikipedia". Al Mayadeen. Retrieved June 23, 2024. Rob Eshman (June 24, 2024). "'Does anybody question the NAACP?': The ADL head thinks Wikipedia is biased. Is he right?". The Forward. Retrieved June 25, 2024. Etan Nechin (June 25, 2024). "Leading Jewish Groups Rebuke Wikipedia's 'Attack' on ADL's Credibility on Antisemitism". Haaretz. Retrieved June 25, 2024. "Jewish orgs pen letter to Wikipedia condemning ADL ban". The Jerusalem Post. June 25, 2024. Retrieved June 25, 2024. "'Concern, dismay' by Wikipedia attack on ADL, 43 Jewish groups tell Wikimedia Foundation". Jewish News Syndicate. June 25, 2024. Retrieved June 25, 2024. Shiryn Ghermezian (June 25, 2024). "Jewish Groups Lambast Wikipedia for Its 'Attack on ADL's Credibility' About Antisemitism, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". Algemeiner Journal. Retrieved June 25, 2024. Asaf Elia-Shalev (June 25, 2024). "Wikipedia's operator rebuffs Jewish groups' call to override editors on ADL trustworthiness". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Retrieved June 26, 2024. Ben Brasch (26 June 2024). "Wikipedia defends editors deeming Anti-Defamation League 'unreliable' on Gaza". The Washington Post. Luis Cornelio (February 3, 2025). "EXCLUSIVE: Wikipedia Effectively Blacklists ALL Right-Leaning Media; Smearing Trump, GOP and Conservatives". NewsBusters. Retrieved February 3, 2025.

Renaming "Option 4" in RfCs

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The typical four option RfC on this page goes:

1. Generally reliable
2. Additional considerations apply
3. Generally unreliable
4. Deprecation

This inaccurately implies that deprecation is another level of unreliability beyond WP:GUNREL, which is a common misconception for those !voting. Specifically, WP:DEPRECATION says deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable. Deprecation is more accurately described as a system to warn editors and autorevert editors when they use a generally unreliable source. It would be more accurate if our RfCs had the following set of options:

1. Generally reliable
2. Additional considerations apply
3. Generally unreliable
4. Generally unreliable, with deprecation

I think the above wording would be better going forwards. I got it from a previous discussion held on this page a long time ago, and I thought we might as well start trying to use it. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

This seems like a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Doing away with Option 4 altogether is another thought, with a requirement that before a source is subject to Gunrel/Dep, Gunrel first is a requirement (so then RFCs for that are a straight yes/no for already Gunrel sources). Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neutrality and sourcing in Education section

Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The current version contains several claims needing review:

Disputed Claims

• "Rejected by Kinnaird College..." - Lacks reliable sourcing
• "Scandal with Capt. Safdar..." - Pejorative framing

Proposed Changes

Replace with neutral phrasing supported by:

• GEO TV ([1]) confirming her Master's degree
• Pakistan Times ([2]) noting KEMC attendance

Requesting consensus on these improvements per WP:NPOV. Dg creative (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

You appear to be referring to an issue with a specific article (Maryam Nawaz I assume). This should be discussed on the article talk page, and then possibly at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if the matter cannot be resolved after discussion. This page is intended for discussing changes to the reliable sources noticeboard itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

You have already raised this on the noticeboard, anyone interested should see WP:RSN#Neutral Sourcing for Maryam Nawaz's Education Section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes this discussion belongs in the talk page of the article, not this noticeboard. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pinkvilla has an RfC

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

 

Pinkvilla has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 2405:6E00:280D:D88B:1CD2:D6FF:FEB2:FB43 (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Black Kite ActivelyDisinterested TurboSuperA+

Do you mind adding your comments and thoughts from previous discussions to the RfC ? 2405:6E00:280D:D88B:1CD2:D6FF:FEB2:FB43 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

. 2405:6E00:2821:4650:E855:93FF:FE85:CAA2 (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Next to noone watches this page, and you're notifying the talk page of the page where the RFC is happening so anyone who would ever watch this page has already seen the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any suggestions to the publicize the RfC more ? 2405:6E00:2223:8E51:ECE9:FF:FE32:D62 (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Existence of cited sources

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is this the proper venue to ask for help in determining whether the (unlinked) sources cited in an article even exist? Largoplazo (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can't think of a better place immediately, so fire away. The worst that can happen is that you get redirected elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Phil Bridger. Ask here, you'll get plenty of eyeballs. Mackensen (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Largoplazo (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply