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.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 31 days

WT: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.

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.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability articles

Section sizes in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Section size for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (34 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	629	629
RfC: NewsClick	1,237	12,408
Survey (NewsClick)	2,354	2,354
Discussion (NewsClick)	8,817	8,817
RfC Sihang Warehouse - Questionable English Sources?	6,696	6,696
Gerontology research group	14,819	14,819
Global Times as primary source for editorial comment on WSJ controversy	3,869	3,869
RfC: Bloody Elbow	564	10,340
Survey (Bloody Elbow)	9,776	9,776
Sky News Australia and the Women's boxing controversy	6,605	6,605
Notice of Close review - "RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues"	2,642	2,642
Peoplaid.com and geni.com	5,324	5,324
Reliability of ARD Documentary	2,447	2,447
Self published source by founder of Glen's Markets	2,590	2,590
Is NPR a reliable source?	6,601	6,601
Mike Ashley	12,835	12,835
Religious affiliations of vice presidents of the United States	1,174	1,174
Should Similarweb be cited to report web traffic rankings on Wikipedia?	4,119	4,119
Minnlawyer.com for attorney BLP	4,275	4,275
The Central India Gazetteer series (1907)	535	535
Rudolf Steiner	1,516	1,516
UkrainiansintheUK.info for George Raffalovich	731	731
International Peace Project in the Middle East: The Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field	10,082	10,082
https://www.xda-developers.com/ for tech	794	794
Out, PinkNews, and Pride.com	4,331	4,331
Reliability of an international law - agreements, conventions	5,196	5,196
Reliability of Al Jazeera	2,018	18,059
Reliability of Al Jazeera - Arab-Israeli conflict	569	12,214
Survey (Al Jazeera - Arab-Israeli conflict)	11,239	11,239
Discussion (Al Jazeera - Arab-Israeli conflict)	406	406
Reliability of Al Jazeera - General topics	435	3,781
Survey (Al Jazeera - General topics)	1,943	1,943
Discussion (Al Jazeera - General topics)	1,403	1,403
References (Al Jazeera)	46	46
Total	138,617	138,617

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.

Appropriate post?

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

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

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

Manual archiving of the Al Jazeera section

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

As there's been no comment I'm going to archive the section. That will get the board down to 500k, still to big but it's a start. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 445 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preload formatting

We generally want the same bits of information for each source, so I am wondering if we could Wikipedia:Preload some of this. It could say something like:

Link to article or section: Example
Link or citation for source: https://www.example.com/page.html
Exact text you want to add, remove, or change in the Wikipedia article: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua."
Why you think this source is/isn't reliable for this statement: I think this is a reliable source because...

Do you think that would help editors, especially folks new to this noticeboard, organize the information that they need to provide? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investor's Business Daily

Since Investor's Business Daily is used in citations it appears to be regarded as a reliable source but Investor’s Business Daily Short-Arms Correction, Investor's Business Daily editorial doesn't support claims ... and In Which Investor's Business Daily Completely Mangles My Data. cast doubt on its reliability. As a result I don't know how seriously to take Terrorist Ayers Confesses Sharing Obama's 'Dreams' published in 2013, especially in the light of Bill Ayers Punks Conservative Blogger and Bill Ayers: Sure, I Wrote Obama’s Book. Now How ‘Bout Those Royalties? originally published in 2009. Mcljlm (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't anyone have anything to say on whether or not the Investor's Business Daily is reliable?

You should post this to the main page, as it's a question about the reliability of a source. This talk page is for discussions about the main page, and few editors check it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manual archive

I've just manually archived the TOI RFC and the Lockley discussion, the bot should have archived these yesterday but failed to do so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]