Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

*Maybe [[The Bulwark (website)|The Bulwark]] (good news, they hate Trump!). Also, the [[Washington Examiner]] and [[The Washington Times]] are probably generally reliable for non-opinion reporting, even if a majority of Wikipedians don't like the tone or inconvenience of opposing emphasis (and LOL at the Daily Beast below). Predictably, both articles are top heavy with op-ed criticism from left-leaning sources. [[The Weekly Standard]] is full green at [[WP:RSPS]], but it doesn't exist anymore. [[Reason (magazine)|Reason]] is also generally reliable, and across the pond, the [[Daily Telegraph]], even if they sometimes emphasizes facts or POV opponents would prefer not be emphasized (which is a bias held by liberal RS as well, not a sign of unreliability). [[User:Animalparty|--Animalparty!]] ([[User talk:Animalparty|talk]]) 22:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

*:I have had positive experiences with the ''Washington Examiner'', ''Reason'', and the ''Telegraph''. Can’t vouch for the others. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 21:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

 

:Oppose the deprecation aka depreciation in this case. [[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 19:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)