Svetlana Velmar-Janković

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple 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.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability Wikipedia Help High‑importance This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp High This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The text for MS says "The Morning Star is a British tabloid with a low circulation and readership that the New Statesman has described as "Britain's last communist newspaper". Firstly, given the 2024 discussion, I assume the term "tabloid" here refers to the newspaper size rather than quality, in which case it is irrelevant to an assessment of its reliability. Secondly. the phrase "Britain's last communist newspaper" comes from a headline, which is not a reliable source. Hence, I suggest we remove these parts of the first sentence from MS' summary. Burrobert (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with its self-description. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 8 in the FT's entry is about CoinDesk, not the FT. The only reference to the Financial Times (from what I can see) in that discussion is in a comment by Smallbones. The link ought to be removed. Xacaranda (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Everyone can edit Wikipedia, especially if it's probably uncontroversial! Aaron Liu (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This source was brought up a few years ago but the discussion quickly devolved into something unrelated. I was surprised that it wasn't on the list, since it's a pretty common media site. My inclination is that it's factual but biased, so I'm not sure where that puts it. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page lists the sources that have been repeatedly discussed on WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, it's not a list of all sources. If Slate meets the inclusion criteria, see WP:RSPCRITERIA, you could summarise the past discussions and add it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion at RSN from December last year seems to broadly support Slate's reliability. There are a handful of other discussions on specific Slate claims or articles, but that seems to be the only one on Slate in general, which suggests to me that we don't need to include it on RSP. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto-public Why do you feel only one discussion suggests it doesn't need to be added to RSP? It looked like a healthy discussion to me, while it lasted. There seems to be consensus, although it doesn't look like a clear "green" for Slate... maybe pale green. Considering there is some hesitancy to label it as unilaterally reliable, it stands to reason that some people might be looking for guidance about it (such as myself) and having it listed would be helpful. I'm especially interested because I saw it become increasingly biased over the past 20 years or so. This supports the idea that it's not necessarily reliable and perhaps should be used with caution. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because by definition something which has been discussed only once is not a perennial question. There are countless sources which people might reasonably be looking for guidance about; we cannot and should not list all of them on this page. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I came across a notation some time ago, similar to ^{[citation needed]}, but that was a way of noting the source was legitimate but did not contain content that supported the statement it was associated with. I've search for it since and can't find anything. Does this exist? If so, how is it entered? Ghost writer's cat (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're possibly thinking of {{failed verification}}. I find {{inline cleanup tags}} useful when I forget the exact name of something like this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested YES! That's it! Thank you! Ghost writer's cat (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Encyclopedia.com

I was surprised to see that we don't have a section about Encyclopedia.com in the Perennial sources, and I think we should add one. The domain is already used in over 1,000 articles (at least 850 with citation templates, and 350 without). For another view, see this link search, which reveals at least 15,000 links in all namespaces.

There are a number of archived discussions about the topic, which I have collected in this subpage to make it easier to browse them all in one place. I added a summary at the top highlighting the main themes, without attempting any assessment of it. I would like to see us discuss the reliability of Encyclopedia.com in this section and come up with some consensus on what to say about it in the Perennial table. Given its widespread use and the likelihood of continued use, I think it would be advisable to provide some guidance to users, as saying nothing is no longer an option. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your summary is good. It would an "additional considerations apply" since we'd need to evaluate it case-by-case. We could copy "Determine the original source of what is being cited to establish reliability. When possible, cite the original source in preference to the repository." from the academic repositories entry. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOTIFICATION:

As Trump and MAGA succeed in bullying RS into silence and history/documents/databases/government records start to disappear, the fringe right-wing media's influence will become more dominant and the voice of RS will fade. It will also be harder to source good content. I don't know the exact statistics, but it appears that right-wing media already dwarf mainstream media 10 to 1, and, in the United States, Trump will go after all opposing voices and try to eliminate them.

This topic is now open for discussion at:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RS vs post-factual sourcing

Do not continue it here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we draw the line against having every single RSN discussion having a notification on a talk page for discussing the RSP list itself? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who would find this a subject of interest tend to congregate here, so that's all. AGF. This topic is not for discussion here, so don't continue to comment. Let those who are interested go there or not. End of story. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who find such things of interest would either subscribe to WP:Cent, WP:VPR/WP:VPI, or WP:RSN. This talk page is of interest to maintaining the RSP list only. It is for discussing how to compile existing consensuses, not originating such consensuses as found at RSN. The only way editors here may congregate here is if they would congregate to any RSN discussion. (and I don't think you're acting in bad faith here, you're clearly wanting the best for the world.) Please just don't put such stuff here in the future. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put together a user script (see User:SuperHamster/RSP-to-JSON) that lets you export the RSP table as JSON. This may be helpful for anyone building tools that utilize RSP data, among other things. You can see a sample of an export here (this sample lacks discussion links, but you can also export with discussion links if you desire).

There were quite a number of variations and edge cases in the table to account for, so if you notice anything wrong with the output, please let me know!

Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Color "additional considerations apply" as purple and "no consensus" as yellow at RSP. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth is it over there as opposed to here or RSN? - David Gerard (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder that, or at least sort out the disagreement over "no consensus" first. The discussion at VPI shows there's disagreement. Maybe along with 'reliable source, but not for this particular issue', which is also listed in two different ways. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Separating into two colors was also sort of the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 10#No consensus versus mixed consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solely meta-RSP matters don't discuss the reliability of a source. Though I don't oppose notifying RSN as well, I feel like there's separation in topic between these two pages and posting at RSN would be a little off the topic of discussing the reliability of sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about splitting colours had a lot of detractors, I'd feel on much firmer ground with more easily discernable consensus.
Discussion about what colours to use at RSP or other aspects of it's formatting don't belong on RSN, but notification is always an option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David was the only detractor against the very idea of splitting.
Since there's popular demand I will notify when I start the actual proposal (that was the Idea lab) at VPr I guess. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additions of this source trigger the "deprecated source" tag, which links to this page, but there are no entries for this source on this page (unless I've missed it?). Should there be, or should such edits be otherwise tagged? The current state is potentially confusing to users, since they're directed here but find no information. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tag may be better off pointing to WP:DEPS, the information page which explains what deprecation is. As far as I can see, the New World Encyclopedia has never been formally deprecated through a discussion at RSN, and is as such correctly not listed as deprecated on this page. The most recent mention of it at RSN (in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 370#Deprecate sources repeating citogenetic claim (discovery of alcohol & sulfuric acid)). According to that discussion, it is an internet encyclopedia produced by the Unification Church that selects and rewrites certain Wikipedia articles through a focus on Unification values – so clearly an unreliable source.

The edit filter which warns for the use of deprecated sources is Special:AbuseFilter/869. I can't find any documentation there on whether it is intended only for sources which have been deprecated via RfC, but it looks as though it was initially set up in response to the Daily Mail deprecation RfC. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All deprecated sources are listed on this page. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New world encyclopedia was added to the filter yesterday by Ohnoitsjamie with the summary "Adding alchetron and newworldencylopedia (both user-generated sources; the latter is a fork of Wikipedia)". The source isn't deprecated, which has effects beyond the edit filter, as there hasn't been a RFC to do so (DEPS says a RFC should happen and that "the restrictions are only applied if there is community consensus"). A separate filter for UGC/CIRCULAR sources could be helpful, as it could include wording and a link to something more appropriate than DEPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the edit filter message should be amended. (Also, I wonder if the edit filter passes the message any parameters so that maybe we could display the offending line/source?) Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that there was a formal policy around documentation for that filter, I'm happy to remove my entries. Alchetron is a user-generated wiki, and newworldencyclopedia is a POV fork of Wikipedia. Ideally both should be blacklisted, but unfortunately there are a lot of existing links that will take a long time to clean up. I previously had both of these on one of my disruption filters, which I didn't like because most users add these links in good faith. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just start an RfC to deprecate all of the sources you added to the filter? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that; should the RfC be posted to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard or somewhere else? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be on RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both deprecation and an RfC; a Wikipedia fork is inherently unreliable (per WP:WPINARS) and one which intentionally ignores neutrality for the sake of promotionalism even more so. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's been several RFCs recently for forks or UGC, just so they can be added to the filter. The deprecation process is overkill for such sources, policy is already clear they shouldn't be used. But filter 869 is the only tool available to warn editors before they add such a source as a reference, and the warning of that filter is specifically about deprecation. A new filter, "This is UGC, CIRCULAR, FORK are you sure you should be adding it?", would be useful, but I wouldn't know how to even start getting consensus for such a thing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested, but I'm sure @Ohnoitsjamie could unilaterally create such an uncontroversial filter. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about creating a new filter until discovered 869; I'm happy to do that as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I wanted to add a website covering the historic exchange rate of USD/TRY of investing.com as a reference. But then it said: "This site is blocked. This source is considered unreliable by our community, and therefore is not allowed. Please choose a different reliable source."

But investing.com is not listed here in WP:RSP. Don't all perennial sources need to be listed here in the WP:RSP article and explained what part of it is a bad source? Only the written articles of investing.com or also historic exchange rates? WikiPate (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiPate Are you sure that's what it said? The message you saw should've been MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext, which mentions the blacklist and not deprecated sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that the exact text. You can try it by yourself by trying to add the investing.com website that's shown first in the Google search:

https://www.google.com/search?q=historical+data+usd+try+investing.com

I cannot add the investing.com URL here because for that imvesting.com is also blocked.

investing.com is not on Wikimedia's global blacklist. I couldn't find Wikipedias blacklist. Where is it? And can I see the discussion somewhere if only news articles of investing.com are considered spam? WikiPate (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first link in that message.

Blacklisted sources that aren't perennial (see the "inclusion criteria" section here) are not included at RSP. Consult the blacklist archives for those. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should arguably be explained somewhere what is meant by a 'contentious claim'. A claim that is contested by any editor? A claim that is known to be contested by someone IRL? A claim that an editor considers likely to be contested by someone IRL? 62.73.72.3 (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In practice it means any claim that is challenged by any editor, in theory it also applies to any claim that will be challenged in the future but I'm sure its clear what thats purely theoretical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably an editor challenging is doing that based on contradictory RS, at any rate it should be fairly obvious when a claim is contentious (calling it a WP:CLAIM implies that anyway). Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's related somewhat to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing; contentious claims may not need exceptional sourcing, but they need good sourcing, and all of the examples of "exceptional" claims are also contentious claims. User:Collect made an essay about this at Wikipedia:Contentious which I agree with. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]