Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Transclusion possibility

The Observer separated from The Guardian [https://observer.co.uk/news/about-us/article/tortoise-media in late April 2025], and has been given a new URL for post-The Guardian ownership articles. I have not seen any WP:RSN discussions about either since late 2024, so the Observer may need to be separated from the Guardian entry at least partially. Xeroctic (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:There were discussions of it before that, though. If you have concerns about its reliability you could start an RSN discussion, otherwise I don't see a problem with GRel status. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

There is now a Wikipedia article about this list at Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Feel free to help expand the article if you are interested. The {{tl|Press}} box at the top of this talk page is full of news coverage. — Newslinger talk 08:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:what is the need for this article ? why is it in article namespace?Cinaroot (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::When an aspect of Wikipedia becomes notable, an article is sometimes made about it. See :Category:Wikipedia for a collection of articles about Wikipedia itself. — Newslinger talk 06:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Can we change article name to Reliable sources ? and mention Perennial sources in body Cinaroot (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::also Wikipedia:Reliable sources is enough to explain about reliable sources imo. Cinaroot (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm also not sure about the name of the article. If you have a better suggestion, feel free to discuss it on Talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, or start a requested move. The purpose of an article-space page is to describe the article subject to a reader who may not necessarily be a Wikipedia editor. For example, the academic publications about RSP and the media coverage of RSP usually aren't relevant in project space, but they are in article space. — Newslinger talk 08:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I just want to know that on what circumstances do we use TOI as a references in any wikipedia article? Fade258 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:It may very well depend on what you want to use it for. As WP:TIMESOFINDIA says it isn't always the best source . -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hi @ActivelyDisinterested, I have reviewed the Perennial sources regarding TOI and I saw in many BLPs that there is a use of TOI as a reference and I saw in WP:TIMESOFINDIA it mentioned that additional considerations apply. Is that applicable to the article? Fade258 (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Additional considerations mean that there isn't a clear yes/no answer, it will depend on what it's being used for. When it's used in BLP the issue is likely going to be paid advertorials, and handling anything overly promotional as if it was promotional material from the subject.
When you say {{tq|"Is that applicable to the article?"}} do you have a particular article in mind? This is a situation where the more specific the question the easy it would be to answer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Hi @ActivelyDisinterested Thanks for your reply. Though there is an question about the reliability of TOI. I have reviewed some of the articles published by TOI which was added in the most of the articles and that looks good to me. Regarding applicabe article, currently I do not have any article but I am planning to create which I am doing research. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::See the summary, just watch for indications of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Paid reporting in Indian news organizations for that specific article. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Hi @Aaron Liu, Thanks for your time and feedback. Though I have already reviewed the perennial sources but I have doubt on it's use. Fade258 (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Have you checked the section I mentioned? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, I have already checked your mentioned section which I already have some knowledge about this but, I want to listen from other users regarding the use of TOI. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Since the MREL classification has been a recurring topic of discussion here, I've been working on a taxonomy of MREL sources, which can now be found at the subpage WP:RSP/Further classification. The groups are determined based on the reasoning presented in the RSP summaries. The goal is to provide information on the types of MREL sources, along with clarifying the differences between them, and to help with the related discussions.

The page also includes a classification of the 109 individual MREL sources. Initially, I wasn't planning to include this, as my focus was on the overall system, but I had done a brief classification as part of my review, and rereading some of the discussions convinced me that it may be useful. That said, I found that the evaluation was more subjective than I expected. Broadly speaking, I considered a source to qualify for a group when the group description is part of the justification for the MREL classification, in a way that wouldn't just apply to most or all sources. While I have included specific numbers below, they shouldn't be overly emphasized. Review would be appreciated, as the current version is just a first pass.

Description:

• There are three primary groups: variation in reliability within the source, the source is marginally reliable, and unclear/no consensus (groups 1 through 3). Every MREL source is classified in at least one of the primary groups. There are also three additional groups: the source is used for opinion, it is only reliable for specific primary-sourced information, and it is no longer updated (groups 4 through 6). Some of the groups could potentially be divided further, e.g. based on the type of concerns associated with each source (self-published, poor editorial control, etc).

• There is considerable overlap between groups. For example, most MREL state-controlled media fall under both groups 1 and 2 (different reliability depending on topic, marginal reliability on some topics). Likewise, there can be different levels of reliability with at least one unclear aspect (groups 1 and 3), marginal reliability with at least one unclear aspect (groups 2 and 3), etc. Even among sources that only qualify for a single group, many of them have unique additional information beyond what is captured by this taxonomy, which might qualify them as an overlap if more detailed categories were added to the classification system.

• Out of 109 MREL sources, the number of sources that qualify for each group are 68, 85, 53, 9, 2, and 4. In terms of percentages, 78% of sources are in group 2, 62% are in group 1, and 49% are in group 3. The sources that qualify for only one group are a minority (25/109, or 23%). These numbers should be considered approximations, as per the above caveats.

I'm also aware of the recent discussions discussing a potential split. This page will be relevant whether or not that happens, and could potentially be used to help with a transition. However, it does raise the potential issue that the "no consensus" sources generally can't be cleanly distinguished from the others. As a result, the method of dividing sources would have to be determined, and in many cases it would likely require some amount of discussion. I suppose I've divided the sources as well, but allowing them to be in multiple groups greatly simplifies the issue. "No consensus" is usually not the only result, and if the groups had to be mutually exclusive, it would be possible to move some sources between their presumed groups by minor changes to their summaries, e.g. "no consensus for X...consensus for Y" compared to "consensus for Y...no consensus for X". The specific numbers (again, noting the caveats above) are: among 51/109 sources recorded as no consensus (53 in group 3, but two of them qualified under a different criterion), only 8 of them had no overlap with at least one other group, and 21 of them overlapped with two or more other groups. Even among those with no overlap, some of them include potentially useful information in their descriptions that goes beyond simply identifying a lack of consensus. Sunrise (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NEWSCIENTIST&redirect=no Wikipedia:NEWSCIENTIST] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 25#Wikipedia:NEWSCIENTIST}} until a consensus is reached. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 04:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

At fault of my own, I got a potentially green reliable source confused with a red unreliable source. Now what I want to know is this: If Forbes is considered reliable for some reason, why is it still in the green if "Contributors" can just write whatever they want too? Shouldn't that make Forbes as reliable as IMDB? Maxcardun (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:Forbes publishes its own editorial, non-contributor content. The contributor content is indeed as reliable as IMDb but the actual editorial news and articles stuff is generally reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Maxcardun For example, [https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/01/07/heres-what-blake-lively-alleges-against-it-ends-with-us-actor-director-justin-baldoni/] is "green", or WP:FORBES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Explaining a bit more, the linked article is by Forbes staff, not a Contributor, according to the byline: {{tq|By Conor Murray, Forbes Staff. Murray is a Forbes news reporter covering entertainment}}. This would indicate if it was written by a contributor instead of staff.
Whereas this article [https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianquillen/2025/05/25/concacaf-puts-stars-like-pulisic-davies-in-impossible-position/] clearly says {{tq|By Ian Nicholas Quillen, Contributor.}} as the byline to differentiate. -2pou (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::To explain even more, pay attention to whether it says "Forbes Staff" or "Contributor". Aaron Liu (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::If this is the case, should it be annotated the way Sports Illustrated is - one entry, yellow, with an explanation about which articles are likely to be reliable and which aren't? Detachedspork (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Did you look at the entries just below WP:FORBES? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::There was some concern (including from me) in discussion #19 of the contributors entry about Forbes.com changing the byline in all of an author's articles when the author is promoted from contributor to staff writer. The difficulty of tracking down whether the author was a contributor or staff writer at the time of an article's publication could justify a reclassification, but this would need more discussion and possibly an RfC to gauge the prominence of the issue. — Newslinger talk 22:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Current status:* “Generally reliable (excluding transgender topics)” (see Wikipedia:TELEGRAPH ).

• Proposed new status:* “Generally reliable (excluding both transgender topics and intersex/DSD athlete topics).”
• Rationale:* Currently, in Talk:Imane Khelif, some editors are arguing for the reliability of Wikipedia:TELEGRAPH articles on Imane Khelif since it's not strictly about transgender issues.
• Wikipedia:TELEGRAPH's coverage of Imane Khelif (and other DSD athletes) has been very much in the same sensationalistic tone as their coverage of transgender issues most strikingly in articles written by their Chief Sports Writer, Oliver Brown https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/o/ok-oo/oliver-brown/

Detachedspork (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:The current wording depends on a long RFC, changing the wording isn't something that can be done on a suggestion and would likely be highly controversial. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::isn't that the point though? Detachedspork (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::To make any change would require starting a discussion on WP:RSN after which you could start a RFC on the matter (see WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCOPEN), which would be closed in a few months. Really you would need to show that there are secondary sources saying that the Telegraph has a long term issue with the accuracy of it's reporting in the area of DSD. My point being this isn't really a solution for the issues with the Imane Khelif article. Any change to the RSP likely won't happen for months.
Any source whether generally reliable or generally unreliable isn't always reliable or unreliable. For a specific instance you are better off discussing it on the articles talk page, and if necessary asking about the specific source and the specific content that it is being used to support at WP:RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:The close found the discussion was on "transgender topics, broadly construed". I'm fairly sure that is within this broad range. That said, I agree with ActivelyDisinterested. The status of Telegraph on trans topics is only "no consensus". This is not means by which you may solve the problem with that article. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

{{mdt|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Media Bias/Fact Check|— Newslinger talk 20:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)}}

The entry for The Economist currently says:

{{tqb|"Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. Distinctively, its news articles appear without bylines and are written in editorial voice. Within these articles, Wikipedia editors should use their judgement to discern factual content – which can be generally relied upon – from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources. Its pseudonymous commentary columns and other opinion pieces should also be handled according to this guideline."}}

I don't know what is meant by the words editorial voice, which were introduced by @SamuelRiv [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&diff=prev&oldid=1100075440 here]. It seems to be interpreted by some editors as meaning that everything in the magazine is an Opinion piece ("editorial"). I doubt that this was the intended meaning. (The Economist is famous for their data journalism, not for their opinion pieces.)

Compassionate727 wrote the closing summary for the 2022 RFC, but did not use these words. The only editor in the RFC who used this phrase positively was Newimpartial (another editor disagreed that this example was actually an instance of editorial voice). AFAICT at a glance, Newimpartial meant something fairly close to "they don't put bylines on their articles". Mx. Granger and SamuelRiv talked about the wording in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 7#Contradictory criteria of reliability wrt opinion but this doesn't provide a definition of the terms.

To give you an idea of what Editorial voice means in the media industry, I offer these quotations from Wikipedia articles:

• Copley Press#History: "In 1942, Copley bought the Journal's Democratic-oriented competitor, the Illinois State Register, promising that the Register could keep its independent editorial voice."
• Jewish Currents#Editorial position: "The magazine emerged as a leading voice of the American Jewish left. Its editorial voice, led by contributors such as Peter Beinart, is strongly critical of Israel and advocates positions such as the Palestinian right of return, and boycotting Israeli businesses in the occupied West Bank."
• Southern California News Group#History: "The newspapers also share editorials and speak as one voice on regional issues. Some have said that the former Freedom Communications' distinctive conservative-libertarian editorial voice may be lost in the process."

Editorial voice is, in short, the "voice" (as in advocacy; as in the Voice of the people) of the publication's Editorial board as expressed in Editorials (i.e., not "news articles").

Within the non-news publishing industry, Editorial voice is also to indicate something stylistic, i.e., the book editor's equivalent of Writer's voice.

Neither of those meanings actually make any sense in this context. What is meant by these words? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:Misleadingly-titled, the (haphazard-as-considered-by-many-participants) RfC was only on trans topics, thus it didn't relitigate its general style. I would suggest looking into the four discussions the entry had at the time of this wording's addition in 2018. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:I would interpret this entry as "The Economist frequently mixes opinion with factual coverage in its articles" and that editors should be able to tell which phrases are opinion if they scrutinize the passages. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)