Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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 (44 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	629	629
RFC: The Anti-Defamation League	513	403,196
Part 1: Israel/Palestine	557	122,996
Survey (ADL:I/P)	122,439	122,439
Part 2: antisemitism	535	88,990
Survey (ADL:antisemitism)	88,455	88,455
Part 3: hate symbol database	599	49,494
Survey (ADL:hate symbols)	48,895	48,895
Discussion	6,911	141,203
Antisemitism	35,771	35,771
Reliable sources using ADL	4,552	4,552
Scholarly citations of ADL publications since 2020 from JSTOR	23,200	23,200
RS having to revise articles based on ADL data	9,242	9,242
From the River to the Sea" in the Real World Context	7,162	7,162
What should be discerned from this RFC?	31,133	31,133
But seriously, what should be discerned from this?	19,735	19,735
Comment leaderboard	3,497	3,497
RfC: Legal Insurrection	16,221	16,221
Jewish Chronicle	75,833	75,833
RfC: RFE/RL	1,337	52,533
Survey	44,266	44,266
Discussion	6,930	6,930
The Telegraph and trans issues	114,897	114,897
cppreference.com	10,321	10,321
Can [well-known] 4chan archives (i.e 4plebs) be used as a primary source?	8,497	8,497
Declassified UK	26,657	26,657
Suissa and Sullivan	40,182	72,939
A simple statement of problems with the source itself	13,590	13,590
Is this in the source?	10,026	10,026
A proposal	9,141	9,141
SB Nation	4,157	4,157
Using Spiked Online regarding genocide of First Nations	16,583	20,839
Arbitrary break	4,256	4,256
Is this Ph.D. by Magdel de Roux a reliable source for Lemba people	3,335	3,335
Alix Kirsta	2,112	2,112
Lushootseed Press as a reliable publisher	5,528	5,528
Is greyscape.com a reliable source?	2,186	2,186
BOL News	1,500	1,500
Animation World Network	1,233	1,233
Obituary in Lobster (magazine) for Olivia Frank	631	631
Is NZ On Air reliable?	560	560
Reliability	279	279
The Apricity	1,500	1,500
Washington Post "in a hole" and required to have "AI everywhere in our newsroom"	3,615	3,615
Total	829,198	829,198

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).

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by .

Reference[edit]

Some time ago I added a reference on the buccellato di Lucca page, is it reliable or not? Also, I would like to ask that the reference I added, in case it's a good reference, be corrected, as I didn't format it very well. Thanks in advance. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ICTFSOURCES[edit]

A discussion is undergoing in the talk page of WP:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force for the verifiability and for the inclusion of reliable sources for Indian cinema. Any veterans of RSN who are good at judging the sources, please drop by with your comments and insights. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived without closure redux[edit]

As above, this RfC was archived without closure. I've made a close request here. Chetsford (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mondoweiss[edit]

Archived here and at Close requests here (89 days) Don't think it is that hard, probably same as it is already. Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done here now. Chetsford (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Australia[edit]

Independent Australia has been censored(Talk: Don't be evil, 2024, "Criticism" section). I am not promoting this organization or trying to spread their views, but I want to ask the question why one biased news source gets targeted while others romp free here (Fox, CNN, The "Guardian" OMG so bad..) are we really going to play favorites to the bigger media companies? This too is a slippery slope. Ref https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/independent-australia/ Ref https://journalists.feedspot.com/australian_news_websites/ Ref https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-01/News%20in%20Australia_Impartiality%20and%20commercial%20influence_Review%20of%20literature%20and%20research.pdf Also note the section in question is not about right or wrong per say, but is focused purely on major criticism (using a specific motto), as a general topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scanf (talk • contribs) 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the discussion about Independent Australia, you'll see that it's not just their biased reporting, but that their reliability is awful—reporting rumors as facts, misrepresenting or faking sources, etc. We also don't use the New York Post, so I've removed that source at Don't be evil.

As for Media Bias Fact check, see WP:ADFONTES.

Also, please remember to sign your messages on Talk pages. Woodroar (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. Sorry, it's been a while and I can see now things have changed. I'll try to go through some of this when I get a few mins. Ty. Scanf (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]