Wikipedia talk:Deprecated sources/Archive 1

Which of the following should be used as the first sentence in Wikipedia:Deprecated sources § Acceptable uses of deprecated sources? — Newslinger talk 12:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

See #Recent Changes for context. — Newslinger talk 12:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Option 1: (from Special:Permalink/959750864)

Although deprecated sources are considered generally unreliable, there are rare situations in which they can be used.

Option 2: (from Special:Permalink/959751455)

Deprecation is not a ban on using the source,^{[citation needed]} despite having been reported as such in the media.^[1]

References

1. [1]

   • Kalev Leetaru (2 October 2017). "What Wikipedia's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship". Forbes. Retrieved 25 December 2018.
   • Jasper Jackson (8 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 November 2018.
   • Jon Sharman (9 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail because it's an 'unreliable source'". The Independent. Retrieved 21 November 2018.
   • Sebastian Anthony (10 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail for "poor fact checking, sensationalism, flat-out fabrication"". Ars Technica. Retrieved 21 November 2018.
   • Also see Daily Mail § Other criticisms.

• Option 1. The sentence is consistent with the rest of the page. The previous section, "Effects of deprecation", explains that deprecated sources are considered generally unreliable, and the remainder of the "Acceptable uses of deprecated sources" section elaborates on the rare situations in which they can be used (including under the WP:ABOUTSELF policy). Since this page is not in article space, there is no need to include citations to external sources. The {{Citation needed}} tag in option 2, recently added in Special:Diff/959750231, does not improve the page. — Newslinger talk 12:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Since this page is not in article space, (Sorry, but this is technically not true: cf. Deprecated sources). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

My point is that Wikipedia:Deprecated sources is not in the Wikipedia mainspace, and is exempt from WP:V ("All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable"). Wikipedia:Deprecated sources does not need to cite reliable sources, nor does it need to have a {{Citation needed}} tag on claims not cited to reliable sources. Redirects to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources are not relevant. — Newslinger talk 01:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that a page which redirects from mainspace into Wikipedia namespace does not need any references. Moreover, it cannot say, in Wikipedia's voice, what this page said prior to my edit. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on this matter at WT:V § Applicability to pages in project space. — Newslinger talk 02:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As a result of this discussion, the redirect was removed and is now being considered for deletion. I had originally noticed it because it made the page easier to find. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Option 2 without the {{Citation needed}} tag is also fine, in my opinion. — Newslinger talk 13:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Neither. However, longstanding content (since 9 December 2018) including RS should not be summarily deleted, as was done here. If en.wp wishes to make a distinction between "ban" and "deprecate" which is not simply the distinction between "ban"/"deprecate" and "block" then RS should be cited to support the distinction, since RS overwhelmingly do not accept that distinction between "deprecate" and "ban". Further, the dictionary definition of "deprecate" does not list "ban" as a synonym. Moreover, the most common support vote in the 2017 RfC was "support prohibition". Prohibition is indeed a synonym for ban. Also, creating an RfC which tries to mandate the inclusion of a "citation needed" template is silly. Supplying a reference would be considerably more straightforward.

  tldr;: have the courage of your convictions: call a ban a ban & a prohibition a prohibition. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  Regarding "creating an RfC which tries to mandate the inclusion of a 'citation needed' template", your comment misrepresents my intent. You added the {{Citation needed}} tag in Special:Diff/959750231 (option 2), and when I replaced the sentence with alternative wording in Special:Diff/959750864 (option 1), you reverted my edit in Special:Diff/959751455 which restored the {{Citation needed}} tag. I started this RfC with the intention of eliminating the {{Citation needed}} tag, not to "mandate the inclusion" of the tag. — Newslinger talk 01:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  I eliminated the CN template ten hours before you wrote this. Is your intention to eliminate the references present in the article since December 2018? My apologies, but I don't understand why you created an RfC 21 minutes after my restoration of the references you deleted. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  No, my intention is to eliminate the {{Citation needed}} tag. I am indifferent about the citations. — Newslinger talk 02:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

   Done at 16:41, 30 May 2020. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. This RfC was started before that edit. Since editors in this discussion have proposed other wordings, this RfC will determine whether there is consensus for any other changes. — Newslinger talk 03:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Neither As 1 seems to just be an enabler of "but its reliable in this instance" style arguments. And option 2 really does not tell us anything (This also have been used as an excuse to use a deprecated source). Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 if we have to choose between them; it's better wording in that it integrates this with our other policies by mentioning "generally unreliable" specifically. I dislike the wording of option 2 because there's something a bit passive-aggressive about the way it talks about the media; additionally, the argument that it is a functional ban even if some limited uses exist is reasonable (ie. 'ban' doesn't necessarily mean 'banned in absolutely all cases', which makes the nitpicking argument that that sentence is trying to pick with the media a bit dubious.) I agree with the people above saying that even better wording might be possible, but between these two I definitely prefer 1. As far as the "it encourages people to use them!" thing goes, there have always been (very) limited acceptable usages, which the section in question goes into more detail on. Edit: Option 3 below has all the problems of option 2; I'm strenuously opposed to any version that includes the "contrary to the media" wording or anything to that effect. Additionally, option 1 is preferable in that it establishes that using the source should be rare, while 2 and 3 seem like they're worded more to hedge the concept of depreciation by saying "but it's tots not a ban, guys." Focusing on what depreciation is rather than what it isn't makes far more sense, especially avoiding the unduly confrontational "it's not what the media told you it is" framing. --Aquillion (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  You do not mention "option 3". Could you comment on that option please? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  I'll move it here:

ps: I'm not "absolutely" attached to the adverb "absolutely", but it might be best to describe the reality...-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• So, the real issue here is that fans of a given deprecated source will use any excuse whatsoever to claim an exception for their particular favourite source or particular favourite usage of it.

In the course of removing usages of The Sun or the Daily Mail - almost every usage of which is bad or should be presumed bad, by the clear wording of the RFC conclusions - I have frequently been told that the mere fact that a source is "generally prohibited" means there are exceptions, therefore the particular usage in question should be allowed, and that's the whole excuse. I recently had a demand to prove from first principles that the Mail is bad, despite two general RFCs. I have had two editors in the past week claim that removing WP:DAILYMAIL usages violates WP:NOTCENSORED. Last year there was a user (who turned out to be a defrocked ex-admin) literally following my edits around, restoring usages of The Sun. The same user insisted and edit-warred a controversial claim on a BLP sourced to a no-longer-available page on thesun.co.uk back into the article, on the excuse that it was about a sportsman and WP:RSP said some editors thought the Sun was OK for sports. I have a talk page full of similar nonsense, which is a catalogue of bad and weird excuses for using sourcing that absolutely shouldn't be in Wikipedia.

So - whatever wording is used here will be used as an excuse by the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT squad. That's what I'd like to see a new wording use as its threat model.

I would suggest something that stresses that, although there are exceptions, they are extremely rare. If you're looking for excuses to use a source, you're doing Wikipedia sourcing wrong.

Any advocate's desired exception almost certainly isn't one - The Sun used to have over 8,000 usages, and now has five. (And I'm very sceptical that The Sun was as involved in unmasking László Csatáry as they claim, but I'd have to research that one a lot more to knock it off.) Even quite a lot of WP:BLP "permissible" WP:SPS or WP:BLPSELFPUB usages shouldn't be there, and if the claims in them are noteworthy for a BLP then they would have been noted elsewhere.

We don't need an explanation to tell sensible people that they shouldn't use sewage-quality sources - we need a stick for the ones that insist on it anyway - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

All that is fine. What I think is needed is straightforward transparency, not saying things like "it's not really a ban coz' the software doesn't automatically block every use and zap the offending would-be editor's keyboard with however many volts." :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"Deprecation is not a blanket ban - although deprecated sources are "generally prohibited", there may be acceptable uses for a deprecated source, e.g., permissible WP:SPS or WP:BLPSELFPUB usages. But, although there are exceptions, they are extremely rare. In almost all cases, the deprecated source should not be used at all, even where technically permissible." How's that? - David Gerard (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I would change possibly permissible to technically permissible, but otherwise I like it. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right - just changed it to "technically" :-D - David Gerard (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls, there's an edit filter. The filter warning is as follows:

An automated filter has detected that you are adding a link to a deprecated source, considered generally unreliable after discussion by the community. References to these sources are generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. Please cite a more reliable source instead. If the only source you can find for the claims is one of these deprecated sources then you should not add the content in question.

Note: There are limited exceptions to this rule (such as when the source itself is the topic being discussed).

If you have checked the policy on Wikipedia:Reliable sources and the deprecated source guidance (or checked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) and verified that your edit is one of the limited exceptions, then you may resubmit it by clicking "Publish changes" again. Please do not do this unless you have first verified that this specific use of the deprecated source has broad support, especially for biographical articles: deprecated sources are liable to be removed on sight and persistent addition can lead to editing restrictions.

Your proposals are not in line with this, and also not in line with the multiple RSN discussions that have shown majority or supermajority support for removing deprecated sources. The Daily Mail is in fact an edge case: a more representative onw ould be something like VDARE, which should never have been used in the first place. Guy (help!) 10:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think a lot of y'all may be misjudging my intent. I'm listening to what you've said and have incorporated suggestions in the latest edits, which you are more than welcome to improve upon. I think periodically tightening info pages up can never hurt. The wishy-washiest language on the page is legacy text. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Support David Gerard's wording. See above. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard's wording looks good to me. It is consistent with policy and practice, and does not include an unnecessary {{Citation needed}} tag. — Newslinger talk 01:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Since you continue referring to the CN tag, I have struck "Option 2" above since nobody is or was arguing for it. It was added at the same time as "ban" in scarequotes was rewritten without scarequotes. It was restored once because you deleted 3 independent references from the page in the next edit. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(Not serious comment) we could always use my version of ^{[Citation Needed]} ... Note: click on the "Citation Needed" in the previous sentence for a surprise!) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

glad to see you're feeling peppery again, Guy. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Reject Added wording in which WP:SPS or WP:BLPSELFPUB are mentioned. WP:ABOUTSELF (already mentioned in the article) is relevant. The above do not seem to be. (i.e. for RT, Breitbart, The Sun, The Daily Mail, etc. it is silly to talk about self-published sources or BLP self-pub)... The rest is fine... I would also like to see the references to reliable sources maintained. Feel free to edit the entry directly David. This RfC was started to eliminate a CN template. That has been done. Perhaps we could close this as a successful RfC?-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 02:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:ABOUTSELF is fine for what I mean here - David Gerard (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I ended up adding it as a cf. I'm not very clear on the reasons for mentioning it, though I suppose exclusive press releases type things are possible. In any case, it does no harm to link to them, it boils down to the same thing.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned it because something like it is a frequent excuse for DM usages - David Gerard (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support something like the David Gerard version, don't have strong opinion about WP:ABOUTSELF vs BLPSEFPUB ... buidhe 01:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• David Gerard's wording is correct. Adamantly oppose Options 2 and 3 as both offer an open invitation to drama and POV-pushing - it could, for example, be used to resist removval of clearly inappropriate fake news sites, things like WorldNetDaily and so on. Guy (help!) 10:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support on Option 3 with the wording that I see David has suggested of why. In addition, a case that has been discussed is related to the idea of established experts in their field (as determined by external sourcing and consensus) that publish their recognized opinions on notable topics in the deprecated source - eg the most common being the UK media critics that are regulars and other sources. This is an extension of RSOPINION, which has been discussed at WT:RS and VPP but without unfortunately getting too many external voices to provide input. We don't need to add that now, but I do agree leaving placeholders for exceptions like this. --Masem (t) 00:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "that has been discussed" is a weasel phrasing here - what you mean is that you've brought it up at WP:RSN and been unable to get consensus to carve out an exception for that specifically. So no, I don't think adding your desired carveout is good - David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Option 3, but without the bit about Media reports, which is reeally not relevant here. Option 3 makes mcleaer the limited scope of exceptions when deprecated sources may be used. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems like these sources were deprecated through a larger RfC on sites identified by RS as state-sponsored fake news / disinfo. It might be wise to add an asterisk to these sources on the list and to add a note that state-sponsored fake news / disinfo has been deprecated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

SashiRolls added the following in Special:Diff/960143466:

Deprecating a source is also a weaker measure than deploying a bot to replace every instance of the source with a citation needed tag.

I am disputing this wording under WP:BRD, as I do not think it improves the page. I am not aware of any bot that does what is suggested here. — Newslinger talk 10:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That's fine and inessential. I tried to incorporate some of David Gerard's version into the text, divide legacy sourcing from future sourcing and add a bit of etymology... really "pray against" should be "preach against"... ^^ -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, deprecation is deprecation. What people do to remove the deprecated source is a matter for discussion ona source by source basis. A fake news site will be nuked faster than a source that is merely crap, after all. Guy (help!) 23:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have serious issues with the deprecation of The Grayzone, Mint Press News, Occupy Democrats, RT, TeleSur, and Sputnik. Why not Fox News and Newsmax? I also think anything The New York Times says about the Israel-Palestine situation is untrustworthy (it would take too long to go into details, but somehow I think nothing The New York Times could do would ever get them deprecated. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Scottandrewhutchins, check the archives of WP:RSN and the linked debates. RSN is where we discuss individual entries. Guy (help!) 23:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

In regards to grayzone -so far, I found one archive that is mostly about Max Blumenthal and his alleged polotical ties. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#RfC:_Grayzone The summary - "There is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information." Like what exactly? With what proof? It seems like a very small group of us military hawks busy on wikipedia, can create a consensus to call anything as fake news if they don't like it. But no specific compelling proof were ever given that he was making fake news. Unless writing negatively about america's role in libya, etc are deemed lies by editors?

American media has been caught in many lies and biaaes, yet are called reliable? Hpw does that make sense?https://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-k-parliament-report-details-how-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/

Granted I am still new to this media but been reading it for a day, and noticed that it has a solid tendency to call out US MEDIA misinformation many months before it is recognised as such. Like with ie. Bolivia - Nyt very recently confessed that its many reports of election rigging were fundamentally flawed. But who had alone criticised them for that months ago, and were proven correct? Not mainstream media but the independant media Grayzone seem to publicly point out how NYT had misled months before NYT finally admitted their reports were flawed and when things are now too late to change. They appear to be the anti-fake news to me, based on bolivia alone. https://thegrayzone.com/2019/11/14/oas-us-coup-bolivia-evo-morales/#more-16684 If measured by number of disinformation, NYT would deserve to be called a depreciated source. Not grayzone who were the ones who had called them out correctedly. https://theintercept.com/2020/06/08/the-nyt-admits-key-falsehoods-that-drove-last-years-coup-in-bolivia-falsehoods-peddled-by-the-u-s-its-media-and-the-nyt/ MangoTareeface9 (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The WP:DEPSOURCES list is just an index of deprecated sources, and discussions on this talk page are not considered in evaluations of the sources. You are free to discuss specific sources, like The Grayzone, on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 16:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The Mail on Sunday just got deprecated - see WP:MAILONSUNDAY. I also added it to the deprecation warning filter. Anyone want to add it to the table? - David Gerard (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)