Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Contradiction

'Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate.'

'A 2020 discussion found no consensus on whether unsourced summaries of scriptural texts should be allowed under MOS:PLOTSOURCE.'

So the discussion failed to reach a consensus for banning something, but this page 'generally' bans it anyway? Why? Anonymous44 (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that second part about MOS:PLOTSOURCE should be rewritten or removed, as it doesn't correctly reflect the RFC result. Before the RFC there was no mention of MOS:PLOTSOURCE, the RFC was about adding text to allow PLOTSOURCE and there was no consensus to add such text. That's very different than saying their is no consensus on allowing PLOTSOURCE for scripture, that was never the question of the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually given how misleading the summary is, I've removed the part about PLOTSOURCE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Flags of the World

So Flags of the World is tagged as an unreliable source (quite rightly) and mentioned at WP:FOTW. All good. However I think it's worth stating in the entry that it has mirrors and those mirrors are all over Wikipedia being used as sources. The primary mirror that is being used as a reference quite extensively is www.crwflags.com/fotw (around a couple thousand articles.) I think we should mention this in the entry and state that it isn't a reliable source. Yes it's technically covered by the FOTW entry, but many may not realise it's just a mirror. See here for the list of mirrors. And of course, they need cleaned up but that's a seperate issue. Canterbury Tail talk 19:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to add it as yet another link under the "Use" column (which should be something like "Uses" or "Link usage" Aaron Liu (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Scottish Daily Mail

Is Scottish Daily Mail depreciated?

Daily Mail I am aware was depreciated after many discussions ChefBear01 (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Same thing. See Daily_Mail#Scottish_Daily_Mail. Ditto Irish Daily Mail. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you.ChefBear01 (talk) ChefBear01 (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Salem media group

I would like to know if it would be possible to replace RedState with the Salem Media Group? This would allow us to add PJ Media as well, without adding a new row. Slomo666 (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

The entries are based on discussions.thay have happened on the reliable sources noticeboard. Have there been any discussions on Salem Media Group or PJ Media? The owner of a media sources doesn't always impact a sources reliability. For instance the Daily Mail and The Independent are owned by the same group, the former is deprecated and the latter considered reliable. If no discussion has expanded the criticism of Redstate to all the publications owned by Salem Media Group then you will need to start a new discussion at WP:RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:55, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

There have been a few that discussed pieces by/in PJ media, although many did not get a clear answer and none called it generally unreliable. I did see people in the archives cautioning to only use it with attribution.

There have been discussions that touch on Salem media (many actually) but as far as I can tell only one specifically about all of Salem Media.

One of the old comments that argued RedState was unreliable used its being owned by salem media as an argument, in the first discussion linked for RedState in the perennial sources list and that townhall is listed (with a less restrictive slant than GUNREL) as an argument against RedState and another does something similar mentioning Redstate. (and further 2) Another comment called both Townhall and Salem Communications "mainstream publisher"s. (in a noticeboard discussion about Townhall)

another said about twitchy, another publisher owned by salem media: (RfC, never closed)

"Twitchy does at least have Editors, but the description ('Twitchy is a ground-breaking social media curation site powered by a kinetic staff of social media junkies. We mine Twitter to bring you “who said what” in U.S. & global news, sports, entertainment, media, and breaking news 24/7.') doesn't make it sound particularly reliable. It's also 'founded by conservative pundit Michelle Malkin' then 'sold to Salem Media Group, a conservative Christian broadcasting corporation' so bias may be a concern too.

With that said, it makes me wonder why the page has been approved at all with only two citations and from a potentially iffy source at that. It doesn't sound like it's evidenced a great deal of notability at this time."

If I want to start such a discussion, how do I do that? Just ask at RSN by giving the full list of publications and asking if people think they are reliable sources? Slomo666 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe take some time to focus your question, and if you can link some secondary sources that question their reliability. Links to past discussions don't hurt either. "Should all publications by Salem Media Group be considered unreliable" and then explain why you think they should, along with anything that backs up your argument. Remember bias doesn't mean unreliable, WP:RSBIAS, so the fact they're conservative media doesn't matter. It's inaccuracies, be factually wrong, and not correcting articles that weigh most against sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh if it has to be all completely unreliable I don't think I will bother because I doubt that is really achievable/accurate. The goal was more to combine the two (or more) already on the list and have the entry discuss the several publications (with varying levels of (un)reliability) in one row to save space. Slomo666 (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't explain that very well. It was an example of what I thought you meant. The same advice applies if you want to just discuss several of their publications. The RSN discussion, and the how the result of that discussions should be listed, are separate things. Working out how to update the list only happens after there consensus in the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Washington Post

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Washington Post

 – Aaron Liu (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Amnesty International and ADL

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Amnesty International and ADL

 – Aaron Liu (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

En dash for prefix

Hi ~2026-30746-16, regarding your revert at Special:Diff/1355593384, please note that MOS:PREFIXDASH states to "Use an en dash when adding a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes [...] a space" and lists "post–September 11 anti-war movement" as an example. For the CNET entry, "pre–October 2020" should use an en dash because "pre" is the prefix that is attached to the "October 2020" compound (which contains a space). I realize that my edit summary in Special:Diff/1348592043 should have also referenced MOS:PREFIXDASH instead of only MOS:ENTO, and apologize for the oversight. — Newslinger talk 20:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, on Wikipedia, en dashes to indicate a range should be surrounded by spaces, so if you see en dashes that aren't surrounded by spaces it's probably this. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)