Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

RfC: Business Insider news reporting

Insider won the 2022 Pulitzer Prize for Illustrated Reporting and Commentary for its reporting on the story of an woman's escape from an internment camp (see: Uyghur genocide); the story was filed under its news section. Currently, WP:RSP describes Insider — with the exception of its culture section, which is considered RS — as being unclear in terms of reliability (option 2).

Is Insider's news (section) coverage, at least since December 2021 (when the Pulitzer winning story published), considered generally reliable for factual reporting?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

-- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey (BI)

• Bad RfC and procedural close. WP:RFCNEUTRAL commands that the prompt should be neutrally worded, but this prompt expresses a specific call-to-action (Based on this Pulitzer development, I believe that we should reconsider its news coverage's classification). If you believe that the reporting should be reconsidered, then that should only appear in a comment or !vote, not in the RfC prompt. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC) (struck as moot 00:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC))

  @Mhawk10: Good catch. I didn't intend that. I have moved it to the discussion section. Does that address the concern? TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  @TheSandDoctor: Yes, that addresses my concern. As such, I've struck my !vote above as moot. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Mhawk10: I am glad that I was able to address that and correct it soon enough. Thank you for raising that and for striking now that it is resolved. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2: Additional considerations apply. That Pulitzer-winning piece is an excellent piece and drives home a woman's story about the abuses she endured in such a direct and powerful way that can only be conveyed in that illustrated medium. And by driving home the sheer scope of the inhumanity in that region through the one woman's lens there is little doubt that Insider deserves that prize. But there just far too many issues with Insider for me to consider it generally reliable for news over its entire lifetime.
  1. Reading through the previous RfC, almost nobody there considered Insider to be WP:GREL at that time. There may have been substantial improvements in the editorial control and fact-checking processes at BI in the intermittent two years (perhaps that culminated with the sort of detailed reporting necessary for a Pulitzer), but winning a Pulitzer in 2022 isn't good evidence that BI was reliable in 2013 (or really early in its history, when it was basically a collection of self-published blogs).
  2. The issues present at the time the source was evaluated in 2020 are still real issues that were present through much of the source's history (and may still be present today). Their editorial staffing decisions before acquisition by Axel Springer were... questionable. Prior to its acquisition by Axel Springer, the publication lacked editorial independence from advertisers, accepted (disclosed) quid-pro-quo payments from sources and article subjects, and repeatedly published false stories without doing basic fact-checking. And, while editorial staff kinda sorta purged themselves in 2016 shortly after they got acquired by Axel Springer, the mass exodus of staff didn't actually lead to swiftly improved editorial quality.
  3. I don't mind Axel Springer as an owner; it does publish Bild, but it also publishes Die Welt and Politico (although the acquisition of Politico is recent). Media companies often hold a variety of different publications, the quality of which can vary significantly (for example, News Corporation concurrently owned The Times of London, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, News of the World, and The Sun). But the longstanding issues with the reliability of the website didn't go away overnight; in 2016 an analysis in Columbia Journalism Review called it the poster child for churnalism and that it often published clickbait that turned out to be false. The non-disparagement clauses in its contracts are... not great for journalistic accountability.

In short, even though Business Insider was acquired by Axel Springer in 2015, and there very well may have been an improvement in its more recent quality of coverage, I really can't point to 2016 as the date where journalistic practices improved; I'm not really able to set a firm date where I can say that these chronic issues with Business Insider came to a halt. Feel free to propose one and make an argument for it, but I'm just not sure I can support a time-based split on reliability without a good reason. The only reason I'm WP:MREL here as opposed to WP:GUNREL is (1) a Pulitzer means something and (2) I expect it to be fine for ordinary sorts of business reporting. But I can't in good faith look past all of the publication's issues and say it's been WP:GREL since it started. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think that being run by a convicted felon is per se disqualifying (the New Jersey Globe is run by David Wildstein but is well-regarded even by its competitors and by people who are not sympathetic to Wildstein). But that the guy was chosen to lead a business publication after being more or less legally barred from the securities industry by the SEC for alleged fraud, combined with the publication's lack of editorial independence from advertisers, is a bit of a red flag regarding pre-Axel Springer BI. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: The question was "Is Insider's news (section) coverage, at least since December 2021 (when the Pulitzer winning story published), considered generally reliable for factual reporting" (emphasis added). This is also about the section, not the the publication as a whole. This would seemingly address all of the points that you raised? The question wasn't really about whether it was reliable for all of its history, but the Pulitzer is a very good sign that its recent (news) coverage has probably vastly improved and is more reliable, no? Publications can change over time (see WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I need to read more carefully before writing. That being said, there is still recognition that Business Insider is nowhere near the same journalistic league as Politico, and the continued use of traffic quotas leads to stories being a bit more clickbaity than news-y. Pulitzer or not, I'm not really confident that BI has flushed this stuff out yet, and I don't think that one excellent piece is enough to make the whole operation WP:GREL in light of its longstanding problems that seem to still to have been recognized as recently as this year. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: The problem is that the term "clickbait" is extremely subjective and arguably can be found at the NYT or elsewhere easily. Have you run into serious clickbait or (verifiably) false stories in their news section coverage in recent history? The concerns I have seen in past RfCs don't involve this section, were corrected as you'd expect from a site with editorial control, or are often years old (publications can change over time, see WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS); we have also proven previously with other publications (and even Insider) that sections can be individually assessed.

As an interesting aside, I just realized and double-checked (CTRL + F searched through the winners of years) and Politico and Insider are now tied in Pulitzer wins at once a piece. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I was just reviewing the last RfC and wanted to add that Pyrrho the Skipper addressed this well previously, as did Bilorv's supplement. "We should stay neutral regarding the issue of "clickbait", as it's subjective and not all that helpful in determining fact-checking standards. The New York Times publishes headlines that could be considered clickbait. And I see that coming up frequently as a bit of an emotional, knee-jerk reason to discredit this publication." and the supplement (by Bilorv) "I'd add to this that headlines are not reliable, the body of articles is what we're talking about, so if "clickbait" is just in the headline then it doesn't matter much (though it would be strange to encounter, say, a publication with exceptional fact checking in its articles but lies in its headlines)." (emphasis in original) TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

If my only objection were that the headlines are inaccurate and sensationalist, (which BI statistically engages in quite often, I would agree that this is no issue in light of WP:HEADLINE. But the long-standing concern here is not merely that the headlines are at times akin to those published by content farms—it is the churnalism that this news organization’s editorial structure actively has encouraged both before and after acquisition by Axel Springer. That the reputation of the firm remained that way—even in January 2022—cannot be reduced to merely its decision to frequently use sensationalist headlines. It reflects something much more substantial about the quality of its article content, which is ultimately what we care about when evaluating this publication’s reliability for news. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Clickbait reflects a practice of "dramatization" that seems contrary to reliability. Of course, it's only one criteria in the catalog that we use — which is why it has little importance for an outlet like the New York Times but can have a lot of weight for i-promise-this-is-reliable.net. JBchrch talk 17:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2, as per excellent summary by MHawk10. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 No numerical vote yet per withinNo point being a jerk, even though I was a jerk before it got all commercialized.: The previous RfC has a great list of BI's failings and questionable practices by Chetsford. However, a few issues with the list: one is the acknowledged difference between pre-2016 practices and now. Another is the bottom CJR review mentions BI only in a paragraph referencing the CNN article directly beneath it. Minor nitpicks on a list of serious shortcomings, sure. There is also an important mitigating factor in these shortcomings: that BI publishes on its stories corrections, retractions, and financial COIs (which is why CJR is making a point about ethics in the latter). I am generally skeptical of "bias/reliability check" sites for news outlets, for both methodology and first principles, but they generally give BI a high rating (The Factual's review details some of the objections raised). And of course headlines should always be disregarded in these analyses for too many reasons. I will likely not vote for any option until the wording on the rating system is changed, but BI should be considered generally acceptable, with each article subject to editor scrutiny (just almost any other source should be). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  @SamuelRiv: Just to clarify, that was the second previous RfC. The actual "previous" one before this was this one where the culture section/coverage was found to be RS. What did you mean by "working on the rating system is changed"? We stop saying "generally reliable"? If so, that appears to be the standard question set asked and the two (reliable/acceptable) would appear rather interchangeable in meaning? Not trying to pick a fight or anything, just clarifying for others which the latest RfC was and wanting to (personally) better understand your comment. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Regarding the actual previous RfC then, I guess my understanding of journalism is far more limited than I imagined because I had no idea what was going on there. I don't remember the last time I've read a "culture" story and I didn't recognize who half the people in those linked articles were. Apparently the kids all want to watch "my tube" now? I don't see why they can't just watch their own. Regarding the color rating system, I posted a comment on RSP about contradictory criteria and seeming misuse of the term "opinion". And of course the green check mark is portrayed by some users as if the veracity of a source is now intrinsic with the fabric of the universe. So I'm not really comfortable with the system as it stands. "Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting" would accurately summarize my opinion of BI from what I've assessed here, however. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 - There is some good content on the site, but it still has a lot of attention-grabbing headlines on less well-researched stories or mixed reporting/pov content. There are many more reliable sources for widely covered news and analysis, so case-by-case scrutiny for Insider is not too much of a burden. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
• Options 2 or 3 - Best not to fully trust any news media. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think this is where the phrase "generally reliable" comes in; all outlets make mistakes, what matters is whether they correct them and the frequency of issues. If I understand correctly, by the logic in your comment, we'd deem every RS source to not be RS and call everything unreliable. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

If it's corporate backed? You're darn right not to trust it. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 Insider would probably get similar treatment here to HuffPost, Politico, etc. if it wasn't "business" Insider. Most of the objections here are old and could also be leveled at all media companies at some point. Insider is allowed to improve their standards over the year just like BuzzFeed (News). And look, they just won a Pulitzer. Editors need to look past their unwarranted icky feelings about this site. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2. Basically a tabloid. Clickbait, informal style, speculation, hype, and this kind of vibe where you're very much aware of the fact that you're not reading something on the level of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Do headlines such as "We got an exclusive look at the 24-slide LP deck European climate fund Climentum Capital used to close the first batch of its $156 million fund" and "Toast's CEO talks how his company will dominate the $55 billion restaurant-tech space even as its stock is slammed post-IPO by market headwinds" make you trust this outlet unconditionally? Me neither. I am aware that this is a superficial argument that doesn't reach the strength of Mhawk10's analysis but sometimes... you know it when you see it. About that Pulitzer, I will just note that it's in the Illustrated Reporting and Commentary...For a distinguished portfolio of editorial cartoons or other illustrated work (still, animated, or both) characterized by political insight, editorial effectiveness, or public service value. I fully appreciate the level of talent and the amount of work needed to achieve something like that but I'm not sure that it's that relevant to assess reliability in the context of Wikipedia. JBchrch talk 17:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  @JBchrch: I will just note that none of the referenced premium stories are from the news section, which is predominately free reading, and therefore not exactly relevant to the question being asked. Have you seen any particular problems with the news section? The question here isn't evaluating the whole publication; this is asking specifically about their news section coverage. The average headline and story content for the news section seems rather newsy. e.g. "A long-lost letter from Alexander Hamilton about the war with the British has been returned and is now on display in Boston", "Highland Park shooting suspect charged with 7 counts of first-degree murder with 'dozens more' to be pursued, state attorney says", "China refutes NASA chief's claim that the country is looking to take over the moon", "The Highland Park shooting suspect confessed to carrying out the massacre during police interview, prosecutors say" etc. Normal, routine news coverage you would expect of a publication. BuzzFeed and BuzzFeed News, for example, are treated differently and we've already previously established that different Insider sections can be assessed differently (Insider's culture section is considered RS). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying that point, which I had indeed missed. However, I'm not sure it makes a difference. The way I understand how insider.com works is that it publishes individual stories which it categorizes with various tags. So for instance How a 'Minions' meme craze among teens may have boosted the new movie's box office is a "Media" story which can be also found in the "News" section. So, contrary to Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed News, which are two different websites, Insider is one single website, which I think should be assessed as a whole. (Perhaps that makes me a dissenter to Insider Culture RfC.) This is confirmed by the fact that even if you are in the News section of the website, if you click on "Latest", it shows you the latest stores published in all the sections of the website, including I'm a professional baker who tried making Martha Stewart's signature yellow cake. Here are 2 ways I'd improve her recipe., an article in the Food section. JBchrch talk 17:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  @JBchrch: WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS demonstrates that while Rolling Stone is a single website, its sections can be assessed independently as well; as such, this isn't an unprecedented question. "Latest" is indeed the feed of all latest articles in all sections by the looks of it, but that is also irrelevant to this RfC at hand as already described. I was also mostly referring to insider.com/news (that was the Q), but on both sites in the "news" section the headlines appear generally normal (hence "generally reliable" being our standard) and like your average news story/site. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS came about basically because the magazine has a history of publishing false and (court-proven) libelous stories with scant fact-checking in the area of politics/social issues and only that area. Its reputation for fact checking and accuracy is very different for its music coverage, where it is regarded as being very good. But I’m not seeing something parallel here; most of the criticism I am seeing for Insider is about its site-wide practices, not just criticism of practices related to a specific topic area or subdomain. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 per MHawk10.4meter4 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, and not limited to the time after the Pulitzer. From reading the counterarguments in the previous RfC, they are frankly not at all convincing to me. Business Insider certainly makes mistakes, but they are the same sorts of mistakes that any WP:NEWSORG would make (and in fact several of the problems identified with it are problems with many other similar WP:NEWSORGs). They do correct themselves when they make mistakes and clearly have a reasonable editorial review process. Loki (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, of course. Business Insider, and Insider.com in general, is a serious and reliable news site. Putting the Pulitzer-winning article aside, Insider has written great and well-sourced articles about the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the killing of American Mormons in the LeBarón and Langford families massacre, incarceration of American federal inmates during covid, profiles of famous people like Marissa Mayer and Larry Page, how eBay turned increased its dirt-cheap stock by US$50 million, how Colorado's marijuana industry faced a difficult economic crisis in 2011, the disruptions that will be caused by Queen Elizabeth II's death, rape allegations made against David Dobrik's Vlog Squad, and much more. Indeed, there is a liberal bias. Insider has a tabloidal entertainment section with attention-grabbing titles and bizarre listicles. But these issues can be addressed with nuance when noting credibility without destroying the entire site's great reputation. NewsGuard rates Insider.com a perfect score of 100, stating, "Insider has published substantive, originally reported stories on topics such as immigration and human rights." The Factual places Insider in the 90th percentile of its factual grading, writing, "Business Insider’s tendency to provide extensive evidence within articles goes a long way in explaining these reliable scores. The site also has a deep bench of experienced journalists who routinely cover the same beats, such as business and technology." FlantasyFlan (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1/2 I agree with Mhawk10's excellent analysis. The linked articles on Insider's significant clickbait articles and lack of editorial independence previoualy are of course issues. I do feel that its news sections are not atrocious (but there were lots of controversies, I think I can link a lot of past concerns (see 1, 2, 3 that might be prevalent, albeit less so, now. But I would say that its current news sections does seem to be fairly better than the past ones, but it's noteworthy that it's Pulitzer Prize is an Illustrated Prize produced mainly by others, and it's not actually a prize awarded to the Business Insider journalists for breaking news or investigative reporting. Still, some business sections and past news reporting are like sensational tabloids, for them maybe Option 2/3. Overall, I think for post-2021 news probably Option 1/2, but it's still improtable that all of the past issues have been addressed.

@FlantasyFlan: @SamuelRiv: Just a (unfortunately way too long) side note, but I strongly disagree with the links to the so-called The Factual. Other editors would probably disagree, but I find it to be atrocious. It considers itself to be a blog and states its "objective" method here. Note that it cites Media Bias Fact Check and Allsides, which there's consensus are marginally reliable or generally unreliable. Per here, The Washington Post is considered Moderate-Left based on data from AllSides and Media Bias Fact Check — the two non-partisan websites that we use to assess the political orientation of news outlets. And judging from what I see, the algorithm is horrible. Looking at the ratings, Business Insider is rated more highly than Associated Press and the NY Times, two of (at least IMO) newspapers of record or credible agencies. By the way, it could be argued that AP and The Economist have a left-centre bias, but Jacobin, which is probably progressive left, is rated higher. Further, the Washington Examiner is somehow considered to ber one of the best refs. See its controversies in the past, and WP's summary. However, The Factual somehow considers Our selection reveals a rich, layered media ecosystem. There are numerous general news sources that deliver high-quality daily news (Reuters, Washington Examiner, Business Insider), I find it to be almost absurd that the Washington Examiner is considered to be a better ref to use than AP or The Economist, and is apparently the same with ABC and Reuters. The inconsistencies are enough for me to say that its ratings should be taken with a grain of salt at best, and despite an abouts us page (see here), there's no clear editorial policies. Also, its algorithm apparently discount the rating for lack of authors seen in some media such as The Economist and Reuters, per this line: Some sites don’t have authors at all (e.g., Reuters or the Economist) or the algorithm is unable to pull that information due to the formatting (e.g., South China Morning Post). The articles still may be informative but because The Factual could not validate some elements the articles with rate lower. By the way, its grammar is confusing, the use of "with" doesn't seem to be the most clear grammar, and especially considering that this is their methodology page, it should definitely be made clearer. Of course, a lot of SCMP articles have authors, but they discount the ratings because of formatting (?). Overall, I don't disagree with the current consensus (Option 1/2), but do disagree with several editors relying on The Factual. Many thanks for your help, apologies this is too long and unclearly worded, I would suggest reading Mhawk10's analysis again as it's considerably better than mine! VickKiang (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Washington Examiner is not reliable. It should not be considered reliable. Andrevan@ 23:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I probably agree with you, but The Factual apparently considers it high-quality per my comments above, so I think its methodology is questionable. VickKiang (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not sure about Insider though. But I'd support an RFC to downgrade Washington Examiner. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Andrevan@ 23:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Some refs are convincing to show the ref's poor, but Ad Fontes and MBFC are generally unreliable, and shouldn't be used to form an RfC (on the Noticeboard, when editing, it suggests Do not base your RfC solely on Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry), as it is not a reliable source. Allsides has some debate. I don't think launching an RfC based on three generally unreliable/marignally reliable refs are the best, but I'm sure there are better examples (credible fact checkers, newspapers) criticising the Examiner. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang: I don't disagree with a word you said, and I wish there was a rating site that didn't suck (at least for reliability; bias is nonsense I've never seen a decent methodology to rate bias outside selective academic studies). It might not be possible. And honestly, maybe I just used The Factual over MBFC and Ad Fontes (which I ended up using later on) because 1) it has a write-up on this particular outlet, and 2) it said what I somewhat expected it to say and didn't do anything that (in my immediate impression) was completely stupid up-front. And that's a terrible basis for me to then implicitly endorse a such site (by linking it without qualification). Mea culpa, won't repeat, and thanks for calling me out. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1, I think BI has shown it is an established media company and on the level with their Pulitzer win. Andrevan@ 00:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 per my reasoning in last year's discussion. Option 3 is "generally unreliable for factual reporting" which is consistent with it receiving a Pulitzer Prize while, simultaneously, publishing a revolving door of errors and falsehoods almost too numerous to mention, along with giving advertisers "limited editorial control," its continuing use of clickbait headlines, etc., etc. "Generally unreliable" doesn't mean "always unreliable" and the Pulitzer Prize story is an example of why Option 4 may not be appropriate. Insider's checkered recent history serves as a counter example of why 1 and 2 are not appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Since you were the main one giving evidence in the last discussion, let me explain why I don't find your examples very convincing:

  1. The COVID article: the headline here was sensationalized, but all the actual information in the story was accurate, and we don't judge on headlines per WP:HEADLINE.

  2. Lumping all the CJR articles together: they're in a pretty bloggy style, and they mostly don't describe behavior that's out of the ordinary for a newsorg. So for example, here's Vox doing sponsored content; the piece about fake news tricking it also listed a whole bunch of obviously legit newsorgs that were also similarly tricked, including USA Today and the LA Times.

  3. Can't fact check the false story about Apple because I don't have access to your source.

  4. I can fact check the false story about Snowden, and BI was by no means the only newsorg to publish that. The Intercept story pretty clearly lays out that even such credible sources as the Wall Street Journal were fooled. BI also published a very clear correction at the top of their story after it became clear it was false, which seems exactly like what we'd want a WP:NEWSORG to do.

  5. The Daily Beast article about non-disparagment clauses says outright that many orgs we have green at RSP also require employees to sign those.

  6. What's a ban from securities trading have to do with journalism?

  7. "Capricious story assignments"? Why does that affect their credibility? We're not judging whether it's a good place to work for.

  8. Yes, it uses clickbait headlines. WP:HEADLINE.

  The TL;DR here is that Business Insider engages in a bunch of practices that are common in the industry, and that they have been fooled before (but corrected themselves when they did). This doesn't sound like a disqualification from being a WP:NEWSORG, this sounds exactly like what we'd expect from a WP:NEWSORG. Loki (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

TL;DR - "but whatabout ..." Chetsford (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• we don't judge on headlines per WP:HEADLINE WP:HEADLINE is about the reliability of headlines. It doesn't prevent us from using headlines as an element to judge the general reliability of a media.
• The Daily Beast article about non-disparagment clauses says outright that many orgs we have green at RSP also require employees to sign those. What I'm reading is "Some media companies shy away from asking all employees to sign non-disparagement agreements because they believe it clashes with the mission to shine light on misbehavior. Others, including Mic, Vice, and HuffPost, have asked departing employees who have been laid off to sign them in exchange for severance pay.". Vice is yellow, HuffPost is yellow for politics and green for other stuff, and Mic (media company) isn't listed there.
• 6. What's a ban from securities trading have to do with journalism? You can read the New Yorker article, entitled "Business Outsider: Can a disgraced Wall Street analyst earn trust as a journalist?".
• 7. "Capricious story assignments"? Why does that affect their credibility? If you read the CNN article, you'll see that it reports journalists being pressured to deliver cheap scoops and generate traffic. The question of how this affects reliability is left as an exercise to the reader. JBchrch talk 08:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  1. You *could* use anything to judge the general reliability of a source, I guess, but that doesn't mean that argument is policy-based.

  2. Conde Nast, publisher of the New Yorker, makes its employees sign non-disparagement agreements. The New Yorker is green at RSP, and in fact you yourself used it as your source for the next point.

  3. Yes, I have read it. But what's it have to do with Business Insider's reliability? Does a ban from securities trading affect its editorial review process or willingness to issue corrections?

  4. But there's no direct evidence in the article that it *does* affect reliability, though. You're operating purely on an insinuation. Loki (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  1. What is the policy that controls the general reliability of sources?

  2. "in cases that involve harassment, discrimination or retaliation". Not saying it's good, but it's very different from a "non-disparagement clause requiring employees to refrain from ever criticizing the company during or after their employment at Insider".

  4. Reliability is not some concept operating in a bubble and RSN is not a criminal court. We are actively looking for serious sources which we can consider as reliable for the purposes of writing an encyclopedia. Delivering cheap scoops that drive traffic is incompatible with that mission. JBchrch talk 13:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Saying "the arguments you use to claim this source fails this standard would mean basically no source meets it, so your interpretation of policy can't be correct" is not whataboutism. Loki (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 It started as a tabloid with clickbait headlines but has since grown into a more serious reliable news site. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 Per comments already given. The Pulitzer shows they can produce top-quality reporting, but their reporting still looks extremely uneven. I think we should keep an eye on it to see if they continue to improve. --Hipal (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. Its gotten better and we should realize that. Softlemonades (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (BI)

• Based on this Pulitzer development, I believe that we should reconsider its news coverage's classification. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  That's true, I do think it's persuasive to win a Pulitzer. That seems like an upgrade. Andrevan@ 23:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that after a major commendation it's worth reviewing that particular section of an outlet, or that editor or journalist; and in general any publication on RSP should be subject to periodic review. Of course with a century of history, it's a trivial to find some hideous Pulitzer wins (and general perennial grumblings). The more relevant point is that one shiny piece of investigation/photojournalism/commentary/review/(22 categories) is, in an otherwise low-quality outlet, probably more indicative of a promising journalist/editor than anything else. There's a somewhat well-known exchange, as part of Al Franken's political comedy, of Bill O'Reilly trying to enhance his journalistic prestige by citing the fact that Access Hollywood, which he once anchored, had won a Polk Award, which of course he had nothing to do with. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Denisova's declarations on child rape

The question is whether former Ukrainian ombudsperson Lyudmyla Denisova's interviews and statements about sexual crimes committed by Russian soldiers in Ukraine qualify as reliable source in the context of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Some background information is needed. Since March 2022 Denisova has released interviews and statements about rapes committed by Russian troops against infants, children, young women and men, elderly people. We already had a discussion on this at RS/N, following which we dropped the more gruesome, shocking details from the article on War crimes and we're now saying that Denisova reported multiple rapes of children, some very young. We are also reporting that according to her about 25 girls and women between the ages of 14 to 24 were locked in a basement and raped for almost a month in Bucha, and nine became pregnant (as reported, but not verified, by New York Times, BBC and other outlets). However, in the article Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine her declarations are still published in detail, although we are not reporting her statement about a 6-month-old girl raped by a Russian solider with a teaspoon.

Since that first discussion at RS/N, 140 Ukrainian journalists and human rights activists have signed an open letter asking Denisova, among other things, to Publish only that information for which there is enough evidence, check the facts before publication (here the letter in Ukrainian [11], here an account in English [12]). On 31 May the Ukrainian Parliament removed her from office accusing her, among other things, of making "not verified", "unverifiable" or "unsubstantiated" declarations about child rape (these being the words used by Deutsche Welle, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post respectively). At the end of June, Ukrainska Pravda published a report on Denisova (in Ukrainian) which was summarised in English by Meduza (here). The report says that Denisova was circulating information gathered by her daughter, who was working for a psychological helpline service Denisova had set up; it says that Denisova's office never sent any information about the alleged crimes or the victims' contact information to law enforcement agencies; finally, it says that Denisova explained to the Ukrainian prosecutor office that she "told these horrific stories because she wants Ukraine to be victorious."

Based on this essay on interviews, I think that Denisova's statements qualify as a secondary source on war crimes in Ukraine; based on the information I've just shared, I believe that they don't qualify as reliable sources on conflict-related sexual violence in Ukraine. We had a couple of discussions on this in the talk page of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: #Denisova's dismissal and #25 girls between the ages of 14 to 24 raped in Bucha, held captive in a basement, nine became pregnant and we didn't reach a consensus. I hope that a discussion at RS/N could help us move forwards. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Having read that the Ukrainian parliament don't consider her reliable in her declarations, and that these statements may harm potential victims of sexual violence, it is fairly clear that she is not a reliable source for any factual statements. As both sides in the war consider her to be making statements which are at least partially false, I can't see how we can use her statements in anything other the article about her. She is in essence WP:FRINGE. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

On 31 May the Ukrainian Parliament removed her from office accusing her, among other things, of making "not verified", "unverifiable" or "unsubstantiated" declarations about child rape (these being the words used by Deutsche Welle, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post respectively). Worth noting that these words are neither from the parliamentary statement on her removal nor from these RSs’ descriptions of it, but their paraphrase of a social media post by one (important) MP. Agree we can’t use her as a source for particular atrocities happening (unless verified by other sources) but we can mention her comments with attribution as she’s obviously a major figure in the story. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to include her comments without immediate qualification that she made unverified statements and didn't check her facts. If we have to do that, why are we including her comments? Reference to her is only warranted on the page about her, or possibly in a section which explains that her comments are unreliable. I can't see any other way under WP:NPOV to include comments which everybody accepts to be dubious.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Making that qualification risks SYNTH. I’d need to see an example of a contested use, but for example if multiple RSs say “Denisova alleged X” that might be noteworthy even if other sources say other allegations weren’t verified by anyone else. If we mention specific allegations that RSs say weren’t verified, then we should make the qualification. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Can I check, is this the disputed text? It feels due to me as couple of strong RSs. If it is the disputed text, are there sources saying this specific allegation was unverified (because it’s different from the child rape cases the open letter focuses on isn’t it?) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't fully understand your position @Bobfrombrockley because it seems to me you're making two incompatible claims. On the one hand, you say that if multiple RSs say “Denisova alleged X” that might be noteworthy. I agree that it might be noteworthy in an article on Denisova but I don't understand how it might be noteworthy in an article on war crimes in Ukraine (unless Denisova is taken to be a reliable source). On the other hand, you are also saying that you Agree we can’t use her as a source for particular atrocities happening. But how do the two things work together? In March and April, The New York Times, BBC and the others took Denisova as a reliable source on war crimes because she had access to important informative channels. But in May quality press at large stopped publishing her horrific accounts of war crimes in Ukraine, and today The New York Times would no longer write "Denisova alleged X". By the way, this recent report by the OHCHR doesn't mention 25 young girls raped for a month in a basement, rapes against toddlers, baby tortured with a teaspoon, children used as human shields: there's a huge amount of terrible war crimes, but not these. So why should we continue to have Denisova's allegations in our articles? Why should we be less reliable than our sources? We are writing an encyclopedia and we should choose our sources carefully. We have many policies and guidelines that should prevent us from uncritically include these materials: WP:RS, WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS and also WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I’d need to see the disputed text to know what’s being argued over. But what I’m saying is we probably shouldn’t say “x atrocity occurred” and cite her as a source, but we might want to say “Denisova alleged x atrocity occurred” in a context where it is noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Re SYNTH, there are several Rs which deal with Denisova's sacking and detail the criticisms of her, alongside details of her claims. I don't see how SYNTH could be relevant here.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be SYNTH if we said something like "Denisova alleged X[fn1] but some have accused her of making unverifiable allegations[fn2]". (If a single source includes both, that wouldn't be SYNTH, or if the specific allegation we mentioned was contested in an RS.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that would be synth, but there would be not need to do that as sources which detail both her claims and the reaction to them exist. Denisova's claims should not be in the main body of the article, as nobody thinks she is reliable. What might possibly be valid is a separate section detailing the fact she made certain claims and the reaction to them, indicating that there were severe doubts about her reliability. I don't think there would be any difficulty avoiding synth, given the wealth of sources which cover her sacking. --Boynamedsue (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I see this as a fundamental misunderstanding of “what is a source”. Denisova is not the source. The media reports of her statements are the sources. The real question is whether statements about war crimes in Ukraine made by a Ukrainian official appointed to investigate war crimes are notable. The fact that she was reproved for talking so much about “unverified” claims was accompanied by complaints that somebody else had done her duties with respect to humanitarian corridors and other quite obvious crimes of aggression such as the bombing of kindergartens and other civilian infrastructure. Sexual crimes are always difficult to prove, and it isn’t amazing that some of the victims she was talking about have since disappeared or lost touch with a criminal complaint that if anything threatens their safety. I don’t know how many times we need to go through this. Don’t quote her if you don’t want to, but stop calling her untruthful, omg. It is a massive NPOV violation Elinruby (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The consensus of the Ukrainian parliament and 140 Ukrainian media figures is that she made "unverified claims". To cite her without mentioning this is a massive NPOV violation. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

verified is a tricky word. Most sexual assault claims are unverified. The complaints about her job performance centered on other issues, like not taking care of prisoner exchanges. I don’t understand the determination to make this woman out as crazy or a liar. There are plenty of solid secondary sources that rapes occurred. Pick a different rape if you must. It isn’t your job to “verify” these sexual assaults, and frankly with war crimes so thick on the ground in Ukraine I don’t see why you two are obsessed with this. You are making false and possibly libelous statements — not sure if she counts as a public figure — and you really need to stop with the BLP violations. You are misrepresenting the sources as well. Deutsche Welle did not say she was unreliable. That would be libel, since the actual issues cited were pretty different than that. Elinruby (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the reason I am talking about this is because her words do not meet the standards of inclusion in wikipedia without the serious qualification that what she said may not be true. If the information is agreed by everybody unverified, we shouldn't be publishing it without stating this. Denisova has personally admitted to exaggerating her reports for propaganda purposes, so the information she provides has no place in our coverage until a reliable source appears. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree with Boynamedsue that Denisova's declarations (unless "qualified" with elaborate and possibly off-topic explanations) don't satisfy a reasonable threshold of notability/inclusion in an article on War crimes: simply put, there's no good reason for having them there, they are not informative enough with regardto the subject of the article. However, I also think that these declarations should be treated as (unreliable) sources. I quote from the essay on interviews linked in my opening comment:

The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material. Statements made by interviewees about subjects unrelated to themselves (e.g., the historian interviewed on the radio about local history) are independent and may be either primary or secondary.

This looks crystal-clear and irrefutable to me. Denisova's declarations about sexual violence are a secondary (alas, unreliable) source on war crimes in Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to further this, I think the blistering Ukrainian Pravda article on the debacle says it best: The state of Ukraine, on whose behalf Denisova acted, also became a victim. Yes, her place in office is the responsibility of the state. However, the ombudsman was not authorized to lie. Denisova's story will not succeed and there is no need to silence it. Let it become a clear sign: Ukraine is fighting on the side of truth. We don't need to further demonize the Russians. They themselves coped with this task

People who insist on including her claims in articles other than those directly about her are not doing any favours to the Ukrainian cause, it actually reflects very well on the Ukrainian state that they removed her from her post. --Boynamedsue (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's both surprising and admirable that they have been capable of maintaining a functioning democracy under these circumstances. And it's not in their interest to have these questionable materials published in Wikipedia: one finds out the 25 girls held in a basement in Bucha is a fake (if it is a fake) and one starts wondering if the Bucha massacre has ever happened. Wikipedia should have no part in this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, a few Ukrainian members of Rada said that Denisova, an official Ukrainian ombundswomen at the time, made some statements that could not be supported by proofs, meaning that she only had the claims by victims, some of whom might be even anonymous, so basically this is classic "she said". This is all. No one found her promoting any lies. Hence her statements, as the top Ukrainian human rights official, can be included on any relevant human right pages, with appropriate attribution. Should they be included to specific page X? That should be determined per WP:CONSENSUS on the corresponding page. Speaking on sources above, I would suggest not using this particular publication in Ukrainian Pravda because it was disputed in the next publication in the same Ukrainian Pravda (that political life and controversies in Ukraine are messy, no one really knows why some people have been suddenly dismissed, etc.). Let's just use other, better sources that are many. My very best wishes (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

At this point she has been so vilified that it may be better to simply avoid this argument in my opinion. That doesn’t make it right or mean that Wikipedia should be hosting these inaccurate claims about her. But it isn’t as though there aren’t plenty of war crimes to write about. Elinruby (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I presume that Gitz6666 and Boynamedsue are saying that Denisova made false claims. Well, if that was the case, a state official making false claims is a very common situation. How to deal with this? Exactly as in other cases. Meaning that you need RS (by fact checkers or others) saying that a specific claim was false and explaining why it was false. That was done with regard to many claims by politicians from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. But we have ZERO specific claims by Denisova disproved in this way. All we have are generic claims by others that some her claims were not independently verified. Yes, sure, but this is something also very common and entirely different (see my previous comment here). My very best wishes (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a good point and I actually agree with you. But let us distinguish the BLP from the BLP elements of the war crimes article, where there is if anything too much material and this argument serves as a shiny object. I find it highly plausible that she has had truthful reports that were anonymous or whose complainants are hard to locate for any of a number of reasons. Nonetheless Ukrainian politics are murky, media ownership is murkier, and the workings of VR Kontacte murkiest of all as I am sure you know much better than I. For purposes of the war crimes article, a reliable secondary source such as the Washington Post or Agence France-Presse reports what it reports and if it hasn’t corrected itself it presumably stands by its reporting. All the OR these guys want to do is completely irrelevant and she herself is peripheral. For purposes of the BLP the firing is huge and definitely should include the media campaign against her. Elinruby (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I presume that Gitz6666 and Boynamedsue are saying that Denisova made false claims. Please don't make fake assumptions. Alternatively please provide a diff (here or at AE) where I say that she made false claims. I said that she is no longer a reliable source because of the reasons I explained here above in my OP. Your mentioning the case of Trump is completely off topic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

So, you do not think she made false statements? Meaning her statements well could be true (that is what I think)? OK. But then why did you start this thread? My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to state that most of her claims of sexual abuse against children by Russian soldiers are widely believed to be false in Ukraine, both in terms of detail and scale. Her discussion of sexual abuse against women is believed to be incorrect in many details, though probably not scale. As this is the case, an article which is supposed to detail these events should not include her opinions on the matter due to WP:NPOV.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"most of her claims of sexual abuse against children by Russian soldiers are widely believed to be false in Ukraine". Says who? Can you cite any sources to support such assertion? I bet that Ukrainians believe in all crimes by Russians. But in any case, that would be just a matter of public opinion and therefore irrelevant here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Already have, reread the above discussion, by "widely-believed to be false" I mean by the Ukrainian press and political class, the people best placed to know. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

We could quote Zelensky's party We removed her because she failed in her duty as a guarantor. Sometimes she broadcast events which seem very improbable and information whose source is unknown. Or here, from the Ukrainian parliament which criticise her for concentrating on crimes of a sexual nature which can't be confirmed with evidence, damaging Ukraine and distracting the world media from its real needs. Then of course there is this Former Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights Lyudmila Denisova, while in office, made up scary stories about the rape of children by the Russian occupiers. She is simply not reliable for anything other than her own opinions which come under WP:FRINGE at this point. --Boynamedsue (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that "most of her claims" and "some of her claims" are radically different. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh noes! I quail before your uncited quotations! Do you understand what a guarantor is? The issues was her priorities, not her truthfulness, and that will be true no matter how many times you pound the table Elinruby (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Come on, we are talking about the sexual abuse of children, perhaps a bit of seriousness is due? The quotes are all attributed and linked to sources you can check. And the meaning of guarantor (of which I am fully aware as I translated from the Italian "garante" in the article) is not central to the meaning of the following sentence "Sometimes she broadcast events which seem very improbable and information whose source is unknown". Now, can you provide any sources which postdate her dismissal, which was, according to the Washington Post, in part for spreading unsubstantiated information on sexual violence, which state that she is a reliable source of information on the topic of sexual violence? --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I do now see the external link in the third quote, so striking that. However my point about “guarantor” is that this is a reference to the evacuation corridors, which some people apparently believe should have put more work into, as opposed to sexual assaults, which are difficult to prove at the best of times. But all this discussion of the reasons for her dismissal is rather peripheral to the actual topic of the article. She was always a primary source and there are a lot of secondary sources, so I find it frustrating that we are repeatedly looping through peripheral events. I think this discussion violates the BLP policy, but to the extent that it can take place accurately and dispassionately, should take place on the talk page of her BLP. Elinruby (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I would point you to the Deutsche Welle coverage. I would also point you to my comment a little further up the thread that *she* is not a source, the *publication doing the reporting* is the source. We’ve already had the question on this noticeboard of reliable sources quoting liars, as you want to imply she is, and it boils down to this — we let the reporters do the reporting, as long as it is published in a reliable source.

If i seem a bit flippant, it’s merely that I have said most of this multiple times already. You realize that we already had a thread about exactly this? I find that in the face of sealioning, varying my vocabulary relieves the monotony and preserves my sanity ;) What you are trying to do is called original research, or possibly synth; I don’t frequent those boards and am not sure.

In any event, *you* need to find *me* a correction about these sexual assaults that says that because Denisova was fired we don’t believe these women were raped. You are the one who wants to make the change; therefore you need to cite it. Elinruby (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

At no point has anybody suggested the removal of claims of sexual assault not stated by Denisova, or stated as fact by other organisations. The source you provide does not state she is reliable, it merely gives background to her sacking, mentioning the criticism that she made unverified claims. Can I take it you now accepts that part of the reason she was sacked was that she made unverified claims? Asking you for evidence when you have provided none so far is not "sealioning" it is how things are supposed to work. -Boynamedsue (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

please re-read what I already said above, more slowly perhaps. Then if still confused take a look at WP:BURDEN. If there is an actual language problem here I am very willing to help. Otherwise I am not willing to repeat myself any further. Elinruby (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you could simply answer the question, I understand everything you have posted but don't find most of it very pertinent to the question at hand. Could you simply state, yes or no, do you accept that Denisova was sacked as the Ukrainian parliament and the Washington Post state, in part, for making unsubstantiated claims of sexual assault? --Boynamedsue (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• She did not make a single provably false claim [13]. Yes, the claims by victims she recorded in her database have not been verified or proven, exactly as the cited sources say. However, this does not make her claims any less reliable than claims by any other Ukrainian officials that have not been independently confirmed, but have been widely reported. What we need here is merely an explicit attribution. Such claims may or may not be included to pages depending on various factors and consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is almost impossible to prove a negative. She did make claims which several hundred Ukrainian journalists and the Ukrainian government state there to be no evidence for. She was then sacked, in part, for making these claims. Claims for which there is no evidence except the statements of one person who was sacked for making them shouldn't be included on the page. I have no problem whatsoever with anything she has said, but which other more credible Ukrainian or international officials still sustain, being included in the article with the claim attributed to them rather than her. --Boynamedsue (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Most outright lies by state officials are easy to catch, see Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. However, not in criminal rape cases, especially if the victims prefer to remain anonymous and frequently do not even bring official charges, and especially during war time. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, in this case she kind of was caught, the Ukrainian government found no evidence to support some of the things she said and sacked her for it. I'm referring specifically to some of the grotesque details regarding abuse of children, there was literally no supporting evidence of any kind. Absolutely nothing. When they interviewed her she told them she was making the claims to help the Ukraine's war effort. Like I've said before, this episode actually shows the Ukrainian authorities in an excellent light, that they are not prepared to tolerate misinformation on rape from their representatives. There is more than enough evidence from reliable individuals and bodies to not have to rely on Denisova for our articles. --Boynamedsue (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Using all available RS on the subject - yes, sure, that is what WP:NPOV requires. Let's do it. But consider the case when such sources (NYT, BBC, etc.) discuss statements by Denisova as Ukrainian ombudsman in any context (positive, negative, whatever). Not only we can, but we actually should cite what these sources say about Denisova and info she provided. This entire discussion is misguided. My very best wishes (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• As about "she kind of was caught", no, unlike Trump and many other officials, she was NOT caught of claiming any specific lies, only that her claims (and the claims by victims) in general were not proven, and possibly will never be proven in any court. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Shall we ask for a formal closure of this discussion? I think the closer should also take into account the other discussions we've had on Denisova's statements following her dismissal. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Uanfala (talk · contribs) insists on restoring content sourced to Cambridge Scholars Publishing, because according to them, they aren't predatory and that removing bad sources is 'disruptive'.

I contend that CSP is a vanity press by every meaningful definition of the term. Anyone can publish with them, at no charge, and they do not meaningfully review the submissions. See also previous discussions on CSP and CSP sources

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#Linguist's_history
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_286#Vanity press (where CSP is mentionned)
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_209#Cambridge_Scholars
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_221#Sources_regarding_Tsamiko_and_Osman_Taka_dances._Do_they_meet_Wikipedia_criteria_for_reliability_?
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_359#Citogenesis incident
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_69#Da_Vinci_Globe

So I would like consensus on whether or not the community considers Cambridge Scholars Publishing to be a reliable publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Cambridge Scholars Publishing)

• I'm pretty sure it's well established by consensus here and reliable sources that it is in fact predatory. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Very obviously unreliable That's not to say we can't ever cite them, but short of a review praising certain works, we shouldn't be citing them. Especially when other sources are already present supporting the material in question. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• unequivocally useless and unreliable per this discussion and the dozens of others. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• I wish Headbomb had started this discussion before using AWB to remove several hundred references and then proceeding to edit-war with several people who have reverted him. Now, CSP are not a predatory publisher, that's not their model (as anyone would immediately notice if they bothered to read anything written about them). Are they a publisher of reliable sources on par with established academic presses like CUP or OUP? Of course they're not. But that doesn't necessarily mean that everything there is rubbish. We should approach them the same way we approach similar publishers, like Lincom: generally discourage their use without prohibiting it, never use them for anything contentious, and for non-contentious statements, evaluate on a case-by-case basis. But blanket removal is disruptive, especially when the articles citing them will often instead use less reliable sources, like newspapers, academia.edu drafts, or actual vanity presses. – Uanfala (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"Are they a publisher of reliable sources? Of course they're not." That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

And there is no disruption, I've removed and reviewed about 300 citations to CSP, which is obviously a predatory/vanity publisher (which loads of prior discussions all agreeing in the same direction). In all cases, the material was supported by other citations, and CSP is not needed and can be summarily removed. We should not be citing unreliable sources, and your restoration of them, knowing full well they are unreliable, is textbook WP:POINTY behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's been pointy to revert two bold semi-automated edits that were justified by the plainly wrong assertion that CSP was predatory. And to repeat and clarify what I wrote on the Kashmiri language talk page, you're proceeding from an incorrect presumption about how references normally relate to article text. If an article paragraph has two refs at its end, this doesn't necessarily mean that either one of those two refs would be enough to support the entirety of that paragraph. More often than not, parts of the text would be supported by one ref, and parts of it by the other. – Uanfala (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments expressed above, particularly as no consensus has been reached here about the publisher. That is the sort of action that should occur after this discussion, not before or during it. As such, I reported it to ANI at WP:ANI#Problematic mass removal of sources by Headbomb.4meter4 (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Uanfala here. There seems to be a lot of MIXED viewpoints on this publisher. They have books that are hits and misses.

Quoting above: "We should approach them the same way we approach similar publishers, like Lincom: generally discourage their use without prohibiting it, never use them for anything contentious, and for non-contentious statements, evaluate on a case-by-case basis. But blanket removal is disruptive, especially when the articles citing them will often instead use less reliable sources, like newspapers, academia.edu drafts, or actual vanity presses.".

Wise words. Just my 2 cents. Artemaeus Creed (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment from an outside perspective, I think both sides have a point here. It seems consensus shows that this publisher is unreliable, but, as Uanfala has pointed out, the citations should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis rather than removed en mass by automation. If a particular source was written by a subject matter expert (which seems to occur occasionally at this publisher), it could still be used. If sources are removed, the relevant content should be examined and new sources found (if possible) or the content should be removed. Simply removing hundreds of sources and leaving someone else to clean up the mess is one way to do things, but in my opinion not the most responsible way. Toadspike (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  There is already a reliable citation for the entirety of this content. That's why it was removed. There remains over 3000 citations to this garbage publisher across Wikipedia. This was not a blanket removal, but a targeted one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  What was the criteria for your targeting of these cases? Ford MF (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  a) It's CSP, which is prima facie unreliable b) Other sources support the content, which makes removal warranted without replacing it with a {{cn}} tag or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  You said "this was not a blanket removal but a targeted one" which I took to mean you had employed some discretion. What does "targeted" in this sentence refer to? Ford MF (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Got it, since you're doing your due diligence you can continue as you were. I apologize for not looking into this too thoroughly yesterday. Toadspike (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  It seems consensus shows that this publisher is unreliable fwiw ... I really don't think it does? Where is this consensus demonstrated? Ford MF (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Now that I have had time to read all the links provided above by Headbomb and Praxidicae, it seems that I was a little hasty in jumping to conclusions and giving the benefit of the doubt. None of the discussions linked show any sort of consensus against using CSP, quite a few are not even evaluations of the reliability or quality of CSP, and one is literally a question which received no responses. Not only does this convince me that CSP is not unreliable per se, but it also convinces me that the language used by the aforementioned editors was rather misleading in stating that anything was "well established by consensus". Toadspike (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I would like consensus on whether or not the community considers I don't have a real horse in this race, but -- as mentioned above -- this seems like a question one should ask before using AWB to mass remove hundreds of citations attributed to this press. Initiating what is essentially a policy decision on your own and then retroactively seeking support for it when people push back does not to me feel like an excessively good faith action. As for what to do with CSP, it seems like WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in this case. I became aware of this issue when I saw Headbomb remove a citation from Apaturia (Greek mythology). In context, the reference there was one of three works (one published by a more reputable academic publisher, Palgrave) citing a particular statement, all of which generally in reference to a primary source (Pausanias). The work in this context was a corroborating citation, in a work published by an ancient history Ph.D., and its removal in this instance does not truly cause harm, but also seems an overly aggressive exercise of policy where no policy actually exists. If this had been the only citation in the article, for whatever reason, I think this specific article would be poorer without it. If we want to have a blanket reliability policy against all works published by CSP, that seems extreme to me given the circumstances, but I think is also a reasonable decision for the community to make. I don't think it's reasonable to unilaterally implement a de facto policy that CSP references are banned unless some editor wants to make their case (see OP's talk page) to the single editor who decided this ought to be policy. Ford MF (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  If you read the above linked discussions, there is clear consensus that it's unreliable and given the fact that it is established fact that it is predatory, policy dictates that it is in fact unreliable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  iiuc this discussion is the measurement of consensus for WP:RSDEPRECATED, so I'm not sure how you can say this has already been decided. Ford MF (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Because it has been discussed endlessly here as linked above and the outcome is always the same. There is no point in having these discussions if we're going to rehash them every time someone wants to whine about it's non-use. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  If it had already been decided, I would expect this to be present on WP:DEPRECATED, and it is not. Ford MF (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  ...many sources which are deprecated don't appear there but it doesn't change the fact that for example, Fandom can't be used to source anything that isn't about Fandom isn't on there - but it is never allowed because it is defacto unreliable. This isn't rocket science. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  If there is no canonical source of truth for a policy I would submit that no policy in fact exists. If you're asking me to believe a final decision has been made about a thing, show me that evidence. This isn't rocket science. Looking at the conversations above, most of them contain only fairly glancing reference to the publisher we're discussing here, and the only direct one is six years old. And since the it seems like some relevant things have changed (addition of credited editorial boards, publishers rating in Norwegian Scientific Index upgraded). As I said elsewhere, I don't have any particular stake in this publisher's fate within the Wikipedia project, however I don't think I've seen a single genuine argument advanced here as to why exactly this particular journal ought to be wholesale denylisted from the project. Just a lot of people repeating "vanity press / bad editorial" like a mantra, without any explanation for how these standards are judged. Ford MF (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  You are just being repetitive and missing the point. We have standards that are based in policy surrounding reliability and that does not require an RFC every time a subject is brought up. Of course, you're welcome to make the argument that everything is reliable unless proven otherwise, but you'd be wrong and quickly reverted anywhere you would add such sources. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Which standards are you referring to that CSP violates? Ford MF (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Unreliable, should be prohibited "Are they a publisher of reliable sources? Of course they're not." Chris Troutman (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Vanispamcruft. Unreliable predatory publisher. Kudos to Headbomb for taking on the unpleasant task of removing references to that predatory garbage. --Randykitty (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• Unreliable- predatory junk publisher that calls itself Cambridge Scholars so that people will think it's affiliated with Cambridge University. Deceit and trickery, and I would expect very little of anything "published" by them. Reyk _YO! 21:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  I won't disagree that the term "Cambridge" today carries an immediate air of prestige. But there's a lot of places named Cambridge (many founded by people who never cared about the university -- what would the Greeks think?), and any startup company will try to appropriate local prestige. Regardless, from its reported history, they seem to have at least some justification for the name, so there's no reason to call it "deceit". SamuelRiv (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. Probably worth pointing out that CSP books are found in a lot of good academic libraries. Harvard Library, for example, has almost 1,900 titles [14] (most of these are print books, not e-books), while the library of Cambridge University itself – hardly to be accused of falling for trickery and not recognising its own publisher – has over 5,000 [15] (a third of which are physical copies). Of course, being available in academic libraries doesn't guarantee reliability, but the numbers above indicate we're not seeing merely the examples of sporadic flotsam and jetsam that big libraries like to keep. Those arguing that the publisher is obviously unreliable, or that it is spamvanwhatever, should really provide evidence for those assertions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  If you want to make a case for the reliability for this or that book published by them, go ahead. But the default position for a vanity publisher with poor editorial oversight should be against inclusion. Reyk _YO! 22:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  As someone new to the discourse on this particular publisher, I see a lot of assertions that they *are* "a vanity publisher with poor editorial oversight", and relatively little to back that up, other than a seeming implicit conviction that this is self-evident. Ford MF (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  So...a publisher that solicits non-qualified "academics" for publication and then charges them for publication is what, exactly? Also please feel free to identify their editorial board. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  https://cambridgescholars[.]com/pages/meet-our-editorial-advisors. Ford MF (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also, where is the source for your assertion that its portfolio consists of unqualified writers? And why is academics in quotation marks? Ford MF (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Have you read any of the sources linked in the article about CSP? It's pretty adequately covered there. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Praxidicae, if there is any source about the claim that CSP charge authors for publication, then please provide it. I don't see that in any of the sources I've checked. – Uanfala (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have! As far as I can tell there are only two references in the entire article that support the "predatory" label. One is the beallslist.net reference, and the other is the guy who runs Flaky Academic Journals dot blogspot dot com. The Flaky Academic Journals guy ... I mean, okay. Some guy with a blogspot made one post about this five years ago, but more recent posts from bloggers of seeming equal standing seem to represent an opinion contrary to this. The beallslist thing is interesting to me! But 1) it looks like the list itself is not without detractors, and CSP was anonymously added to it as an addendum after the original list was abandoned by Jeffrey Beall, *and* even if Jeffrey Beall did think CSP sucked, there is no evidence he thought those titles should not be carried as part of a reputable academic collection. And in fact, as demonstrated above, very reputable and notable academic librarians *do* believe that a non-trivial number of CSP publications belong in their collection. Ford MF (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Again, if you want to make a case for the reliability of some individual book, go ahead. It is, however, not possible to say, "It's in CSP therefore it is reliable". The default position should be that it is questionable at best. Reyk _YO! 23:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Can you explain why this is the default position? So far I do not see you making any argument or listing any criteria for this assessment. You've made a claim that the press is "predatory" and "vanity", and implicitly that that means citations from these works should be unilaterally deleted from the project, and imho the onus is not on others to mount a counter-argument to this when the claimant(s) have not in fact mounted any argument at all, only simply repeated the original claims as if they were already established as true. Ford MF (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Because CSP is a vanity press and utter garbage. See all previous discussions, Beall's list, flaky journals, etc. And on Wikipedia, when we encounter a garbage source, the default is to exclude it, unless it can be shown to not be garbage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. If someone reads through all those previous discussions and still comes to the conclusion that CSP is reliable then nothing will ever convince them otherwise. Fortunately, WP:CONSENSUS is policy. Reyk _YO! 00:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Making decisions by consensus is policy. Asserting that your position is the consensus one without some independent demonstration of this is not a policy as far as I'm aware. The closer [ie the decider of consensus] is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument. WP:DISCARD There are by my count three people on this thread advancing the position "CSP is a predatory vanity press" (with the implication that citations for works from this press should by default be disallowed) but I do not see one single argument made in support of that position, only insistence that the position is prima facie true, or insistence that the position has already reached consensus in this or that other place, like the princess continually being in another castle. And there are two editors who seem to disagree with this position and/or believe that he burden of proof is on the people making the claim, and that has not been satisfied. This does not look like consensus to me. Other folks may feel otherwise. Ford MF (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's clear that you're determined that CSP should be treated as a priori reliable, the same way that Cambridge University Press, or Springer, or Addison-Wesley are respected academic publishers. My position is that the deliberately misleading name raises questions about their academic integrity, that actual academics in a good position to judge have verifiably described them as sketchy, that there are numerous documented instances of poor quality control, and that they are not up-front with authors about how little quality control they do. All these concerns have been brought up in the previous discussions linked to by Headbomb. Why are you so eager to dismiss them? The current status quo here on Wikipedia is that CSP is not super trustworthy, IMO correctly, and if you think they are suddenly legit then you need to make that case. Reyk _YO! 00:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  • My position is that the deliberately misleading name ... I disagree that the publisher's name is admissible as evidence of the publisher's quality one way or the other. The website claims the company was founded, in Cambridge, by lecturers from Cambridge U -- literally, Cambridge Scholars -- and I haven't seen anyone disprove or even question this, just a lot of people assuming, as you seem to be doing here, that the name has nefarious intent.
  • actual academics in a good position to judge have verifiably described them as sketchy There seem to be other academics, in equivalently good position, who do not agree with this assessment.
  • Numerous documented instances of poor quality control Definitely agree it looks like they've published a couple of crappy books over the years.
  • They are not up-front with authors about how little quality control they do. I do not see the source of this claim in the discussions above?
  • The current status quo here on Wikipedia is that CSP is not super trustworthy again, there is a repeated insistence that this consensus already exists and has been decided previously, when I do not feel like any of the referenced conversations demonstrate this at all.

  Ford MF (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I also feel like you are proposing an entirely false binary here in which there exist no scholarly presses between Lulu[.]com and Springer Verlag, and every press must be one or the other. I am not trying to argue that this press deserves a position among Springer, AW, CUP, etc etc. As a former academic-book-biz guy in a past life, I think it's safe to say they'd be pretty far down on my list when it came time to place orders. I *do* however disagree that the correct response in the project to an obviously not A-list publisher is for citations to be default deleted on sight. Ford MF (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  There exists presses in between. CSP is, however, on the Lulu side of things, not on the CUP/Springer side of things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I take your response to mean you are applying no independent criteria of your own or the project's, and are using those of Beall's list and the flaky journals guy as proxies here. That's reasonable! You can't do direct due diligence on everything personally. But I think I have clearly described why neither of these sources seem like open and shut cases to me (reasonable people seem to disagree about Beall's list, CSP wasn't even on it until anonymous inclusion fairly recently, the Flaky blog guy article is pretty old), especially when measured against the countervailing opinions here (other, more positive blogs; reputable academic libraries holding sizeable amounts of CSP in circulation; reputable review organizations like Norwegian Scientific Index changing their rating of the press). So you keep repeating "vanity press" and "garbage" without making reference to any criteria the could be reviewed or falsified, and, well, I don't think it's surprising that other people might not find this a persuasive argument? (Or an argument at all?) Ford MF (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Have you read any of the previous discussions? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have any arguments to make other than to tell me that in some vague and nonspecific place, someone else makes an argument to justify your claims? Ford MF (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  The discussions are linked above. There is nothing vague or unspecific about them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Publishers are one component of evaluating a reliable source. Look at the author, editors, etc. What kind of claim is being made? Is it controversial? Generally opposed to any mass removal based just on publisher without an evaluation of the actual source in context, and generally opposed to proposals to consider a book publisher unreliable without a systematic evaluation of the kind/quality of content they publish. A predatory publisher (and there is a wide spectrum of "predatory") is a red flag, but isn't itself completely disqualifying. Some predatory publishers are the equivalent of just being self-published (and not less than self-published), but there are many flavors/degrees. Meh. Default to standard editing practices like BRD and ONUS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • No, with real predatory publishers, and real vanity publishers, whatever "real" is here, it should be the other way around: discredited until a particular article/book by a particular scholar can be deemed acceptable. So, I'll accept this Mellen book on Beowulf for a variety of reasons that I could explain. But in general, a publisher that produces this should not be taken seriously--until proven otherwise. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Sure, when challenged, the onus is always on those who want to include a source to argue that it's reliable for that particular use (and otherwise justify inclusion), but we need a clear consensus about unreliability to remove just based on the publisher -- unreliability, not just predatory. The latter just means it's on a spectrum between WP:SPS and rigorous review/oversight, with the "real" ones at or near the former, but that whatever "real" is here is a toughy, and it seems too often the spectrum is collapsed to a binary. These conversations often look like we're talking about publishers known for false/misleading information, not ones that simply tend towards the WP:SPS side of the spectrum. CSP may be well on that SPS side, but that doesn't mean it's "discredited"; it means it's self-published. Self-published sources aren't discredited; based on the author, for example, there are plenty of times when we use them. They're just not sufficiently reliable for most purposes. Maybe we're getting into semantics with that distinction, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• I looked at all the linked discussions, and I have some thoughts about CSP (none of them are very good), but I fail to see that any of the discussions came to a clear consensus that CSP is an unreliable vanity press. And without that, we're kind of putting the cart before the horse. First we need clarity here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  CSP is a vanity press. Their model is to have authors write whatever they want, conduct no review, offer no little-to-no editing services, and then charges universities and random suckers for those books. They've repeatedly published fringe nonsense, (example, example), or straight up copies of Wikipedia content example). They are listed by the two main freely available sources on predatory nonsense, Beall's list (now maintained by someone who isn't Beall), and Flaky Journals. Their books are widely condemned in review, which specifically call out the practices of CSP (e.g. "the absence of an editorial board has clearly failed to guide the author in the preparation of his publication". Library Guides specifically call out CSP as a publisher to avoid [16]. Or entire book chapters, from ISBN 9783838211992. If CSP isn't a vanity press and a garbage tier publisher, no one is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  The Flaky Journals blog [17], though critical of CSP, does not characterise them as predatory. Your last link (the bit form the Scopus diaries) is also worth reading: it's explicit that vanity or predatory publishers are a lower tier than CSP, and it characterises CSP's drawback in not conferring a great deal of academic prestige.

  Their books are widely condemned in review? Well, I've had a look. Here's quotes from the reviews I checked (all except 4 (3 were excluded because of genre (popular science, memoirs), and 1 because it was as dry overview without a quotable conclusion):

  1. Di Rocco, Concezio (2019-11-01). "R. Shane Tubbs, J. Iwanaga, M. Loukas, R. J. Oskouian (Eds): Clinical anatomy of the ligaments of the craniocervical junction". Child's Nervous System. 35 (11): 2241–2241. doi:10.1007/s00381-019-04261-6. ISSN 1433-0350. "the book is a precious contribution to the understanding of all aspects of the craniocervical junction which should not only be part of the armamentarium of the neurosurgeon involved in clinical practice but also of the students and neurosurgeons in training"
  2. Carey, Peter (2021). "Manual of Bone Marrow Examination by Anwarul Islam (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020; ISBN 978-1-5275-5890-8)". British Journal of Haematology. 193 (5): 1016–1016. doi:10.1111/bjh.17400. ISSN 1365-2141. "an excellent teaching resource for every haematology department"
  3. Kapparis, Konstantinos (2019). "Isaeus' On the Estate of Pyrrhus (Oration 3). Edited by Rosalia Hatzilambrou. (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2018. Pp. 283. $119.95.)". Historian. 81 (4): 727–729. doi:10.1111/hisn.13286. ISSN 1540-6563. "an outstanding accomplishment containing reliable, informative, and thorough accounts of textual, linguistic, and stylistic matters, as well as the legal issues, the background, the protagonists, and the build-up of the case"
  4. Farrell Moran, Seán (2016). "The Impact of World War One on Limerick. By Tadhg Moloney. (Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013. Pp. xii, 209. $75.99.)". Historian. 78 (1): 166–167. doi:10.1111/hisn.12142. ISSN 1540-6563. "Although the author has done much homework, his thesis, as suggestive as it is, remains underdeveloped"
  5. Spicher, Michael (2019). "AAGAARD-MOGENSEN, LARS and JAN FORSEY, eds. On Taste: Aesthetic Exchanges. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019, 150 pp., 4 b&w illus., £58.99 cloth". The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 77 (3): 349–351. doi:10.1111/jaac.12655. ISSN 1540-6245. "Overall, [the book] offers insightful discussions about taste to help bring it back onto the fore. I would recommend anyone interested in aesthetics to read this collection as an entry point into recent thought about taste"
  6. McClain, Aleksandra (2016). "From West to East: Current Approaches to Medieval Archaeology by Scott D. Stull, ed. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014. 275 pp". American Anthropologist. 118 (2): 457–458. doi:10.1111/aman.12571. ISSN 1548-1433. "Several papers, including the editor's own, offer strong, original scholarship [...] but a few are disappointingly underdeveloped in comparison", "while problems with individual papers mar the consistent academic quality of the volume, I nevertheless commend Stull on having the ambition to plan the conference and produce this book"
  7. Liu, Yi; Afzaal, Muhammad (2022). "100 Years of conference interpreting: A legacy. Edited by Kilian G. Seeber, Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Newcastle upon Tyne, 2021, Price: £64.99, 242 pp. ISBN: 1-5275-6719-2". International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 32 (2): 349–352. doi:10.1111/ijal.12406. ISSN 1473-4192. "this volume provides a novel and convincing reference in the field of conference interpreting, and is therefore a valuable read for interpreting students, trainers, researchers and other stakeholders"
  8. Wallis, Patrick (2021). "Andrea Caracausi, Matthew Davies, and Luca Mocarelli, eds., Between regulation and freedom: work and manufactures in European cities 14th–18th centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2018. Pp. xiii+146. ISBN 1-5275-0638-X Hbk. £58.99)". The Economic History Review. 74 (1): 299–300. doi:10.1111/ehr.13059. ISSN 1468-0289. "the volume collectively makes a valuable contribution to our appreciation of the complexity and heterogeneity of economic regulation"

  Of these 8 reviews, 6 are entirely positive, and 2 offer criticisms. – Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Reviews are going to give a biased sample of CSP's output, because only the books that people found interesting enough to review will have any. XOR'easter (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Of course, as with any other reivews. But what's the relevance of that here? If someone wants to do a big analysis and look at the proportion of reviewed CSP books vs. the total published and then compare that with the same ratio for benchmark publishers, sure: that will be useful. But in the context of this discussion – where the baseline question is whether CSP books are unadulterated crap that should be automatically removed from articles – I think it was useful to point out that there were plenty of reviews of those books in the best journals and that most of those reviews were positive. – Uanfala (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose a blanket removal, but recommend a "use with caution" guideline per WP:MREL. Some of the authors published by CSP are respectable academics in their fields with other publications from reliable publishers written by them. As such, WP:SPS's guideline seems like a good fit here. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Further, some of the books have been reviewed in reliable secondary sources. So, I think each source needs to be scrutinized individually for reliability with particular attention given to the book's author and their background. Removing content on mass without taking the time to examine each source and its author is not the responsible way to handle this issue, and seems WP:POINTY.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose blanket removal, recommend "use with caution". Various publication level rankings (Norwegian, Finnish) list the venue as an acceptable quality scientific publication venue, albeit with an imperfect history. This alone gives me much pause about a blanket ban. Above descriptions about the publishers being predatory also seems confusing, given that the venue does not appear to charge Article Publishing Charges based on their FAQ. As per the above descriptions re: the Beall's List entry (anonymous, added after Beall's involvement), I'm not terribly convinced by that argument either. Given further that WP:SPS allows for the use of pretty much anything from an established subject matter expert, a blanket removal seems unwarranted. That said, the spotty history clearly warrants a case-by-case review of any sources used. -Ljleppan (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment In addition to what I wrote above, I'll note that this RFC fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL rather spectacularly. Ljleppan (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Cambridge Scholars Press is not someone I'd consider an acceptable academic publisher - so what that means is that I would try to avoid citing anything published by them, as I have no confidence that their peer review process has been sufficiently robust to detect material which has errors, is not accurate or which is fraudulent in nature (as evidenced by some of the material they have published, including material plagiarised from Wikipedia). I would also not use the company as a publishing house for my own work, because I cannot trust what other works may appear alongside our own, and obviously if I consider it to be problematic, people would question anything I publish there.
  Books published by CSP primarily, from what I can see, are typically submitted via the CSP route for two reasons, firstly they're submitted there to satisfy funding requirements (as is the case with books and articles published via Wiley, Elsevier and others, of course) but they have a strong reputation in academic circles as a publisher of last resort - if you can't get a book into a more prestigious publishing house or journal series, then CSP will take it and it'll technically tick off a deliverable so you don't lose funding or have someone chasing you to return part of a grant. Secondly, almost all of us are vain and want to publish - for many fields, that involves doing an experiment or undertaking a project, generating data, processing that data and generating results, which are then discussed. That's the broad outline for a journal article. There are many fields where research doesn't work like that and a book is the logical outcome, particularly where your research is one contiguous body of work during a PhD or for a number of years post-doctorate, unfortunately for a number of people with such contiguous projects, their work will generally be of interest to a small number of people and publishing via an accepted academic publisher (Wiley or others) will not be possible (that isn't a comment on the value or importance of the work, just a reflection on what the large publishing houses will accept because it makes them money). I say this as it explains the peer review issues - if you can't get a conventional publisher interested in your book because of audience limitation issues, it's going to be very difficult to find reviewers who are capable of a proper peer review of your material, which risks absolute drivel making it onto the market. It's also worth noting, the presence of CSP material in university libraries is no indicator of their reliability - most university libraries will purchase material at the behest of students - I drop a request into our library every year or so for a new book either I would like to read, or which I think will benefit our students. I note a comment about CSP and the University of Cambridge Library - it's worth a reminder that the University of Cambridge Library is a deposit library and can receive at no cost any books published in the UK that it wishes - it does not necessarily mean the University of Cambridge Library or students from Cambridge have asked for/purchased CSP books.
  I'd therefore have to agree with the "use with caution" suggestion - there will be a number of authors with CSP who have been forced to publish there by circumstance, and there will be little wrong with their work, but similarly, there's a lot of authors who will make use of CSP's tendency to accept anything with no real oversight, which would obviously preclude its use going unchecked. Nick (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Never use. Reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, etc.; this publisher has a reputation as shite. No source from it can give confidence that WP:V is being satisfied. Anything worthy of inclusion will be covered in decent sources; use then instead. If not, the material will not be the kind of “accepted knowledge” Wikipedia must reflect. Alexbrn (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose blanket removal, support replacing with better sources. I looked at a few random articles with references to CSP and I didn't see any problems requiring a purge. Tagging with {{bettersourceneeded}} would be a good idea. Alaexis_¿question? 11:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Drive by tagging while keeping the sources in never works, it will just stay there forever, just ask @David Gerard:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion it's not a positive example. Alaexis_¿question? 17:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Never use If there are clearly reliable sources supporting the text you are trying to source, use that. If there aren't any other than a CSP source you shouldn't be adding the text. One book from a dubious publisher isn't enough.
• Comment. I did what several folks insisted on and read the previous discussions. None of them established a consensus that CSP is unreliable; most of them weren't even really about CSP. Let's put a pin in that claim--CSP may be unreliable, but this is the first discussion where that question is squarely presented and proceeding as though that's already the case is not accurate. Mackensen (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• CSP can be a reliable source as demonstrated by reviews from the academic community, eg:

  "In sum, From West to East provides a compact, but very readable overview of approaches to medieval archaeology practised in North America." Kerr, Sarah (January 2016). "From West to East. Current Approaches to Medieval Archaeology". Medieval Archaeology. 60 (1): 185–185. doi:10.1080/00766097.2016.1147856.

  "the volume is a worthwhile read and valuable resource that paves the way to refine the studies on this, without doubt, an exceedingly promising multidisciplinary topic." Basik, Sergei (19 October 2020). "Naming, identity and tourism: edited by Luisa Caiazzo, Richard Coates and Maoz Azaryahu, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020, 233 pp., ₤ 61.99 (hardcover), ISBN 978-1-5275-4286-0". Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism. 20 (5): 540–542. doi:10.1080/15022250.2020.1853603.

  "Overall, this is an interesting take on a fairly well-covered topic. It brings to light some hitherto neglected sources and provides some useful insights" Doney, Jonathan (4 March 2022). "For God and country: Butler's 1944 Education Act, by Elizabeth 'Libi' Sundermann: Elizabeth 'Libi' Sundermann, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015, xii + 151 pp., £41.99 (hardback), ISBN 978-1-44-388383-2". History of Education. 51 (2): 304–306. doi:10.1080/0046760X.2020.1825834.,

  "the book serves as a door opener to the ceramic traditions of Europe and opens up further reading due to interesting articles as well as rich reference lists" Eigeland, Lotte; Solheim, Steinar (10 September 2010). "Dragos Gheorghiu (ed.): Early Farmers, Late Foragers, and Ceramic Traditions: On the Beginning of Pottery in the Near East and Europe". Norwegian Archaeological Review. 43 (1): 86–89. doi:10.1080/00293651003798846.

Richard Nevell (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it can be reliable. Much like vixra or the Daily Mail can be reliable. However, when we don't have these positives reviews, CSP books are not reliable. That's no different than any other vanity presses out there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source that describes CSP as a vanity press? Richard Nevell (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

See book chapters, from ISBN 9783838211992. They don't explicitly list CSP as a vanity press, but press much say you should only publish with them if you're comfortable publishing in a vanity press. Alternatively, this library guide, which goes further and labels them predatory. Again, the model of CSP is to publish pretty much anything they can with little regards to what it is they publish. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Headbomb, the chapter you've linked has two things to say about CSP: 1) that publishing there isn't going to earn you the respect of fellow academics, and 2) that vanity presses have lower academic prestige than the likes of CSP. I really don't know how that text made you conclude that CSP are described there as a vanity press, when in fact the opposite is the case. The library guide you link only quotes an email sent by CSP as an example of a "predatory conference letter" without giving further commentary. That's a bit odd to begin with (the email is clearly soliciting book proposals, not advertising conferences), but the characterisation as predatory is incorrect. Yes, CSP have been criticised for their unselective solicitation emails (a practice in common with actual predatory publishers), but they themselves are not predatory (because they don't charge authors), that much I thought had already been established in this discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Predatory encompasses a spectrum of terrible practices. Spamming emails is one of them, because they're preying on the young and foolish to submit their work for free, so Cambridge can exploit these people and make money off their back. They're a print-on-demand vanity press. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

In that case I would recommend not pushing beyond the bounds of what reliable sources say. On the subject of whether CSP is predatory this article in Science as Culture is an interesting read. My own view is that the situation is not as black and white as you are presenting it. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a damning picture of CSP. High-volume with little-to no review output to maximize profits, spamming campaigns (but it's nice, personalized spam!), specifically reaching out to people who wouldn't be able to publish fringe viewpoints anywhere else. These all the characteristics of a well-organized vanity press. It's only better than Lambert because CSP is better organized and better at PR. Note that the article specifically is less concerned "... judging the quality of the monographs Lambert and CSP were publishing than in their negotiation of existing credibility economies, with the elite university presses at their apex". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

In one instance an academic listed on a CSP editorial board replied to insist that she did not know she was listed as an editor. Whoops. XOR'easter (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

In my experience they're not even that careful with their personalised spam. I once received an unsolicited email from them in which they got both my first name and employer wrong, quite the howler as my email address at the time was firstname.j.lastname@institute.com, asking me to contribute something quite outside my area. They're sloppy, period. I have tried over the years to defend this encyclopedia from those who want to turn it into viXra with a side of TVTropes, but I think I'm done. I have other things I want to be doing and it no longer seems worth the effort, especially seeing a few editors who really ought to know better defending this manipulative garbage. If that's how it's going to be then I'm outta here. Reyk _YO! 01:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh they're not. It's a spam operation after all. I'm just going by what the source said. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Reyk: I think most editors here harbor similar feelings towards CSP and their likes as you do. At least speaking for myself, I have no inclination whatsoever to defend CSP or their unethical practices. I just don't think immorality is inherited, so to speak: it's not because some scholars who-knows-for-what-reason have published there that their work should automatically be discarded and ignored. More importantly for Wikipedia, that work may be of very high quality, and there are certainly some cases where it would constitute a major loss not to cite it. We need to look to reliability as such first, not morality. I just hope that even if you don't agree, you don't let this drive you away. We are by and large on the same side here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Question: why not treat as self-published? I've occasionally come over this publisher when following citations and bibliographies in high-quality sources, and my impression is that competent scholars do sometimes publish there. For example, this is mainly authored by top scholars, this is also good quality, and this contains contributions by absolute top scholars like G. E. R. Lloyd, as well as lesser stars like Helen King or Mario Vegetti, who are still scholars of the highest rank. This is not like a news source where authors are anonymous: apart from the publisher, there is also the scholar and their academic reputation to take into account. It's also probably not a coincidence that I just named three edited volumes: these by definition have editorial oversight. Use with caution, certainly, but outright banning seems like a bad idea. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Add as this seems to be a separate issue: also oppose blanket or semi-automated removal, per the arguments of Visviva and No such user below. It's tempting to just remove everything published by a company whose practices are unethical, but when one is not engaging with the content the reference is supposed to verify, it's far too easy to break text-source integrity, and it's too difficult to fully anticipate other negative consequences which may not outweigh the advantage gained by removing an unethical publisher. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  No one is proposing outright banning. Like with any other vanity press, when a CSP book is accompanied by a positive review, it can be used as a reliable SPS source. Absent of those, CSP books are inadequate as sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, a positive review would be a very good indication that a SPS or equivalent is reliable. But why require it? In my experience, the status of the scholar in their field is a far more important indicator for reliability than the reputation of the publisher. On the other hand, not every high-quality volume gets reviewed. For example, of the three books I mentioned above, I found (very) positive reviews for the first two ([18] for [19] and [20] for [21]), but for the third one –arguably the one with the best scholars– I did not find a review. Should we treat a book chapter by someone like G. E. R. Lloyd (please have a look at where he usually publishes) as unreliable because it has a bad publisher and there happens to be no review? I at least think we shouldn't. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  Because vanity presses are crap and are by definition not reliable (which is different than being guaranted to be wrong). It's the same if a 'good' scholar publishes in predatory journal. They've dodged the reviewing process, and they don't get a free pass. See WP:VANPRED#Use in the real world vs use on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  I find it by no means credible that the three volumes I cited above were dodging peer-review. As edited volumes, they also enjoyed at least some form of editorial oversight. This is simply not vanity publishing: all of the scholars involved could easily have published elsewhere, and have in fact done so often (again, see here). The positive reviews also indicate that. This all rather shows that CSP cannot be treated as predatory without a case-by-case evaluation. Speaking of evaluation, the essay you're citing is using self-published primary sources to prove a point that editors can't evaluate any self-published sources without engaging in original research... But here on this noticeboard we are going to evaluate (secondary) sources, and as many have pointed out above, the publisher is only one factor in the equation. As someone also said above, we should avoid putting the cart before the horse. Let's first see whether CPS is a vanity press, shall we? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose blanket removal. I don't see CSB as being in anyway different from self-published sources, which may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. The discussion has proven that CSB occasionally publishes works that qualify as reliable sources either because written by well-reputed academics or because accepted as valuable scientific contributions by the academic community; there's no reason for removing them for the sole reason that they were published by CSB. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose blanket removal - I'm not convinced that this publisher is as some have claimed in blanket statements relative to predatory, unreliable, etc. It would be wonderful if all publishers had experts in every field of academia comprising their editorial boards, and while we strive for RS, it's rather ironic that WP itself is considered an unreliable source - in part, because of perceived systemic biases. CSB states on their about page: We are proud of our reputation for author satisfaction. The publishing process should be a rewarding experience. There is no cost to our authors/editors to publish. We offer complimentary copies, a substantial author discount, and a generous royalty scheme. Atsme 💬 📧 15:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose blanket removal The sources given above seem to be quite clear in showing that CSP does publish valuable academic books (even if it's despite themselves, rather than because of themselves). And the repeated attempts above to claim them as a vanity publisher and then, when that statement is refuted by actual sources directly saying they're not as bad as that, the original people making the vanity claim then not responding or addressing those sources makes said original claimants look like they're purposefully trying to avoid engaging with the subject and are on the verge of lying. Clearly, this is not a vanity publisher, it is not a predatory publisher, it's open publishing blatantly just makes it fall under self-published sources and any books from it should be treated as such around the importance of the author. Silverseren^C 17:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose removal to echo User:Alaexis above. I agree that {{better source needed}} should be added instead of removal with |reason= "Cambridge Scholars is considered unreliable per WP:RSN" or something similar. To address the counterarguments: regardless of whether the page editors address the tag in a timely manner or not, it's there for the reader to see if they are verifying content. Even though it appears that Headbomb is only removing Cambridge Scholars material in multi-sourced contexts, that is still problematic if the remainirial is not checked that it is still verified in the remaining source, and there is no tag like {{please verify that I didn't remove something important because I'm too busy to do it myself}} Sorry to editorialize but that does reflect my interpretation sometimes.) I don't get the edit-warring either -- One thing this page teaches is that the reliability of sources needs to be interpreted in context, so if the editors who have been maintaining a page for months disagree with your agnostic source removal, maybe they have a reason, and picking a fight over an article you haven't read maybe isn't the most constructive use of everyone's time. Of course that is an entirely separate issue from whether Cambridge Scholars should have different considerations as far as reliability, but apparently we're trying to have both conversations at once here. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Treat as self-published. Which in most cases should mean removal as unreliable, but we can use it if we can determine that the author is an established subject-matter expert. Why an established subject-matter expert would be using such a publisher, rather than just directly self-publishing if self-publishing is what they want, is another question, but not one we need to answer here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Treat as self-published and go ahead with blanket removal, restoring on a case-by-case basis when an argument can be made to do so. {{better source needed}} tags hang around and don't get resolved until somebody pushes. XOR'easter (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Other relevant past discussions: a failed Featured Article nomination where CSP was called a quite dodgy publisher that is just this side of self-publishing; a deletion debate where the closer wrote that they ave an extremely poor reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight and are on some versions of Beall's List so this source is marginal at best. In this discussion, which also ended in a delete, the possibility was raised that they've made some sort of bulk e-book deal for academic libraries which ends up boosting their WorldCat holdings numbers. XOR'easter (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose blanket removal, but "use with caution" sounds about right, based on the edifying discussions above. Regarding removals, with respect to the edits that led to this RFC, I think it's worth noting that even when multiple citations appear after a statement, it can't be assumed that all of them support all of the statement. There are all sorts of common scenarios where this isn't the case -- classic citation overkill where it may turn out that none of the sources cited fully support the statement, or where only one of them turns out to; a compound sentence where the sources each support different parts of the sentence; a source added by a well-intentioned editor to support their edit but without removing the previous source that no longer supports the sentence; etc. (None of those are best practices, but they happen all the time.) Ultimately questions like "is this citation load-bearing? can it be relied on in this particular context for this particular statement? even if it is reliable and load-bearing, can we replace it with something better?" can only be addressed by engaging in depth with the sources and subject matter of that specific article. There are no rule-based shortcuts. -- Visviva (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Treat as self-published. I came here following a brief edit-war with Headbomb on Othonoi. [22] is probably a typical case: there's a citation to a Greek-language journal accompanied by a citation to an English-language book published in CSP by the same authors, conveniently available on GBooks and easy to verify. Blanket removal of CSP books written by scholarly authors is disruptive, and publisher is only one factor to consider the source's reliability. No such user (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose automated removal, treat as self-published although I'm a bit late in "voting", due to the number of concerns raised by other editors, it is clear to me that any automated removal does not consitute due diligence. Even removing CSP sources where another source is provided seems unneccessary - variations on "it's garbage", with little to back up such strong language, are not enough to justify any contentious action on Wikipedia. CSP is not unreliable per se, arguments for which have been expounded at length above. Additionally, due to the changing (and possibly improving) situation with regard to editorial practices, deprecation or any blanket statement of unreliability requires stronger and more recent evidence than has been provided. Toadspike (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support blanket removal vanity press, etc yes, but if we can't find better sources than that's a basic problem that means the text probably shouldn't be there anyway. This means removal would require searching for a better source. Doug Weller talk 08:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal and prohibit it, unequivocally useless and unreliable Totally agree with above users that it is vanity press. Have seen multiple promotional junk about Indian cults from this publisher on Wikipedia.--Venkat TL (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support blanket removal and general unreliability. CSP is a vanity press, which is a type of self-published source. AKK700 01:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Blanket mass removal was inappropriate. It is clearly not a vanity press, and doesn't even fall within the criteria for a predatory press, since it doesn't charge authors. On the other hand, it appears to be willing to publish almost anything, with minimal editorial oversight. So it should not be regarded as an academic publisher. Its books should be treated on a case-by-case basis on the same criteria as a WP:SPS, based on the specific proposed use and context. Banks Irk (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Cuepoint Medium publication reliability

There has been some disagreement over whether the Medium music publication Cuepoint, which is edited by Jonathan Shecter, directly owned by (the platform) Medium itself, and routinely featured a column by longtime music journalist Robert Christgau, is considered a reliable source. This was most recently raised at Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/1989 (Taylor Swift album)/addition1. This publication does not have an entry at WP:RSMUSIC nor RSP. The publication appears to have gone dormant in 2016 but is routinely used in Taylor Swift related articles.

Is Cuepoint a reliable source for music industry coverage?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey (Cuepoint)

• Optoin 2. Reasoning below. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2: usability depends on the writer (and the fact/opinion being cited). The column by Christgau is definitely a reliable source. For other authors, take a look at their other writing background (e.g. on MuckRack). If they're even just a little-known reviewer who has written for sources that would be reliable for the information you're trying to cite, I'd take it as reliable. That Shecter edits Cuepoint counts for something. — Bilorv (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2, mostly per previous respondents that it depends on the reviewer's qualifications. Medium is generally unreliable, per RSP, As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. I don't see clear editorial policies here, but I think (I don't know much about the music industry, so sorry) the well-known journalist Robert Christgau is a very famous subject-matter expert and is probably reliable (Option 1). Others who apeeared in credible journalist outlets or other RS are IMO generally reliable (but I think better refs could be found, still, it's passable). Looking at the prose quality, there are long, detailed articles, but also short, maybe superficial articles, and they could rely a lot on Twitter and other social media posts. Contrasting with this, niche reviewers and contributors that hasn't written much in other RS would probably be considered generally unreliable (Option 3) IMO. VickKiang (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2. There is no consensus on the reliability of Cuepoint. AKK700 01:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2. Seems to be the better point that fit this example. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Cuepoint)

• I believe Cuepoint can be used sparsely. Robert Christgau is a very regarded music journalist, so basically, anything he says goes. So if they have an article written by someone that has a journalism degree and/or has written for other publications it will be fine to use. However, if none of these conditions are met the article is better not used, as Medium is deemed as an unreliable source and Cupoint belongs to it. However, some pieces are written by musicians, such as Mark Ronson, which seem fine, at first glance, to use as he discusses his personal experience with George Michael, but it shouldn't be used to give a certain song(s) a review. It should be used like Sound on Sound is used and other magazines alike. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  @MarioSoulTruthFan: Thank you for your explanation. Just to clarify, "Medium is deemed as an unreliable source" because it can be used to publish your own blog (etc). The difference here though is that this publication on medium had reputable editorial control and appears to fall outside of the WP:MEDIUM RSP entry's coverage area. It is "self-published" in the same (philosophical) way that The New York Times or Rolling Stone are -- it simply isn't the same thing as the Medium entry's coverage. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I forgot to add this in but it is a key point that just dawned on me. An analogy here is how WordPress is considered unreliable but sites running WordPress can be (i.e. Variety, Global News, and Time). WordPress -- or Medium in this case -- is just the platform. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I see. But is also deemed as unreliable as it is a mirror source, so it copies from other sources and publishes those articles as if they were their originals. Nevertheless, the other conditions are still the same. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  @MarioSoulTruthFan: I am confused. What is considered a mirror source? Where did you see that/get that from? I don’t see that listed at the RSP entries for either WordPress or Medium? TheSandDoctor (mobile) (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm saying it is a mirror website, it copies articles from other websites. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Like all sources...WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - and they do have some expert authors writing material, but keep the following in mind: their website: We’re an open platform where over 100 million readers come to find insightful and dynamic thinking. Here, expert and undiscovered voices alike dive into the heart of any topic and bring new ideas to the surface. Our purpose is to spread these ideas and deepen understanding of the world. They are as much a RS as is WP. Atsme 💬 📧 03:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Highly recommended: User:Headbomb/unreliable and User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js. You may not have to come here as often. Atsme 💬 📧 03:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Atsme: Again, these are two different things as I've already explained. This is for the Cuepoint publication that happens to be on the website Medium (see my above comments) but has reputable editorial control etc. as already described; this is not for the entirety of Medium and is a very specific question/scope. This essentially makes the website page you linked to moot/not relevant. I am also aware of Headbomb's script and use it, but I came here with this RfC because others had raised a point worth considering and isn't covered by Headbomb's script per se; this was also filed for the benefit of resolving a dispute that was ongoing (to which I was not an involved party). It doesn't really matter to me which way this goes, I just don't like seeing things misunderstood in the backstory and question being asked (that I thought was extremely straightforward) and work to get us all on the same page. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Understood, but please consider the following: To contribute, please email your Medium “draft link” or published piece to our EIC: shecky@cuepointmusic.com. Shecky is also the Director of Programming for the Wynn in Las Vegas. Cuepoint EIC is not his dedicated position in life. Look at the long list of contributors on their about page, and compare their writers and format to say...Mojo, Rolling Stone, or Sports Illustrated for example. Frankly, the difference between Cuepoint and the overall Medium site is minimal. A group of Wikipedia editors, a few with some expert credentials or experience in a particular market niche could create a standalone website for their area of interest in much the same way using WP articles to launch it, solicit the contributions of WP editors at the expert level. Would that make it an unquestionable RS? Do you consider the way Cuepoint operates to equal the editorial control of the NYTimes, Time Magazine, a scholarly review, an academic paper or book published by an expert on a particular topic? What is an expert? I think the position I stated above covers my position well because I tend to be more of a skeptic. Oh, and I apologize for not being more clear as to my intentions for including those scripts as they were meant to be for the benefit of anyone who may not be aware of them. Atsme 💬 📧 13:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for clarifying your position and re the scripts comment. I don't dispute your viewpoint, but will just note that a publication asking for pitches isn't that unusual; The Verge does it, as does even The New York Times (both listed as generally reliable at RSP). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of GB News as a source for citations

1. Source in question: https://www.gbnews.uk/
2. Article: GB News

Requesting a consensus be formed with the source being added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with the appropriate Legend upon a consensus being formed. Helper201 (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe that this request is malformed. Please retract this request, read Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief, and then submit a request that is neutral. Also, include what you want to use from the source, and now you want to use it. - Donald Albury 20:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Donald Albury, with all due respect I don't see how I have not already done that. That being said I am open to doing as such if you'd recommend a new wording. Helper201 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm requesting the source be valued as a whole/generally in regards to its suitable as a source of evidence for citations. It seems to be mainly politically focused so I'm guessing that will be the primary subject matter it will be used for. But it’s a news platform so I assume it will have a range of content. Helper201 (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I have not used the source and don't plan on doing so, it’s just I've seen someone else use it for a citation and wanted the source to be evaluated before its use becomes more widespread. Helper201 (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Please read the notice displayed at the top of this page, which gives instructions on how to ask for a consensus on reliability. Context is important. - Donald Albury 20:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I have done so but I honestly don't see what you think is the problem. Please just say exactly and specifically what the issue is and how you want me to change the request or wording to fix it. Helper201 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for barging in, the following information is missing (see the instruction above):

“

Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: Article name.

Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes.

”

Alaexis_¿question? 06:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Regardless of how this is formatted, I think we can be fairly clear that a "news" channel that includes a section called "Wokewatch" [23] is probably going to be generally unreliable for anything to do with politics. Not to mention the presence of Neil Oliver, Darren Grimes, Mark Dolan et al. British version of Fox, effectively. See also the anti-vax fake news links in my post below which suggests to me it should probably be deprecated. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Black Kite Comment If this is a section of a commentary show on the channel – like the commentary shows on Fox, CNN and other American outlets – and not part of its actual news content, then it doesn't necessarily indicate the reliability of the channel's reporting. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  That said, it is presumably at least a rung below more established sources such as the BBC and newspapers such as the Economist and Guardian. thorpewilliam (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable, but its really going to depend on the context. Which is what exactly? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Multiple sources are listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as either "generally unreliable" or "deprecated" without any specific context being given, e.g. Daily Mail, Daily Express etc. Helper201 (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
    • The context is in the linked discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• partisan source, generally unreliable, any syndicated content it carries could maybe be considered on a case by case basis. Acousmana 21:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: A cursory search on Full Fact reveals a number of failed fact checks for GB News (source: https://fullfact.org/search/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%22GB%20News%22). --Minoa (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Minoa, searching for "The Guardian" on Full Facts produces more than 500 results, many of which are also failed fact checks [24]. I don't think that the Guardian is unreliable, so this is not a good way to gauge unreliability. Alaexis_¿question? 07:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  And there are 300+ entries for the Times and Telegraph too. Also, don't forget that a number of fact checks support the news source (indeed the first four Guardian ones that came up for me did). You'd really have to analyse them one by one. However, the noticeable thing about the 42 GB News entries (for a news source that's only been going a year) is that large number of them include fake news being peddled, including dangerous anti-vax stuff i.e. [25] [26] [27] [28] Black Kite (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, this is exactly the kind of analysis that needs to be made to make conclusions. Alaexis_¿question? 08:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I just wanted to try and get the analysis running instead of the RFC being bogged down with whether the request is malformed or not. --Minoa (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable: when a news source is created with the sole intention of "telling you what the mainstream media won’t" or something similar, then that’s an immediate red flag that within hours of launch they’ll go straight to the fake news well (c.f. the Corbynista blogs who tried to argue that February has over 2,000 days, because Steve Walker couldn’t read a WHOIS record properly). The hiring of Andrew Neil was, out of the gate, an attempt to bring some legitimacy to the new channel; once he resigned, the channel quickly devolved into basically the British version of Newsmax. Sceptre (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable: Sources are seemingly about its TV station rather than its website, but: described as "opinion-led" and as "[challenging] to traditional notions of impartial and objective news" by the Reuters Institute (1,2). Also, has been compared to Fox News (1). In fact according to the NYT it was staffed with alumni from Murdoch media ventures (1) around its launch date. --Chillabit (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  Impartiality and objectivity are about bias rather than reliability. Do your sources say that they are unreliable? Alaexis_¿question? 07:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  You have a point, though, if a news org is lead too strongly by its own bias it can affect reliability. The comparison to Fox is not doing any favors for them, either, as Fox are known for that sort of coverage. --Chillabit (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable As it seems (and seems to be regarded as) as a TV version of tabloid churnalism. As to the comnlp;arsion to (sayh) the guardian, GB news has been around for a year, the Guardian fact check page goes back 8 years, of course they will have made more mistakes, 10 a year (as opposed to 70 in its first year). Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, and other sources should be used in preference to it. However, it may be useful within certain contexts - e.g. direct quotes where X said Y on the programme, but even these should be covered by other RS. QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable GBNEWS is a largely opaquely structured and financed, purpose launched station to deliver specific alternative facts against a range of perspectives. As Sceptre states above - it's an OAN and Newsmax, much the way TalkTV is. Most of the noteworthy content it produces will be opinion, which is appropriate for their opinion only but unlikely to carry any significant weight in any serious topic compared to actual reliable sources, and notable experts in those fields. Koncorde (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose classifying as unreliable on procedural grounds. There were 6 !votes and only three sources have been brought up. Of these three, two (Reuters report and Stephen Jukes's book) do not discuss the reliability of GB News and one (Full Fact) requires analysis to understand if the source is better or worse than the average (How many failed fact checks are there? Is the frequency higher or lower than that of other outlets? Were retractions issues? etc.). I don't think I've ever used GB News as a source and I would happily reconsider my vote if there is good evidence of their unreliability. Alaexis_¿question? 07:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Does it matter if some of the fact checks "fail" if a significant number clearly show the station peddling fake news? This isn't just "stories that turned out to be false", it's actively pushing a POV based on lies. Black Kite (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  Other outlets' publications have also failed fact checks, e.g. The Telegraph. This is insufficient to declare all of them unreliable. If you are basing your argument on fact checks, you should at least demonstrate that GBNews are significantly worse than others. Also, it would be good to see the breakdown between the news and opinion as the latter "are rarely reliable for statements of fact" per WP:NEWSORG. Alaexis_¿question? 08:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• You're missing the point. There is a massive difference between a news source that prints/broadcasts a story that is later found to be untrue (and retracts it), and one that regularly prints/broadcasts them knowing them to be false for an ulterior motive. The latter is why the Daily Mail is deprecated, and why GBNews needs to go the same way. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  I understand it very well, however no evidence has been presented in this thread that it "regularly prints/broadcasts [untrue stories] knowing them to be false." Alaexis_¿question? 10:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. Seriously? Anti-knowledge channel of zero use to Wikipedia. Anybody wanting to use this drivel probably needs banning for WP:CIR issues or as a WP:POVPUSHER. Alexbrn (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• GB News is generally unreliable as it is a biased or opiniated source. AKK700 01:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, the channel is a TV version of a tabloid newspaper. No evidence of editorial oversight, it markets itself as opinion led and telling the stories/opinions you don't get to hear. POVpushing. Just because you tell a story or have an opinion not listed elsewhere doesn't mean its correct. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Is 'World Population Review' a reliable source?

World Population Review presumably provides the latest year data for comparison between countries. However, when I come to check their sources, some of them seems to be old or not working.

I am considering it in List of countries by irreligion, which currently has outdated statistics that does not reflect the world. Statistics need to be updated, as recent statistics have more value. [29][30][31]

Therefore, there is a compromise between reliability and latest data. What do you think? zsteve21 (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

No, its a random internet WP:SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

They cite their sources in those maps, so you can cite the sources they cite in a secondary citation: "Pew Research 2020, cited in World Pop Rev".

I'm not sure why zsteve21 says it's random internet SPS without any further explanation -- accepting that prima facie, it is more appropriate to cite sources in a secondary fashion when they are presented this way, even though you could just cite the RS from the website directly; moreover, citing the website in a secondary fashion is certainly better than citing any published source that doesn't cite its sources. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Taking a quick look, I'm not seeing anything that gives me any confidence in World Population Review. There's no "About us" section, so we don't know who they are or if they have any kind of fact-checking operation or even that they're not a one-person operation. Nor am I seeing any reviews of the website by second parties. It's an ad-driven for-profit website. It's not entirely impossible that they have an agenda, since we don't know who they are. Not a usable source IMO. You can't expect the reader to go check our sources sources. Why is "Pew Research 2020, cited in World Pop Rev" better than ""Pew Research 2020"? Herostratus (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Royal Central (cont.)

(Continuation of the discussion here). I'm starting this to reference to the Royal Central discussion a few weeks ago. Having messaged them informing them of the apparent plagiarism, I can report that after 2 weeks (and having returned from holiday), I have received no response from them by email and the offending article still shows the apparent copied Wikipedia content. So I think this does go back to my original question but having read others opinions, I think instead of the full depreciation suggestion, we only depreciate anything written by the journalist/author who wrote the article. I suggest this given the other examples of apparent plagiarism from the writer that were provided by other users in the original discussion. What would people think would be the best way to approach this? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Any thoughts? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what kind of message you sent, but if it took the form of a copyright takedown request (no standard format) then there's no strictly defined timeframe for them to take it down, and though Facebook was apparently penalized for taking 8 days, Microsoft can take weeks (in 2008 at least). The best people to help at this stage might be the WP copyright noticeboard, but there's a backlog. Perhaps the question of reclassifying RC should wait to see how this incident is resolved, or whether it just stays in limbo for a long time. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Mauryan Art (unpublished, 1952) and Flickr picture

• Agrawala, Vasudeva S. (1965), "Mauryan Art", Indian art : a history of Indian art from the earliest times up to the third century A.D., Vishwavidyalaya Prakashan, Varanasi, pp. 56–74, OCLC 475432099 is a collection of papers written earlier by Agrawala. The particular one, "Mauryan Art," is an unpublished one written in 1952.
• A Flickr picture: INDIA 2019 - Sarnath Archaeological Museum Ashokan Lion Capital which shows a 24-spoked wheel surmounting a pillar.

Would either be a reliable source for an edit in which a hand-drawn illustration of a 36-spoked wheel is proposed to be introduced in a Wikipedia article, Lion capital of Ashoka by an editor in this proposal? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

When there's no severe shortage of quality scholarship, as in this case, you should certainly use the guidelines of WP:HISTRS to help evaluate weight. I read the discussion thread and checked out Coningham and Young at least, but they don't mention "spokes" or the number thereof as a descriptor at all, and there a lot of sources that you list that are only in books so is there any in particular that contraindicates the notion that spokes are important (archeologically, not as a modern symbol), or that the number of spokes in the larger wheel was different and that is also important (or even whether pieces of the larger wheel were indeed found)? I would say that even if there's no recent scholarship on precisely contradicting the older works that assert the larger wheel had more spokes, that because we can reasonably assume that a different number of spokes would be a relevant concern to many readers, depicting it in a hand-made image when it is not backed up by modern scholarship is indeed a majorly WP:UNDUE endorsement of old scholarship. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Emblem of the Supreme Court of India.jpg

Official emblem of the Supreme Court of India: the Sarnath pillar with 32 spokes.Annual Report of the Supreme Court of India (2007-2008) (PDF).

@SamuelRiv:@Fowler&fowler: The "32 spokes" of the Lion Capital of Ashoka are indeed mentionned by modern scholarship, so I don't think this should block us from providing a Creative Commons visual reconstitution. And I know of no modern sources contradicting this number: they only sometimes just don't go into such detail in their descriptions. For example:

• "The wheel that once topped the great Ashokan pillar at Sarnath had 32 spokes" in Huntington, John (1990). Understanding the 5th century Buddhas of Sarnath (PDF). p. 90, Fig.8.
• Indian Government communication of 2009, explaining that as early as 1957, the discrepancy between the symbol on the Indian flag (24 spokes) and the topmost wheel at Sarnath (32 spokes) was noted by Mukherjee, and was the object of a letter to Nehru: "We are somewhat concerned to find that our State emblem, known as Ashoka Chakra, is not an accurate replica of the Sarnath pillar ... a charkra of 32 spokes was in the original Ashokan monument, placed on the shoulders of the four lions." (), but Nehru considered the modification unnecessary in his written answer (Biswas, U.N. (2009). "Essential Service Values & Banga" (PDF). Administrative Training Institute, Government of West Bengal: 50–55.).
• "The recovered fragments of Dharmachakra as on the heads of four lions of Sarnath pillar suggest 32 spokes" in Sinha, Nirmal Chandra (1994). Asoka's Dhamma: Testimony of Monuments (PDF). Gangtok, Sikkim: Namgyal Institute of Tibetology. p. 8.
• "The mahdchakra on top of the Sarnath capital also had 32 spokes" Agrawala, Vasudeva S. (1976). The Heritage of Indian Art A Pictorial Presentation. Publications Division Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. p. 51 note 9. ISBN 978-81-230-2290-1.
• The symbol of the Supreme Court of India actually has 32 spokes Supreme Court site[32]Supreme Court commemorative coin 1950-2000[33][34], as explained page 7, and contrary to what is claimed on Wikipedia this file

and many, many others...

Creative Commons reconstitutions of the Sarnath Pillar of Ashoka

I think that the "32 spokes" thing is actually a non-issue and is completely uncontroversial, and should not stop us from providing a visual reconstitution, as already done by scholarly or official sources that I have identified:

• Agrawala, Vasudeva Sharana (1965). Studies In Indian Art. p. 67.
• "Museum notice in the Sarnath Archaeological Museum". 17 February 2019..
  
• Irwin, John (1973). "'Aśokan' Pillars: A Reassessment of the Evidence". The Burlington Magazine. 115 (848): 706 and 720. ISSN 0007-6287.
• Werner, Karel (30 September 2019). Symbols in Art and Religion: The Indian and the Comparative Perspectives. Routledge. p. 97. ISBN 978-1-136-10114-4.
• Annual Report of the Supreme Court of India (2007-2008) (PDF). p. 2.

पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

To future respondents: please note the latter comment was simultaneously posted by User:पाटलिपुत्र to the Lion Capital Talk page thread. I think further discussion regarding archaeology, symbols, and the substance of the claims should be posted on that page, and discussion regarding the suitability of the sources themselves, as well as the proposed photoillustration, for WP, can continue here. SamuelRiv (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem per se with using Agrawala, which has fuller descriptions than most sources, which just mention one aspect of pieces or the period. Yes, it's rather old, but the delay before publication means little. An equally comprehensive more recent source, by a proper specialist, would be preferable, where available. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  It is not a delay before publication. It is a publication of an old paper privately without peer review, i.e. by a little known publisher. Obviously, if in the ten modern sources cited in the article not a single one makes a to-do about spokes, and that includes Frederick Asher's 190-page book on Sarnath (2020) published by the Getty Research Institute in LA, which has plenty on Oertel, on the excavation, on the discovery of the lion capital, it is UNDUE. Aggrawala is entirely inappropriate for a high-level article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  And Johnbod are you also on board on all the unholy reconstructive surgery being done by user:Pat? The missing lower jaw of one lion in profile (File:Sarnath capital.jpg) has been restored by pasting a mirror copy of the other lion in profile

  (File:Sarnath Ashoka Lions with Dharma Wheel.jpg)? The tell-tale dark stain has showed up too. After that the patient has been given an RGB2GRAY software conversion and it is being called a pencil sketch? What user:Pat is attempting to do is not only unencyclopedic but makes WP come across as being deceitful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Is reliability assumed?

Are sources assumed reliable until this is disproven? Or must evidence be furnished to prove that a given source is reliable? It would perhaps follow that the common habit of Wikipedian editors citing a source would imply their acceptance of its reliability, and that WP:RSN serves to place a check on that implicit consensus. But if I brought a heretofore-unused source to this noticeboard and asked whether it is reliable, what would be the default judgement? Elizium23 (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a judgement call for each source. There are such a wide variety of types of sources that I think it's unreasonable to make a judgement call about an assumption of reliability, as each individual source would have its own merits or problems that contribute towards its notability. I don't think "unless we can prove it's unreliable we must assume it is reliable" would be a particularly wise call, especially when the context of what it's being cited for is often as important as what the source itself is saying. - Aoidh (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thats kind of backwards, sources generally only come here when editors disagree on a source's reliability. Editors are expected to evaluate on their own whether the sources they use are WP:RS, its supposed to be one of the core editorial competencies. So we don't assume reliability however we do WP:Assume good faith that is we assume that whoever added it has satisfied WP:V until we have reason to believe otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

For context, the discussion that resulted in this post is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity#Should the blog "Radical Copyeditor" be linked?. This is also a misrepresentation of what I said at that discussion. I said "We do not operate on an assumption that all sources are unreliable until proven reliable." which does not imply the obvious; all sources are reliable until proven otherwise. I also said that evidence of unreliability should be provided when asserting that a source is unreliable, which in the context of that discussion would be necessary because a several independent organisations consider the source reliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Which, I will clarify for uninvolved readers, is a discussion about whether a widely used style guide on the topic should be included in the MoS page's external links section...which Elizium23 and one other are opposing as they believe the style guide's attached blog is an unreliable source. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

False; I believe that the entire website is an unreliable source. It doesn't matter what's attached or whether there's a blog or not. The author is not notable, nor a recognized authority, and the website lacks editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. Elizium23 (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, my point remains. You are treating this as a source on an article, not what it actually is: a relevant link for an external links section on a MoS page, which had its relevancy proven in its wide usage in notable organizatiosn documentation on the subject. My replies have repeatedly mentioned this misunderstanding which I believe is present about what we're discussing here, and your replies have continually ignored it, deciding to discuss the tangential question of the blog instead. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, this is not the place to have this discussion. This is RSN. We're discussing inclusion of a relevant style guide in the external links on a MoS page, not a source in an article. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, well, WP:ELNO #11 specifically prohibits Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority.. Now, a MOS page is not a Wikipedia article, and so perhaps Wikipedia's strictures on inclusion in articles should not apply, but I'd hope and pray that any resource which fails our project's criteria for both RS and EL should not even be in the running for enshrinement in our WP:PAG. I mean, come on, really, can't we find anything more reliable than this? Is the the hill people want to die on for this policy? I mean the site itself links to about 3 other solid, reliable style guides in its footnotes! Elizium23 (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, my point remains. "A MOS page is not a Wikipedia article", and this is a relevant link to include on the MoS page, and strong arguments have been given for its relevancy. It is a widely used style guide in this field...on the same website as a blog that is not a RS. No one is saying the blog is a RS. That is not remotely a point of contention here. Your replies insofar have stuck to extrapolating based on article-based policies rather than actually engaging with discussion on the link's relevancy. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

In this context it sounds a little bizarre, honestly, I'm not sure what factual reliability has to do with style. Or why article content guidelines are being applied to project pages. Are we going to remove most of our PAG because they're OR? Or I suppose people could argue ABOUTSELF here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It depends on what it is (for example wiki's are not RS, three is no assumption they are), similar to SPS, you have to demonstrate it is reliable. ON the other hand, a book published by a reputable publisher would be an RS unless shown other wise on the whole. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Well wouldn't it require evidence to determine whether a site is a wiki, or evidence that a publisher is reputable? We're in tautological territory here, no? Elizium23 (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

As I've said a couple of times now, we don't operate from an assumption a source is unreliable until proven otherwise. That also doesn't mean we operate on the assumption that sources are reliable until proven otherwise. It's a lot more nuanced than a blanket statement like that.

There's an RfC ongoing right now near the top of the noticeboard at #Cambridge Scholars Publishing on whether or not they are a reliable publisher. Similarly #Reliability of GB News as a source for citations is about reliability/unreliability of a UK TV channel and website news organisation. There's also numerous other examples of similar RfCs and discussions in the noticeboard archives, as well as a list of perennially discussed sources and links to the various discussions and RfCs over at WP:RSP. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

reliability is not assumed.

• All sources are less reliable than you think. The *New York Times* for instance gets important stuff wrong often enough.
• That said, even some random hobo's blog is like 99% reliable for most facts. If the one-person part-time blog "Elvis Bio Facts for Obsessive Fans" says "Max Alvis was The King's second cousin" it's very likely to be true. (Of course "very likely" and "99%" are not near good enough for our standards. Just pointing out this fact.)
• If you've only a sketchy or marginal source for a fact, ask yourself if the fact is too obscure to bother including. If it's not, there will probably be a good source or several sources.
• The #1 thing you need want to know about a source is details about their fact-checking operation. Is it independent, or can the editor overrule the factchecker? How many factcheckers are there? Is it an intern/entry level position (usually true) or a career job? This is really hard and rare to know, and if you don't know this you have to look for other, less-sure indicators. The proxy is to sniff around their "About Us" section and do other detective work. (For instance, I have no idea what Time Magazine's independent fact checking operation is like, but I operate under the assumption that it's decent because they're big enough to have one and it fits their business model to care if they get facts right and they don't really have an incentive to spin or cherry pick facts to support some ideology, and so on. (This is a main reason we don't like small blogs and publications -- they don't have the money to hire someone to check everything, so any kind of error can slip in). "Reputation" is a poor data point, doesn't mean that much.
• Also, books don't usually have independent factcheckers (they have copyeditors) so most books are less reliable than you think. (This is just a general statement with many exceptions). So you have look at other factors for vetting a book, such as the author's skill, rep, and business model (that is, what are her incentives for getting everything right as opposed to getting to print ASAP, etc).
• There's lots lots more. But basically, WP:RS, correctly, says that there are only two sources that can assumed -- not proven! -- to be usually reliable: peer-reviewed scholarly journals, and publications (such as the New Yorker and Der Spiegal etc) that are known to have robust independent fact-checking operations. Everything else is up for discussion, and we want to seem some proof. Herostratus (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: "Default judgement?" The OP is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, attempting to find purchase for their view on a hypothetical when there's an ongoing discussion of the concrete in the appropriate talk venue. This is also an incorrect forum for this particular discussion; we most often discuss reliable source policy issues on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, not in a forum designed to discuss discrete and current situations in pagespace. Further, the title of this section says much about how the OP views this--participants continue to use the word "assume" instead of the word wikipedians utilize in guideline and policy, "presume." A legendary tek figure has often said "assumption is the mother of all f#ckups" and that's an essential point to understanding the danger in pursuing this thread. Reliability is NEVER assumed. Reliability is a quality demonstrated and recognized, not merely hoped for in good faith as the OP (perhaps playfully) attempts to inquire about the default position of a hypothetical untested source. Society measures the reliability of free throw shooter not on an assumption (a good faith expectation based on hope) and not on a presumption (a good faith expectation based on standards) but on their current success rate and their pattern of success based on experience and training. Likewise, we don't put entries on the Perennial Sources list based on assumptions or presumptions; we link those entries to relevant discussions and consensus on this board as they actually arise. As several editors have pointed out already, we shouldn't be having this discussion here at all. BusterD (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

TV Guide for a birth date

• www.tvguide.com/celebrities/kath-soucie/credits/3030062019

TV Guide is a reliable source for air dates and such. I'd say it's also a reasonable choice for biographical details about celebrities. However, in the page linked above, Kath Soucie's birth name is listed as "2/20/1967 12:00:00 AM". Well, that doesn't seem very likely. If we assume that's her birth date, is this usable? As far as I can tell, this is not user editable. I can't even find a way to submit a correction or alert them to the error. That does make me feel a little less sure about using this as a source in BLPs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying it's not likely because of the 12:00:00 AM time stamp, or because that would have made her 12 years old in her first television acting appearance? BD2412 T 03:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea how old she is. If you do a Google Image Search, she looks somewhere around 50, though. I'm mostly worried that the site has obvious errors, such as listing her name as a timestamp. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Databaes are going to have errors in them, and I can almost guarantee that there's some central database (or set of databases) that's behind it. The way the urls and formatting work across all of the credits pages indicate to me that the pages are likely procedurally generated from a database without additional oversight. Whether this clear error appeared in the database due to some data entry person mistyping something or from some OCR/robotic process automation error, it's unclear. I'd be surprised if humans were completely uninvolved in vetting the data, and as far as I can tell it isn't quite like IMDbPro where anybody can claim and edit their own page (for a fee). — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

WallStreetPro

WallStreedPro appears to have long-read articles on a variety of topics. How do we feel about this site's reliability? Chumpih ^t 04:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable. Seems like it's a clickfarm. Articles are unsigned, and I can find no information about either the editorial board, the journalists, or some sort of editorial guideline. It seems like it republishes content from elsewhere; sometimes that's indicated at then of the article, but often it isn't. Their current top article is a republication of a Twitter rant. JBchrch talk 18:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. Not reliable. Banks Irk (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

DB Cooper and the FBI: A Case Study of America's Only Unsolved Hijacking

I'd like to get some input on whether this book should be considered a reliable source for information about the D.B. Cooper hijacking. It's published by "Moonshine Cove Publishing". I notice a few questionable books in their nonfiction catalog, such as "The Geology of Climate Change" (the jacket says "Is the Earth's Climate changing? Yes! And it has been changing since the Earth formed...") and "Truth Lies and ETs" (the jacket says "If you want to know the truth about Extra Terrestrial Vehicles, read Truth Lies and ETs. Dr. Donderi presents the facts, the reports and the hard evidence than other research scients ignore and professional disnformants deny."), which makes me suspect the publisher has less than thorough editorial oversight.

The D.B. Cooper book in question is written by Bruce A. Smith who the book jacket claims is "an investigative journalist", although it doesn't mention any newspapers or magazines he has written for. This site describes Smith as "a beach-cleaning entrepreneur, journalist, he podiumed at 1997s storyteller of the year, he's a published author, a student of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment, gardener, alien abductee, and DB Cooper expert" (emphasis added). Here is Smith's own web page, which does not fill me with confidence.

An editor has recently added a fair amount of information to our D. B. Cooper article, sourced to this book. It concerns me that much of this new information directly and explicitly contradicts other information in the article, sourced to other reliable sources. For example, a quote from an FBI investigator about Cooper's likely lack of skydiving experience is followed by this new statement sourced to Smith's book: These claims about Cooper's lack of skydiving skills are seemingly refuted by the testimony of Mucklow who was impressed by Cooper's skill with a parachute. And later after a statement that the FBI believes Cooper did not survive the jump, a new statement sourced to Smith's book says Despite the dire assessment regarding Cooper's fate given by the FBI, it should be pointed out that all of the "Cooper Copycats" survived their jumps, some in worse weather conditions and some with no skydiving experience at all. Although I'm tempted to revert most of these new changes, I hesitate to do so without broader input about the reliability of the Smith book. CodeTalker (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we can do better. With such a major case, we can afford to stick to the established experts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

What is an established expert for D.B. Cooper research? Bruce Smith, odd a guy as he is, IS considered an expert in the D.B. Cooper world. Hell, he was interviewed for both the most recent History Channel and HBO documentaries.

As far as contradicting reliable sources, there are plenty of things that contradict Larry Carr's opinions that are pretty basic and logical. The fact that all of the Cooper Copycats survived IS a statement of fact, including that one of them had never even touched a parachute and that one jumped out into snowy conditions wearing a tshirt and cowboy boots. I've removed Smith's cites on those and added others.

The only people that any of this stuff is contradicting are statements made by the FBI. They are essentially the only people who still think Cooper was some amateur idiot. The skydiving community has never thought that nor the special forces community. What Larry Carr says isn't gospel and it is misleading a ton of people about the D.B. Cooper case whenever they read this wikipedia page. He flat out calls Cooper an idiot for jumping out of the plane with an inoperable parachute despite the fact that Cooper could NOT have jumped out of the plane with that parachute because he had no way to attach that reserve parachute to the main parachute he jumped with. Earl Cossey is the main who supplied the chutes to the FBI that they gave to Cooper. In his statement to the FBI on 11/26/1971, 4th paragraph "...he described the missing back pack parachute as having a sage green nylon container, model NB6 with sage green nylon harness, which harness has no "D" rings to mount a chest pack." There needs to be some balance in that section and I was shocked to see that the entirety of his FATE section was: he was an idiot and he died. The end.

Regarding Bruce Smith in particular. Is he a strange dude? Absolutely. But so is everyone else who writes books about Cooper. I love the Cooper story and have for decades, but I'm not weird enough to spend time writing a tome about it. So what book is a reliable source about Cooper at this point? I'd say that currently Geoffrey Gray's is great but the problem with Skyjack is that it is essentially written as a novel, so it's not really a "source." I see Himmelsbach's book quoted repeatedly in the wiki article but it is terribly outdated and is now 36 years old. I'd also argue, as a former District Attorney myself, that Himmelsbach's work is just as bias as any other work on Cooper. Himmelsbach (and the rest of the FBI) have a vested interested in portraying Cooper as a fool who went splat somewhere in Washington. You can't arrest someone who is dead, right?

I own many, many Cooper books and Smith's, for my money, is the most straight forward and comprehensive of all of the Cooper books. It's 506 pages and is basically a Cooper encyclopedia. Is he a weirdo who believes in UFO's and Remote Viewing and all that crap? Yes. However, nothing I would ever cite from his work is anything that is out of the ordinary in the "Cooper canon", and none of that has ANYTHING to do with what he writes about the Cooper case. At least he isn't a grifter trying to push a particular suspect in order to make a buck like Thomas Colbert pushing Rackstraw with The History Channel and his book The Last Master Outlaw.

Anyways, I've written far too much about this. If you want to wave a wand and expunge everything I've contributed from Bruce Smith, then so be it, but nothing I've contributed that is sourced to him is incorrect, and I don't know anyone in the Cooper World who thinks Smith is just making things up. Everyone thinks he's weird, but his knowledge on the case is respected by all. I'm a former prosecutor, I'm not some lunatic. I would never put something on Cooper's wikipedia page that I wasn't sure was backed up elsewhere (things I've added from Smith such as: Cooper's seat number, the lack of D-rings, cutting the shroud lines from the functional reserve, McNally never wearing a chute before, etc). But Bruce's book is essentially the Cooper encyclopedia and is by far the easiest book I own to just go to when I need a quick cite.

Regards SillyRyno (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Neither his appearance on the History Channel nor on HBO seem to count for much in demonstrating that Smith is a respected expert on Cooper. The History Channel is famously willing to promote all sorts of nonsense: its WP:RSP entry reads: "Most editors consider The History Channel generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote conspiracy theories". As for the HBO documentary, it seems to be largely about the people who research Cooper, but not exactly an endorsement of any of them in particular: in an interview for Vanity Fair, the director says "My initial ambiguity was: Are they just going to be a load of wackos and crazies? And some might argue they are. I don’t. The people that we picked genuinely believe [in their theory]." As endorsements go, "I don't believe he's completely crazy but some people might" and "he does genuinely believe the things he says" are about as lukewarm as you can get. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, that's fine, I don't really care about the History Channel because you're right; they are the network of Ancient Aliens anyways. However, "DB Cooper and the FBI" is considered by many people in "Cooper World" to be the "Cooper Bible". It is extremely well researched, comprehensive, easy to read, and doesn't promote any particular suspect to try to make a buck. Heck, I was today just listening to the Cooper Vortex podcast and their two hour interview with Larry Carr, the FBI's lead agent on Cooper for over a decade. He was asked if he'd read "DB Cooper and the FBI" because the host mentioned how it is basically the greatest work out there about the Cooper case and Carr laughed and said that he hadn't read it, but he appreciates Smith's work, although he'd like to have a talk with him about some of his conclusions (Carr is a big proponent that Cooper died...most Cooper researchers believe he lived).

You ask what you need to prove Smith is an expert. He co-led the Panel Discussion at the DB Cooper Symposium at the Washington State Historical Museum along with Geoffrey Gray (a highly regarded journalist and editor of New York magazine). He has been a featured speaker at every CooperCon that I've ever attended and all of them that I've ever even heard of.

Honestly, the fact that I'm having to defend Bruce Smith's expertise on D.B. Cooper is like having to explain to someone why William Shatner is an icon in the Star Trek world. Smith is like the Godfather of D.B. Cooper research. When people say so and so "wrote the book on it"...well he literally did on the Cooper case. It's a 500+ page tome that has sources listed. I don't know of any other Cooper book that is as much like an encyclopedia about the case than it. Almost every other book about Cooper is some quick money grab by someone trying to sell a book by promoting that they've solved the case with some new suspect they've uncovered. It's just trash.

I'll repeat this again, I'm a former federal prosecutor, state district attorney, and now a criminal defense attorney. I'm not some cracker jack lunatic. Smith is certainly an eccentric. Lots of people in the Pacific Northwest are when it comes to the Supernatural, but the man knows his stuff on the Cooper case. I wouldn't cite his stuff otherwise. I've literally thrown Cooper books in the trash that I've gotten off Amazon, but his book is the immediate go to source for myself and many other Cooper fans because we trust its accuracy.

Bruce Smith's expertise on Cooper is unquestionable. Not trying to be disrespectful so don't mistake my tone, but if you were a fanboy/fangirl of the DB Cooper case you'd understand why questioning Smith's expertise is a bit silly and why I'm so bemused by this. There's a reason he's on every single TV show about Cooper and he's a featured speaker at every single CooperCon, and featured speaker at every single Cooper Symposium. It's because his knowledge is RESPECTED! SillyRyno (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem here is that most of what you are saying is basically irrelevant from the point of view of assessing whether Bruce Smith is a reliable source in Wikipedia's eyes. It doesn't matter that you're a former federal prosecutor – your personal expertise is not important here. Listening to anonymous editors' claims of personal expertise is how we got Essjay. Nor is the fact that DB Cooper fanboys like him. What we want is evidence that either his work has been published by a publisher with a track record of reliability (which it apparently hasn't) or he has been recognised as an expert by reliable sources, not just DB Cooper fans and anonymous internet commenters. To that end, being invited to lead a panel discussion in a museum symposium is the kind of evidence which is actually useful for demonstrating reliability. But frankly, for someone whose book is from a publisher of no reputation, and who publicly claims to have been abducted by aliens, we need very strong evidence of reliability. Has Smith had any writings on the Cooper case published by a publisher with a strong reputation? Has he been cited in other unquestionably reliable sources? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I have voluntarily removed all Bruce Smith cites and replaced them with mostly FBI.gov cites from their recently released case files. SillyRyno (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

GitHub repos and accounts controlled by reputable news outlets

Greetings! Here's an interesting one. It turns out that the Washington Post holds an account on GitHub where they maintain various repositories of software and data. One of those repos is currently being widely added as a source to support biographical assertions about slave ownership in early America. So, if the WaPo is reliable, are data dumps in their GitHub repos reliable too? Elizium23 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Secarctangent is doing the adding. Elizium23 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Look, I'm happy to add the WaPo article instead if that's what people prefer (and indeed I've seen some instances of editors do that in some articles and did not edit it), but to me, it seems much more useful to readers to be able to access it in this format. WaPo's article is both paywalled and slightly annoying to navigate by comparison to being able to access the underlying source, especially given the considerations that @Sideswipe9th mentions below. Secarctangent (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a really interesting one. In most cases I'd say that a GitHub for a reliable source isn't inherently reliable by association and an assessment should be done based on their contribution guidelines on a repo by repo basis.

In this circumstance, while it is accepting user submissions off GitHub, according to the README.md file the two Washington Post staff contributors are vetting and verifying the submissions before adding them to the data dump. As long as editors are careful to cite Washington Post controlled repo and not one of the (currently 4) forks, I'd be somewhat inclined to say it is a reliable source based on the verification being done by the WaPo journalists prior to addition to the repository. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

This is primary unfiltered research data. Anything based on it would be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree, with one caveat, you could use primary source data from a reliable outlet, e.g. Johns Hopkins covid data linked from NYT, CNN, Washington Post or something like that, for simple verifications of fact only. Andrevan@ 23:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I definitely agree it's a primary source, and great care should be taken in the use of it, but that wasn't the question being asked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

As others have pointed out it's PRIMARY (not OR or SYNTH unless it's used for anything other than referencing what's in the dataset). The publication medium (Github) is irrelevant in this case since the page itself can't be modified by anyone but the creator, and I suspect we would have consensus that WaPo is an RS as SPS (They state their methodology, the primary author, the sources, and have previous recognition (if controversial) for publishing on history, and they're more or less competent enough to essentially mostly just cross-check census data). Other datasets on Github must be traced in a similar manner to an RS. It's not at all unusual for authors in academic journals link their code or datasets to cruddy their personal sites, blogs, or github repositories -- whatever works. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

As a technical matter, the Washington Post is not self-published, since anything it puts out goes through an editorial process first. JBchrch talk 07:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

But the data sets are probably not editor approved if they are just data dumps. GenQuest ^"scribble" 08:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@GenQuest I seriously doubt that journalists at the WaPo have the authority to just dump data on Github under the WaPo name without editorial approval. However it's kind of a moot question in this case because the data is reproduced in the article. JBchrch talk 11:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

JBchrch, I doubt editors care what their GH-approved journalists are dumping in their file storage. GitHub is about as reliable as IMDB. If there are articles that contain some of that data, then those should be used. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's the "official" WaPo GitHub, not the journalists'. In any case, a story is linked in pretty much all of the repositories containing "interesting" data. JBchrch talk 17:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The article is much better than a dump on GitHub. The data dump on GitHub would the same as a journalist putting it on their personal Twitter or Facebook.PrisonerB (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually no. The data dumps on GitHub represent a deep and serious commitment to open sharing of raw data. It'd be like if, in 1985, the New York Times collated and transferred all their investigative Cold War research notes to microfiche, cross-referenced it carefully to every article they'd ever published on the topic, and then mass-distributed microfiche packages to every public library in these USA. It'd be a revolutionary step of openness beyond a daily piecemeal publication of stories.

This openness of data-sharing has parallels in government, as well. I personally receive a police report every week that's collated by LexisNexis, which is a service that allows me (or anyone anywhere) to use a simple web interface to review crime data in any neighborhood that's covered. My city government has massive open-data projects including GIS stuff. I sat down with one of the techies over coffee and had great conversation about it; she was actually interested for me to add a local point of concern to their vast database to be shared with the general public.

I deeply respect WaPo for this GitHub project and, while I've only skimmed the front page of the corresponding blog, I'm amazed at the sort of infrastructure they're sharing with the general public. Elizium23 (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Useful incorporation of that raw data into a citation for article use would often border on OR, wouldn't it? GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO using raw data can be OR-compliant if used for very discrete pieces of information, like buildings' heights, stock market prices, population stats... The moment it begins to be incorporated in a broader "narrative", I agree that it will often be problematic. JBchrch talk 21:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how anyone could call it "raw" data. In the IT world, raw data is unprocessed and unfiltered. What WaPo has offered the world is a curated collection of analysis by credentialed researchers working under editorial oversight. It's only "raw" data if you consider its format as machine-readable. Just because data is machine-readable doesn't make it a less-worthy source for Wikipedia's purposes! Elizium23 (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, there's jargon or a term of art in the data world that raw data is raw data, and once you process it, it's now processed. I think the data in a Github repo is probably cleaned up, denormalized, what have you, to make it a little better. "Useful incorporation of data into a citation" is decidedly not WP:OR if you are not making a conclusion about it. It is totally appropriate to use primary sources to cite simple facts and stats like the ones mentioned and they can even be WP:BUNDLEd with a secondary source citation. Andrevan@ 22:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, when I say "raw data" I'm thinking of, like, spreadsheets or graphs, devoid of any prose or analysis. Example. JBchrch talk 22:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, hang on. It'd be tricky to cite a graph, but if you had a raw dataset, and that was from a reliable place, you could use it to cite a specific stat. You could also combine it with secondary sources to source material provided you weren't using it to drive a conclusion, just offering it as an additional exhibit. Andrevan@ 22:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer to call such data "structured". It's structured in a particular way that may not be human-readable or include extraneous trappings such as prose, text formatting, etc.

Wikipedia already uses plenty of structured sources and we also generate structured data. That's Wikidata. That's images on Commons such as political maps. That's tables of filmographies and the like. So we're already both consumers and producers of structured data in addition to the prose we write in articles. I don't see why WaPo's GitHub products should be any different than a PDF full of tabular data. Elizium23 (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. With the caveat that Github is just a platform and any given Github repo with different policies for how stuff gets merged into it may not be reliable, but the Wapo one is. Andrevan@ 23:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a historical survey, however basic, so it depends what the article editors' consensus feels is the standard for publication -- if that's academic peer review, then WaPo editors and fact checkers might not meet that standard (for 1619, they brought in at least one fact checker from academia). The next few comments don't seem reasonable considering it is an account under WaPo's name and the dataset page lists the linked story, the primary journalist, and the methodology. I cannot see any scenario in which that's possible without editorial oversight. The comparison to a journalist's social media post is interesting, if we accept it at face-value, since journalists are held to very high (arguably unreasonably high) ethical policies on social media by major outlets. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to note that I'm not sure we got to consensus here, but assuming that others feel we did, @Elizium23, I would have preferred if you hadn't gone through and just deleted the source in all the articles instead of replacing it with the article. Now I have to go through a lot of these and revert a whole change rather than just editing in a different citation.

Is there a way to mass-replace one citation with another across a set of contributions I've previously made? It seems like you made all those edits quickly, so maybe there's some sort of tool I can use as an editor to do the article citation replacement. Secarctangent (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Secarctangent you experienced a good deal of pushback when you initially added this to lede sentences. I would say that you should consider the placement of this fact.

If I went through sources to find every US politician who'd cheated on his wife and added "Jonathan Q. Public was an adulterer, slave owner, and Senator" then I think I'd catch some heat for it. It's fine that we publicize their slave-ownership, (I mean I guess because it's good to impute shame onto notable people who's been dead for 300 years and did totally normal 18th-century things,) but some of us don't believe that it's a thing that warrants MOS:LEADBIO prominence. Elizium23 (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, but unrelated to this discussion about which source to use. Secarctangent (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Since your change affects a wide swath of articles, I'd prefer that we had a centralized, visible discussion of its merits. Your user talk page is not suitable, and no other discussion is currently open. If you'd like to move venues to a WikiProject or another noticeboard, feel free to suggest a venue change, but let's not WP:FORUMSHOP the problem out of sight. The sourcing of your claims was a good technicality to cast doubt on the wisdom of mass article changes, but since you're holding an alternate source then we need to address the root issues of WP:DUE and neutral placement within the articles. Elizium23 (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Github is fine if we are linking to it as a repository for say a pdf copy of a source. It should not used if we are using the raw data. Take the edit that resulted in this question. Even if we assume the data about slave holding is correct (and I would assume it to be) how much WEIGHT do we assign to the information? As a data source Github can't help us there. The edit in question[35] changed the opening sentence which is meant to summarize the most notable, factual aspect of a person. It previously stated that the person was a politician and at one point speaker of the house. After the edit he was most notable for being a slave owner. While slave ownership is reprehensible in the region and time it wasn't something that was uncommon for a wealthy person. This data source doesn't provide that context thus, even if we consider this reliable for the basic statement, "owned slaves" it doesn't tell us how much weight we should apply to that fact inside of the larger biography. In the case of a plantation owner only noted for cruel mistreatment of enslaved people it could be the majority of the biography. In the case of one of the slave owning presidents it might be a small part of their overall notability. Springee (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a single dataset couldn't be used to give something a lot of weight on its own, but not that it couldn't be usable at all. Andrevan@ 23:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess there are two issues there. The first is do we trust a data set on Github. I presume in this case we do. Second is when might it be appropriate to use such data. I would say only when it's clarifying a point made by another source. So if no RS says "owned slaves" then we can't use this dataset to establish that fact. However, if it were a detail question, "Swift brand racecars won 17 SCCA national championships" I would be more inclined to agree assuming we have a RS that said Swift cars won a lot of SCCA national championships. The database is only filling in a small fact, not establishing weight for the fact nor the only source supporting the general subtopic. Springee (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree, we can use primary sources to establish facts. However it might be of limited weight. Andrevan@ 23:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

While this isn't NPOVN, there's no need to seek a different venue to determine what weight to give these primary sources. The answer is to give it little or no weight. If far better references refer to the fact or provide a proper context for the fact, then it might be used, though perhaps only as a supporting reference or footnote. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Little weight, yes, which is not 0, there might be situations where the inclusion of this information is merited. The question here though is whether the information is reliable, which I think we are saying it is. So each article can be determining the weight in context and whether or not to include the content based on that article, but in general, these primary sources should be considered reliable. Andrevan@ 17:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The primary source is the 1850 census that says e.g. "Bill Williams household: 1 wife, 6 children, 1 slave". The NYT dataset took census data (among others) cross checked with other information and lists the notable names they confirmed. It is in every respect a secondary source if it is being used as a source for a statement like "The NYT project showed Bill Williams was a slaveowner," with or without explicit inline attribution (depending on what editors make of the NYT's credibility in historical research). It only becomes a primary source if, after being used as a raw dataset for another study, it is cited within that study. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point, I agree with your clarification Andrevan@ 17:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, good point. It's raw data, devoid of any encyclopedic context. It absolutely does not belong in the lede immediately after the person's name and nationnality.[36]. --Hipal (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy

This is listed as needing a copy-edit, but strikes me as something that possibly should be reviewed by MEDRS people. Since I have no idea how to make that happen, if so, I am asking for help with that. If it doesn’t, fine then, somebody can look at the English as somebody suggested. Elinruby (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Would posting at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine help to attract people who know about Med RS? Red Fiona (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Is bibleplaces.com a reliable source for anything?

It's the personal blog of Todd Bolen.[37] Bolen is a professor at The Master's University[38]. His cv includes a M.Div., and a Th.M.from The Master's Seminary, an inerrantist instution which is part of The Master's University. His PhD is from the Dallas Theological Seminary which also teaches the inerrancy of the scripture.[39]. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

No. - Roxy the English speaking dog 16:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The only posts I see in the first several pages are "Weekend roundup"s, which just list outside media items with a one-sentence summary. If you have the specific opinion or fact that can be attributed only to him and not a secondary source he links, could you post that? Meanwhile, from what I've read even though mainstream biblical studies/criticism and biblical archaeology is now mostly secularized and has decent scholarship, this was only a relatively recent development, and the field still draws many fringe figures. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: I finally found a few "web-log"-type posts of his. With the caveat that anything I assess from the writing of someone in a field I've never trained in is completely not worth considering, I'd just say that he seems to cite biblical text and turn-of-the century scholars ([40] and in particular [41] caught my attention in a few places) more than my reading of the above articles would suggest would be typical for mainstream scholarship. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Depends on what it is cited for. The blog falls under WP:SPS, so the question is whether the author has been recognized as a subject-matter expert and published by independent sources. Reviewing both Google Books and Google Scholar, it looks like he is frequently cited for his photographs on Bible history, including in books published by Zondervan, a division of Harper Collins. He has several articles published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, by the Evangelical Theological Society a reviewed religious journal that has been published for 60+ years. So, I can see circumstances where his blog might be cited as reliable, such as for his photos, or on the views of the society, and circumstances where it would not be reliable. But I can't make a blanket judgement pro or con without specific context. Banks Irk (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society is also inerrantist with anonymous peer review. That doesn't give me any confidence, there's no way of knowing whether all the "peers" are also inerrantist. And here's a mention of a non-peer reviewed article in it.[42] Its article is entirely self-sourced by the way. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd be shocked if its editors were not all inerrantists, based on the description of the Society itself. Banks Irk (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

After googling in vain for reliable secondary sources for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, I have prodded the article. What the journal has to say about itself can't confer notability. Bishonen | tålk 16:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC).

Deprodded, so I procedurally nominated for AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I would concur with you here. Artemaeus Creed (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I would use it on Todd Bolen's page (if one ever exists) but not as a general references. The degrees aren't from institutions known for their academic rigor, they're rather fringe. Same goes for the journals, this guy just isn't published in the mainstream. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• No, outside of Bolen's own views if those views are treated seriously elsewhere. Then possibly could use this site to give some further detail, but generally no. nableezy - 14:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of Techne UK Poll 29/30 June 2022 in Opinion polling on Scottish independence

I am requesting comment on whether this poll should be included in the Opinion polling on Scottish independence article.

For further information please see ongoing discussion here and here. AlloDoon (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@AlloDoon Are you asking whether this is a reliable source or whether information from the poll should be included in the article? This noticeboard can only help you about the former. JBchrch talk 08:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I really appreciate the effort to try to establish a view to guide us, and hope I am not being pedantic here but the issue with this poll is not whether the source is reliable or not but rather in using such an unusual method (specifically sampling 1600 UK wide with a Scottish sample of 500 within this). In some ways it is similar to there has been about the Yougov/These Islands Poll which asked 2 different Questions on Independence giving samples of just over 500 for each With both it is the unusual nature of there practice that makes me think they don't sit with the Wiki page main section. Soosider3 (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@JBchrch It is the latter point you mention - to check if the source should be included in the article. My apologies for wrongly posting this here. Shall I delete this section of the noticeboard ? AlloDoon (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@AlloDoon No worries at all. Just leave this section up if anybody wants to chime in, and it will be automatically archived after 5 days of inactivity. JBchrch talk 12:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @JBchrch, appreciate this AlloDoon (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

RFC on Aon, particularly in weather related articles

What best describes Aon’s reliability in weather related articles because there appears to be edit wars?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

96.91.3.165 (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 While NOAA is superior, NCEI is often inferior and has holes in its data, leading to underestimated damage totals. For a tornado outbreak as big as the Tornado outbreak of March 21-23, 2022, what seems more reliable - $47.7 million or $850 million? Especially considering the Tornado outbreak of March 29-31, 2022 was confirmed by NOAA to have $1.3 billion. Aon often gives a more complete view of the storm, and WikiProject Weather, which has problems with being insistent, shouldn’t insist on just using NCEI data. --96.91.3.165 (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I see the edit war, but no discussion on the article's talk page. Is there a discussion with other editors already (as is recommended before your RfC) that you could link to, or where you told the other editors about the RfC here? SamuelRiv (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this in the past - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375#Aon. 50.200.241.190 (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Option 1 — Conditional: They are generally reliable and should be used in articles when NOAA has not provided a damage total. NOAA is the US Government’s meteorological organization, and while they can have errors, they should be accepted as more reliable over an insurance company. So AON is generally reliable and should be used on the condition that NOAA has not provided a damage total. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Since this is specific for weather articles, I will ping the active WikiProject Weather members: ChessEric, United States Man, Joshoctober16, Colin777724, Cyclonebiskit, RandomIntrigue, LightningComplexFire, TornadoInformation12, Mmapgamerboy, Ionmars10, JimmyTheMarble, Awesomeness16807, Daniel boxs, Layah50, Cyclonetracker7586. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I have the same stance that I did before; I trust the government agencies more than I do an insurance company that I've never heard of before, especially since AON may put more or less value on thing in comparison to the NOAA. I'm not saying that they should be totally disregarded and deemed untrustworthy, but I don't see anything in the Wikipedia article that talks about them reliably making damage estimates for storm systems. NOAA may not always provide reliable damage estimates, but we still use to establish records for the costliest tornadoes, hurricanes, derechos, etc. I just don't believe an insurance company should have more weight on damage estimates than a government agency and I have a serious problem with using their damage estimates. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• @United States Man: Since you seem to have a strong opinion on AON, please comment. 50.200.241.190 (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

[procedurally closed]: Fox News: downgrade to generally unreliable for politics and science

This does not satisfy key requirements for a RfC, specifically a brief and neutral statement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please support to support downgrading to generally unreliable for politics and science, and oppose to maintain the status quo. The current state is: There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Andrevan@ 05:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Recent failed fact checks Black Lives Matter says it stands with Hamas terrorists in Israeli conflict Fact check by PolitiFact - No, Black Lives Matter didn’t say it stands with ‘Hamas terrorists’' FALSE Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds. - see fact check here Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers "The indictment filed by Durham charges Sussman with lying, but not actual infiltration of private Trump servers and does not mention White House servers at all" Fauci dismisses study on delta efficacy between Moderna, Pfizer as guide for booster shots "Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed a study that deemed the Moderna vaccine as more effective than the Pfizer one against the COVID-19 delta variant." Fact-checked by PolitiFact: Fauci didn’t doubt vaccine study; he cautioned against using it for choosing a booster FALSE 2 articles Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand' CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective Fact check by Politifact: "The working paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, and its authors are not medical or public health researchers," Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told PolitiFact Published research contradicts findings Methodological issues Coverage about the Steele Dossier and the John Durham/Sussman investigation ' Yet the standard for left-leaning media for years on the Russia-related material was it could hold up to scrutiny because it had not been specifically discredited, a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance. Despite acquittal, Durham trial of Sussmann added to evidence Clinton campaign plotted to tie Trump to Russia The dossier has now been largely discredited. Lots of media-bashing and litigating the Durham case. According to mainstream sources, some parts of the Steele dossier were corroborated Coverage on Hunter Biden laptop controversy: basically tabloid style media-bashing, not labelled as opinion but claims uncritically that there is a huge story which has been dismissed and debunked by mainstream sources, and said not to relate to Joe Biden at all. Essentially a right-wing talking point. See related Vanity Fair piece Survey (Fox News) We all know that Fox News is unreliable when it comes to the opinion TV talk segments and op-ed articles. One could say that many opinion pieces are unreliable on all sides of the spectrum from many outlets, that's true. Fox News specifically has been brought up before, at least several times. There has been discussion of Fox News controversies and Seth Rich conspiracy theory, etc. It was argued by the defenders of Fox News' news section, that these objections are primarily in the opinion and TV talk news segments, Carlson, Hannity, et al. However, I contend that Fox News, the general news section of the website, should be downgraded to generally unreliable due to several recent instances of failed fact checking in coverage marked as news coverage. I do not believe these sources or these arguments have been presented elsewhere or previously on this noticeboard. I apologize if they were. There are enough good sources without the extensive baggage and terrible track record of Fox News that we should consider it generally unreliable, like its cousin the New York Post (both are owned by News Corp). Not to mention that going to Fox News' website, there is not a great separation of the opinion/TV content, and it is easy to end up on one page from the other. But most importantly, we can't trust them to report facts based on failed fact checks. Andrevan@ 15:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Comment @Andrevan: Unfortunately, I probably weakly support this decision for politics based content, but will abstain from voting right now, as it might seem, to other editors Bad RFC. This is IMO not an issue that bothers too much, but the RfC comment needs to [include] a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. Of course, I'm not right wing (maybe centrist in my country, but centre-left in US I guess), but I think that maybe some other editors might consider that your one isn't neutral enough. For instance, several recent instances of egregious failed fact checking, and Not to mention that going to Fox News' website, there is not a great separation of the opinion/TV content, and it is easy to end up on one page from the other. But most importantly, we can't trust them to report facts in an unbiased, factual, scientific, verifiable way seem to be not neutral (I agree, it's appalingly biased, but that should come in the survey and discussion parts, not the opening RfC statement). Of course, Politifact is RS, and these examples no doubt show an atrociously conservative slant. A recent RfC wasn't approved, apparently, as it doesn't follow requirements, see [43]. In fact, I did an RfC with a statement that wasn't neutral, and it was procedurally closed. So I don't mind this issue much, though others might have other opinions, but I personally like your edits to AfDs and other discussions, and you have much more experience than me! That said, the RfC could be vague, right now, this RfC considers general news sections, currently, it's only marginally reliable for politics and science, I oppose a downgrade in other areas, but might be neutral to very weakly support for politics and science. But IMO the failed fact checks and your opinion could be moved to the survey/discussion section with a vote, instead of in the opening one. Of course, this is not an issue to me, and many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Thanks for the note @VickKiang. I moved my statement into a section to make the opening sentence more neutral. If you have any other suggestions please let me know or feel free to WP:BOLDly refactor the RFC. Andrevan@ 14:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Status quo We consider Politics and Science to be the areas where Fox News is unreliable. All the examples from above are politics and science. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Yup… Status quo covers this. Blueboar (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Status quo the above examples (all from Politics and Science) are already listed as unreliable from Fox News. These examples change nothing. --Jayron32 11:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC) To clarify Headbomb, Blueboar, Jayron32, currently RSP states There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. and I am asking to say it is "generally unreliable" for those topics. I'll narrow it down to those 2 topics since I didn't give any others. Andrevan@ 15:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Discussion (Fox News) I just looked into the first three examples (by the way, it would help if you enumerated your examples and then struck-out any you wish to retract, so they can be referenced). The first example has no problematic language in the article body, only the headline, which was retracted, so WP:HEADLINE. The second example case is a completely legit error for Fox, and though I really hope someone did a fact check like that around the time it was printed, it seems to require a little more technical detail than many journalists are willing to get into. The third example is questionable in the headline and the lead, but uncontroversial in the body. It is questionable only in that it was written during the pandemic – in any other time I'd say "dismiss" and "study" are acceptably fuzzy terms for a news article to describe a description of an unpublished preprint. The big issue for Politifact was the Instagram post. Judging the standards of a mainstream news outlet's social media practice is difficult at this stage because there still don't seem to be any clear norms. I was going to go into detail on this topic but this probably has a past RfC and/or could use a new one, but my opinion is that a social media posts fits the headline model far more than it does a news brief or short feature. That's all I'll do for now. SamuelRiv (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Bad RFC, it is non-neutraly worded. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC) I moved my statement into a separate section so the intro can be neutral, is that better? Andrevan@ 15:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC) References Andrevan@ 05:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of BBC.news for the history of ice cream

Hi, an editor added some info to the history of Ice cream, i would like to know if the source used is reliable or not for this topic. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, copy-pasting from the BBC source is a breach of copyright, regardless of its merits as a source, so I've removed it. As for whether the BBC article can be used for paraphrased content on the subject, I'd have to suggest not. At least, not for the claim being made, since it appears to contradict later text both in the source cited and other sources cited in our article. If ice was being used to make frozen desserts in other places a thousand years or so earlier, we can't say that what was going on in China in 618-97AD was 'first'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think BBC News is a trusted source that can be used for any claim on the English Wikipedia.

I also think citing two sentences correctly doesn't mean copyright violation, but I will change it for you.

This is the first recorded ice cream in history as the Iranians only made it in 550BC. CABF45 (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You think that 618-97AD is earlier than 550BC? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This site is one aimed to children, and while it is unlikely to be absolutely wrong, there has to be far better quality sites for the same information. --Masem (t) 12:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Is the BBC News source OK or not? CABF45 (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's CBBC, the children's site, so probably not unless it's for something where a source aimed at children would be clearly necessary. Also, even if a source is generally ok, that doesn't mean you should just republish it when it prints WP:NONSENSE. SamuelRiv (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually it's not just CBBC, it's a page from CBBC's Newsround. As far as I know, despite its target audience being children it nominally falls under the remit of BBC News and follows their editorial standards. That said, the citation is pretty old, and there's almost certainly better sources we could use for the history of ice cream. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As with any other source, it depends on what it is being cited for. The history section of the ice cream article is contradictory as it is, and adding further to this isn't at all appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Just as all of the above people said, reliability is context dependent. The BBC is generally considered reliable, which is to say we trust them to do an appropriate level of fact checking and that they generally do it correctly, but until we know WHAT wikipedia text is being cited to WHICH information from the BBC, we really can't answer definitively if the specific usage is appropriate. In this case (non-specialist source aimed at children, contradicts information from other sources, etc.) it's probably best to leave this out, but that doesn't impugn the BBC in this case, just that this usage of this BBC source doesn't work for our purpose. --Jayron32 13:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

News sources are reliable for news. When ice cream was first created is not news and shouldnt be citing a news source. nableezy - 14:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of these disputes arise from some camps of editors seeking to establish a "first" origin. (Quoting User:AndyTheGrump from the related talk page discussion "Wikipedia needs to avoid definitive statements - and ideally, to avoid sources which make them.") I agree with User talk:Jayron32. We can do without the BBC for this. The same information can be sourced to widely used on Wikipedia Reaktion global history series. Spudlace (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

In general, history is not the sort of thing that we should be using news organizations for, especially if there's any reputable WP:SCHOLARSHIP out there regarding the origin of ice cream. And it turns out that university professors have written books that include the history of ice cream within them (Ice Cream sixth edition, seventh edition; The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets 2015 edition; The Science of Ice Cream 2nd edition). When undergraduate textbooks and scholarly reference works cover the topic and tend to not support the claims made by a news organization regarding history, it's often because the news organization is outside of their area of reliability (i.e. news reporting). In general, news reporting from established news organizations is reliable for facts, but WP:SOURCETYPES notes that [w]hen available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources and WP:NEWSORG notes that [s]cholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's "buffalo milk, flour and camphor". Camphor is like turpentine. It sounds awful, thickened buffalo milk no sweetener and tasting of lamp oil. If it counts as ice cream, seems open to interpretation. -- GreenC 19:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a terpenoid, not a turpentine. And camphor does have historical culinary uses, as well as a few modern ones. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Marquis Who's Who

We list Who's Who (UK) as generally unreliable due to its "poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information", and state that "Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as a self-published source". Check. But what about Marquis Who's Who, which is used on some pages? For example in Barack Obama, currently footnote 51, it's used to reference details of Obama's pre-presidency career in 4 places. In 3 of the 4 it's not the only reference, and the content is most likely true, but should it be used at all? Especially when other sources are available. MWW seems to have some higher pretensions to accuracy than Who's Who (UK) — certainly if we read its Wikipedia article. While Who's Who (UK) has an extensive, and partly critical, section on "accuracy", and an up-to-date discussion of the subject on talk, Marquis Who's Who largely elides the subject of accuracy, and of where the information comes from. (Also the article has a more promotional tone altogether.) It focuses on the selection of the biographees, and avoids looking at the man behind the curtain — the composition of the entries. All MWW say about that, at least all that appears in our article, is: "Once selected, a biographical draft is sent to biographees for pre-publication checking. In cases where notable individuals decline to submit biographical data, Marquis proceeds to compile all of the information to be published." That sounds evasive in my opinion. (I suppose the dangling modifier doesn't matter, though it's not promising for the quality of the writing.) The two sentences sit uneasily together, strongly suggesting a first step that's not mentioned: that first the individual is asked for biographical data, then the MWW editors compile a "biographical draft", and then the biographee gets to change it, if they like. I do believe MWW normally gets the info from the biographees in the first place, because, you know, if they did independent research, think how much more expensive it would be. I doubt that it does much fact checking. Bishonen | tålk 14:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC).

Of the various Who's Who's, MHH is probably the most reputable in that it's not a purely vanity publication, unlike others. It does have editors, but its editorial rigor is questionable in that it relies on the subjects themselves (if alive) to provide review of its profiles. A quick Google search contains many anecdotal examples of subjects writing that the drafts they received were inaccurate and had to be significantly revised. It is a valuable research source, but I'd be cautious about using it as a reference, and would never rely upon it alone as a source for an article. Banks Irk (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Should be treated the same as the UK version, as a self-published source. Id just say that Who's Who books regardless of location or publisher should be treated the same. nableezy - 14:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Our WP article is being evasive? The entire thesis of your post seems to rest on your misconception that the sentence you quoted is a direct quotation from someone other than our WP article. Aside from that WP quote, you don't provide any supporting sources at all, nor do you contraindicate the sources referenced in our article themselves. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The section that contains the lines I quoted clearly hews closely to what their chief executive told The New York Times in an interview. The link is unfortunately dead, at least for me; it says I should be "redirected automatically to target URL; if not click the link", and there is no link. I don't know how to handle that. But perhaps I might as well instead quote Marquis' Description of Services from their website: ..we do not and cannot warrant that the description of our Services or other content contained on the Website are entirely accurate, complete, reliable, current, or error-free. .. Users have the option to submit biographical and personal information for publication in our directories. You are responsible for ensuring that any information you submit to Marquis is accurate.[44] Bishonen | tålk 15:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC).

WP:LIBRARY databases. I also updated the article's link. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable Their website says "Marquis Who’s Who strives to provide our listees with the best branding opportunities in order to reach their highest potential."[45]. Though the branding opportunities are outside the listings, the business model of this organization does appear to rely on monetizing the listings and that doesn't give us the necessary confidence in it being a reliable source. For example, I looked up Michael Milken and it doesn't say anything about his convictions, pardons etc., merely labels him as a "think-tank executive, philanthropist", reinforcing the possibility that this is all about branding and not necessarily about accuracy. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable per lacking the basic criteria that we look for in reliable sources. Andrevan@ 16:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable Marquis Who's Who is also essentially a SPS which will publish false information if provided by subjects. At best we can treat it as akin to a press release, but I don't think we should go that far. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• General comment: everyone here should check the linked article themselves. There are three relevant critical sources: one is a print book that I'm not bothering finding, one is the 2005 NYT feature that Bishonen cites but says they never read, and the third is the 1999 Forbes piece from before the 2003 buy-out. The takeaway from the NYT, the only real source on this, is unfortunately really lacking in substance: it either means that of the returned corrections, they mostly fact-check but expect to miss some, or they mostly don't fact check except a few, or they never really bothered checking and just hoped their editor would let it slide. The librarian's quote is rather relevant I think. In general, are we measuring its reliability against, say, Encyclopedia Britannica, who thoroughly fact-check, or some nonfiction book publishers, who often don't? ([46] [47] etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelRiv (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• If there is no way of knowing which pieces are provided by the subject without any fact-checking, there is no practical way of separating those that are subject to some review from those that are not. Which means this needs to be judged by the lowest common denominator, and that means cannot depend on it to have performed any type of fact-checking or editorial review, and that makes it generally unreliable or an SPS. nableezy - 23:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Did you read the Atlantic article I linked? It implicates Random House, among others (it accuses all non-scholastic publishers, really). I don't know where you'll find the bottom if you pursue that reductionism without context. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally Unreliable. Probably an SPS, the current summary at RSP says Marquis Who's Who, including its publication Who's Who in America, is considered generally unreliable. As most of its content is provided by the person concerned, editors generally consider Marquis Who's Who comparable to a self-published source. There is a broad consensus that Marquis Who's Who should not be used to establish notability for article topics. Seeing these publishing links and the lines Have you made strides in your career that deserve to be showcased to the world? Could you benefit from joining a notable network of like-minded, seasoned professionals? Are you looking for an effective way to revive your professional reputation? from here makes me doubt its reliability also. VickKiang (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Deprecating/downgrading two cable news sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is about deprecating two cable news sources that are currently overly sensational while lacking in reliable substance. Fox News Should Fox News be deprecated/downgraded as a source? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 19:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The previous (non-neutral) RfC question listed a few examples of failed fact checks. However, I have noticed a few sensational headlines that are very tabloid like and also don't discuss other non-politics topics reliably.

The NewsGuard nutrition label (which was recently downgraded) mentions a few headlines that is particularly misleading. For example, [48] and [49]. I also found on the homepage this not only clickbaity but overtly sensational and thus very unreliable. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 19:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

MSNBC Should MSNBC be deprecated/downgraded as a source? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 19:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This NewsGuard label mentions a few instances of unreliable and uncorrected news. Opinionated pieces are not appropriately differentiated from news, making it difficult to apply Wikipedia's guidelines about opinion pieces. This is one of them. Scrolling through the nutrition label also finds instances where MSNBC blunders and fails to correct the story, like in October 2020 with this story. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 19:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion I have been skeptical of cable news for a while because of how it pumps out a lot of programming for one particular audience and one particular viewpoint. Fox News clearly is more right leaning and MSNBC clearly is more left leaning. Just because a few of the stories on either of the platforms are mostly reliable does not mean that what people see the most on these platforms is mostly reliable either. The three things that, according to NewsGuard, both MSNBC and Fox News fail at, are gathering information responsibly, regularly correcting errors, and handling differences between news and opinion responsibly. I think some of the older articles may be reliable historically, but I don't think the new content being generated is reliable currently. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 19:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• A note to anyone who wants to write neutral deprecation RFCs… for the basic question, just ask: “Should (insert source) be deprecated/downgraded?” That’s it. Stop there.

If you need to say anything else (be it to give background info, evidence, comments, an explanation about why you are asking, or whatever) do that in the discussion or survey sections. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Muslim-institute.org and pakistaninfo.com

Can these two links "Muslim-institute.org"[50] and "pakistaninfo.com"[51] be used as WP:RS for population figures, demographics and/or history pertaining to the Tajiks? These two links, amongst others, were used to state that the number of Tajiks in Pakistan amounts 1,2 million thereby replacing an UNHCR source that stated 221,725.[52]- LouisAragon (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think they are reliable for demographics. I doubt if any of the census on this is very reliable but I think we would prefer UNHCR. Spudlace (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The UNHCR report gives the number of ethnic Tajik Afghans in Pakistan, not the total number of Tajiks in Pakistan. If the UNHCR or World Bank or some other agency has a survey on Pakistan itself they might possibly have reasonable independent data. You can't use stuff from Tajikistan because this is an article about ethnic Tajiks, so remittances and citizenship data isn't much use. As for the Muslim Institute I can't find independent information on them, their own information on themselves is virtually nonexistent, and the piece you linked is labeled "opinion" (which doesn't mean their facts should be less accurate than if it were not opinion, but it just means there's even less justification to cite it for facts). PakistanInfo's article is interesting because they say that 1.2m is the number of Tajik migrants coming from the Soviet-Afghan war and the USSR collapse, which completely changes the math, and that restricts the regions and dates enough that it's reasonable to try to independently verify the numbers. So then it's a matter of whether for counting the Tajik ethnicity in Pakistan it suffices (or is a reasonable substitute with an explanatory note) to give the number who migrated in the past 50 years instead.

Meanwhile PakistanInfo claims it's the largest online news website in regional languages in Pakistan, but they still don't seem to print any kind of editorial policy, and only have the profile of the one managing editor available (who's not a journalist). It's not the kind of fact you want to have to source out to something like this, but I get that in this region of the world right now there's not a lot of good options, and again the article gives enough information about the number that it's probably reasonable to independently verify it. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aayan Uzoqov: You might be interested in leaving a comment here. Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Aayan Uzoqov, the "user" who added those links, turned out to be a sockpuppet and has been CU blocked in the meantime. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussions over a new Fox News RfC

Two separate users are intent on posting a new RfC to reassess the reliability of Fox News, and I don't think either of them can be dissuaded. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Second_Fox_News_RfC in order to discuss the potential format of the new RfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The Times Group

These are all news papers of Times Group Are all these news papers considered reliable? The Times Of India, The Economic Times, Navbharat Times, Maharashtra Times, Ei Samay, Mumbai Mirror, Vijaya Karnataka , Bangalore Mirror , Pune Mirror PravinGanechari (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Formally deprecate Natural News as a source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yes, I know that Natural News was blacklisted as per the result of a previous discussion for its notorious (and currently continuing) publishing of grossly degrading disinformation. However, I'd like to dedicate this RfC solely to questioning whether or not we should formally deprecate Natural News as a source, since it hasn't really been formally done yet. I really don't think I need to go on; it's basically been proven time and time again that the site is practically the empire of a dubious, cheapskate journalist that should pretty much be avoided at all costs. So I'm going to limit this RfC to two major options: deprecate, or don't deprecate. ToThAc (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Deprecate and blacklisting should automatically apply to any website owned by them as well without needing to come here. NadVolum (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Is this actually a problem? Obviously a shit source, but is that in doubt? If we deprecate every obviously shit source we'll be here for ever, and it's just bureaucracy. Alexbrn (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Utterly pointless blacklisting is scorched earth deprecation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, it isn't currently being used in any articles as a source - there doesn't appear to be anything to depreciate. - Bilby (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• YEP timewaste - Roxy the English speaking dog 11:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• No need - if it has been blacklisted then we have taken it beyond deprecation. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Emperor Trajan book - reliable source

Book Title: Trajan, Rome's Last Conqueror (2022) Author: Dr. Nicholas Jackson Publisher: Greenhill Books https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trajan-Romes-Conqueror-Nicholas-Jackson/dp/178438707X

Book being used for several citations in the following Wikipedia page on TRAJAN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan#cite_ref-ReferenceF_209-0 2A02:C7F:681:800:F42D:3A73:7F4A:7334 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that Nacjackson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) judging by their username, has been adding citations to their own book, which is a quite clear conflict of interest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and fair comment. I do agree, I have a conflict of interest. Learning the right way to work on Wikipedia. 2A02:C7F:681:800:2150:1C30:1731:168C (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a readable account but way out of the author's field of competence. It is a sign of integrity that the author addressed this page to inquire whether his work met Wikipedia's criteria. Aside from WP:COI, the major problem is that it falls short, whatever its merits, of the strong criteria set forth at WP:RS, which must govern articles like this, where the bibliographic abundance of academic scholarship on all aspects of a classical life is such there is almost no room for amateur (in the best sense) input. If one's lifelong study of a subject outside the ambit of one's professional purview does turn up something not noted or overlooked by specialist sources, the way to go is to seek a scholarly confirmation of that 'something', get it quoted in an academic source. If that occurs, then the book you wrote could certainly be considered as a source for the relevant article.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to illustrate the sort of difficulties we have. Some years back a fullyfledged classical scholar of some distinction edited the Homer page. He'd just written a book arguing that Homer was Euboian. So he had a conflict of interest in showcasing his personal take by editing that underlined his approach. No one doubted his competence. But the article could not be tilted to one viewpoint at the expense of so much other peer research which argued differently. Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a peer-reviewed work by an academic press, so I think that it is a reliable academic source for wikipedia's purposes. If it were pushing controversial positions (as in the Euboian-Homer example cited above), then there would be an issue, but there is no sign that that is the case. I acknowledge that there is potential for a conflict of interest if the author adds material from the book to articles, but it is clear that said author is eager to work within the norms of WP, so I don't see the need for a blanket decision - it will be better to resolve things on a case-by-case basis as/if issues arise. Furius (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Fox News (news): politics & science

Should Fox News (the news website, not the TV shows) be considered reliable or unreliable for politics and science?

1. Upgrade to Generally Reliable for factual reporting
2. Status quo to maintain present situation; No Consensus, Unclear, or Additional Considerations Apply
3. Downgrade to Generally Unreliable or Questionable for factual reporting
4. Deprecate entirely to Generally Prohibited

Andrevan@ 17:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey (Fox News news website)

• Downgrade (proposer), due to several recent instances of failed fact checking, as well as doubting the fact checkers, pushing COVID misinformation, promoting other conspiracy theories, and blurring of fact and opinion in coverage marked as news coverage, news portion should be downgraded to questionable and generally unreliable. Like its cousin the New York Post (both are owned by News Corp), both are sensationalist and right-leaning at the expense of factual accuracy. It's beyond a bias and goes into the realm of "alternative facts." See discussion and sources for my reasoning in separate delineated sections below. Andrevan@ 17:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Downgrade to generally unreliable for any reporting. Too many instances of getting things wrong, and too many instances of directly contradicting the known facts to push a particular agenda (or several). Sad what has become of Fox, but anyone could have predicted it given the circumstances of politics in America today. Either Fox becomes more extremist, or it becomes irrelevant as its base precedes its extremism while watching OAN or the Freedom Network etc. etc. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. Personally I see Fox News on par with The Daily Mail and I think this is supported by the source bundle provided below by Andrevan. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate (expanding beyond politics and science) - While what they are reporting on is true, it often ends up over sensationalized to the point that it is designed to sway a reader to the right. The new NewsGuard rating also partly plays a role. According to them they do a terrible job at gathering information responsibly (so as not to mislead readers), correcting errors regularly, or handling the difference between news and opinion. This expands beyond politics, as some of the stories that are being published are almost as sensational as Daily Mail. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Status Quo - I don’t see a significant change in Fox’s actual news coverage since the last time we had an RFC on it. Most of the fact checking that are outlined below is about inaccuracies in their headlines, and while those have gone downhill (less accurate and more clickbaity/sensationalized) - we already say that headlines are unreliable. Fox is much more careful about how they phrase things in the body of their articles. Are they perfect? No, but none of the major news outlets is. More importantly, they do issue corrections when they get something wrong (a mark in their favor). Indeed, the only reason why I am not !voting to promote Fox to “generally reliable” is that I don’t think any of the major news outlets deserve that status. We should use them all with caution. Finally, this RFC attempts to distinguish between the on-air reporting and the on-line reporting. I don’t think that is realistic. Are we saying that a news item that appears on (say) Special Report with Bret Baier is reliable, but the same news item appearing on the website isn’t? Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  I do not think the fact checks pertain solely to headlines, perhaps you'd be willing to analyze them more closely. I do not think we say that special reports on TV shows are reliable, I believe per WP:RSP: Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions. This RFC pertains to just the politics & science news content, which is the bulk of how Fox News will likely be used in a citation onwiki I would expect. I would tend to agree that a TV news talk show is probably unreliable regardless. [18:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)] Adding to clarify, Fox News Digital is a separate division from their TV production, though there may be overlaps and I don't know their exact corporate structure. But if you pick any random Fox News article, you can distinguish the ones that simply recap TV video clips versus the ones that are reporting and original writing for web. The latter is where I have serious concerns, but I have no reason to believe the former are reliable either.Andrevan@ 19:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  • You are free to disagree with my remarks, but I stand by them. - ‘nuff said. Blueboar (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

    Indeed, thank you for your comment and participation. Please do not interpret my engagement as bludgeoning, however it is still proper to engage in discussion so that other editors and eventual closers can evaluate the veracity of arguments. Thank you again for weighing in, and have a good weekend. Andrevan@ 19:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Status Quo all the examples are from science or politics, which we already don't consider Fox News relialble, and we already consider their talk show nonsense to be unusable. The online articles from their news division are a lot more sensible than anything you'll see on TV. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  As a point of order or clarification, we do not currently consider Fox News science & politics, generally unreliable. If you do believe so, you should downgrade not status quo. Andrevan@ 20:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Status quo Every example falls into the existing language that tells editors to be cautious of using Fox News for political or science topics on contentious claims, which these all are. No evidence has been presented of them being wrong all the time and particularly on more straight-forward news reporting in this area. I still would think editors can do better than Fox if there are alternate sources for the same story but there's no reason to downgrade to "generally unreliable" due to that. --Masem (t) 20:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Downgrade I don't like that I have landed here, and I will be the first to admit that there is plenty of factual reporting still happening at Fox. It does seem to me, however, that as the opinion arm of the operation has accrued more power, the standards seem to have slipped. It cannot be incumbent upon Wikipedia editors to separate good Fox from bad Fox, and so I think a downgrade is called for at this time. All that said, reasonable minds may differ, of course. Happy Saturday. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3. At the least. The evidence below shows that any objectivity is pretty much lost and the website has gone full yellow journalism. Honestly, I could even say option 4, but I don't think it would carry. oknazevad (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo, I guess, or downgrade as to science in particular. I am confused by the combination of "politics and science", both here and in RSP. I cannot envision any circumstances under which Fox News would be a cromulent source for any scientific or medical claim. If Fox News is the best support for a scientific statement, it is not supportable. But their coverage of political events and processes can be quite decent. The existing RSP entry seems to express the need for reasonable editorial judgment pretty well. If there is a pressing problem of Wikipedians adding Fox News to science articles (and not being swiftly reverted), we should probably discuss that more specifically. If not, it doesn't seem like there's a problem requiring a solution here. -- Visviva (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade as the full yellow journalism description is apt. I share the regret expressed above but concur that It cannot be incumbent upon Wikipedia editors to separate good Fox from bad Fox, or to put it differently, the work of doing so would require in each instance finding better sources, at which point we should just use those instead. Likewise, debating over what counts as a "contentious claim" is a drain upon the scarce resource that is volunteer time, and resolving any such dispute means finding sources that, again, we should just use instead. Doubtless people will be upset about a downgrade, but I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that giving in to whining is poor parenting. XOR'easter (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade or deprecate. It's true that on occasion Fox reports a citeable fact reliably, but in general it's rife with selective reporting and spin. When I see it cited, I generally look to corroborate whatever was said in a different, less partisan source; this is a sign that we should cite other sources in the first place. FalconK (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate or Downgrade if deprecate does not have enough support. Fox News isnt a reliable source overall, especially for science and politics. It constantly blurs the line between news and entertainment, and is always pushing a POV. Softlemonades (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade but do not deprecate I think deprecating goes too far, as there can be some legitimate uses for Fox as a source, but I do agree with a lot of the above, in particular the sensationalism aspect, especially with regards to science and politics. Curbon7 (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - as it's on par with MSNBC news, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  MSNBC site is far different from MSNBC tv in that it is actually pretty reliable. Fox News used to be in the same boat, but the website has markedly dropped in reliability in the last several years. Curbon7 (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Status quo, unless there is something concretely indicating that major changes have occurred to the editorial integrity of the site since the most recent RfC on the subject. I'm not saying that there haven't been, but nobody has linked any. I think Fox News sucks, which is why I don't read it, but whether it sucks (and vague gesturing to the effect that they are full of crap) shouldn't be part of a discussion about whether to deprecate it. The issue at hand is a specific list of instances where they repeatedly and deliberately said things that were verifiably untrue, rather than whether they run stupid op-eds (yes) and make partisan choices in what to cover (yes). Deprecation is an unreasonably broad tool to deal with something as simple as biased coverage, and if this were an official policy, it would leave us with virtually no sources. Wikipedia editors are smart enough to think critically about what sources we cite. We already have a litany of policies and guidelines against this already, and people are already not allowed to write shitty articles that disproportionately cite sources from one side of the political spectrum. jp×g 06:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  JPxG, please see failed fact checks in section below. Info on the editorial changes in the online operation: Dec 2020 - "Hannity’s Crony Has Taken Over Fox News Digital—and It’s a Disaster, Staffers Say" "Over the past several years, the conservative tenor of Fox News’ opinion coverage has seeped more and more into the company’s popular digital brands." "Close observers of Fox News’ digital properties note that the main site has skewed even further to the right under Berry’s leadership. Under its previous leader, former Today show producer and Daily Mail editor-in-chief Noah Kotch, the site more closely resembled a right-leaning tabloid, mixing breaking news with politics, salacious crime stories, and celebrity news. But in recent months, the website—ostensibly part of the network’s “straight news” division—has leaned more into aggregation of conservative culture-war stories and straight write-ups of commentary delivered on opinion shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight and Hannity. At the same time, the site has been called out for burying or wildly spinning news that is unflattering or negative for Trump" "One recently departed Fox staffer described Berry’s leadership style as wanting to “toe the company line regardless of the fact gathering or editorial importance of a story.”[53] Also this NYT piece [54] "Soon after the Capitol riot, Fox replaced its 7 p.m. host — Martha MacCallum, a news anchor and part of the political reporting team — with another hour of right-wing opinion programming. Mr. Stirewalt, the political editor, who had vanished from the air after defending the Arizona call, was fired; his boss, Fox’s Washington bureau chief, Bill Sammon, retired. More than a dozen reporters for Fox’s digital arm were also laid off, a culling that followed pre-election layoffs in the Brain Room, the in-house research and fact-checking division. Publicly, Fox portrayed these changes as a restructuring, but as with the Moneyball initiative, their impact was felt chiefly in the news ranks, now an expensive and increasingly distracting legacy of the Ailes era." Andrevan@ 06:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan: I think everyone is aware that they're quite biased, which is why their RSP entry is yellow and has an exclamation point on it and says "Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions", and why their talk shows have an RSP entry which is red and says "Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact". I guess I am not just seeing anything that goes beyond the existing restrictions on the use of this source.

One of the articles you've linked is from WP:DAILYBEAST, a similarly RSP-yellow source with the same note ("There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons"). What it says (and what you quote from the Times article afterward) does not seem relevant to what I said, which was instances where they repeatedly and deliberately said things that were verifiably untrue. The fact that they refuse to cover stories which reflect negatively on certain topics (which they've always done, and which we've always known about) is not relevant to their use as a Wikipedia source -- how would that even work? If Donald Trump did something bad, and Fox News refused to report on it, other sources would, and we would cite them. There is no circumstance in which we would just be forced to throw up our hands and say "guess we can't write about this in Wikipedia". jp×g 08:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Again this is not about their bias but clear false statements, failed fact checks, and misinformation, which I appreciate you will look at below - those links were all posted before you left your comment. I quoted the Daily Beast and Times piece to show that there is a reason why their quality and reliability has gotten worse due to changes in the newsroom, a new leadership, firing people in the research and fact check division, pressure to adhere to the company line and align with unreliable opinion sources, etc. Andrevan@ 17:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: I see you have posted a huge amount of links to specific examples of things in the section below. Thank you for doing this: I appreciate the effort, and I will take a look at what they have to say. I am fully prepared to, if necessary, become history's first documented instance(?) of a Wikipedia editor changing their mind about Fox News in one of these clusterfuck RSN RfCs. jp×g 08:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - to clarify I posted all those along with the posting of the RFC, but I appreciate that you will evaluate. Andrevan@ 17:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Status Quo (first option, but reword) or Downgrade (second POV from me, especially for science-related articles). The below evidence show excellently Fox News's worsening in bias. Even in 2010, it's biased and probably contributed to the Tea Party Movement, but in 2020, after COVID-19, increased polarisation... it's becoming worse. Yes, IMO its opinion pieces and cable shows (mainly Carlson, Hannity... whose show is appalling conservative propaganda-like). The headlines of Fox News are disturbingly distorted, though WP RS guidelines doesn't judge headlines. At least its main reporting typically is a bit more careful to avoid downright false or misleading info, but over these years, it's pushing the boundaries. Though its controversies are far too many, see the refs provided on our WP page [55], it participates in weak, occasional climate change denial (it isn't Daily Mail or Daily Wire in unambiguous climate change doubting, but is, in some cases, fairly close). And then there's the occasional misleading (not entirely false, at least in news articles) coverage of COVID-19, so I don't understand why this should be science (I might support downgrading generally unreliable for science-related issues, firstly, scholarly peer-reviewed papers should be confirmed, even if citing mainstream media, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, while not the best, are still far better. Similarly for politics- Fox News's failed fact checks are very clear, though it doesn't rountinely publish false info, but it does somewhat distort and mislead the reader occasionally to its own advantage, considering there're far better media refs, why should this be cited (if there's no other good refs, it could be cited as a last resort)? Further, for contentious claims only present in Fox News, I would think these are generally unreiable. Still, IMO deprecation is... too much? It still has occasionally some usable content for politics and science, and probably is marginally reliable (quite biased to the extent it's more than WP:BIASED, but isn't extremely misleading) more than when it's generally unreliable, so I don't support deprecation. And the downward trend of Fox News is fairly clear; I had a look at the 2020 RfC, with additional consideration being the middle ground; right now, generally unreliable seems to be the consensus. But if the closure is status quo, the current wording is far too weak: There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (talk shows). IMO the bias of Fox is way worse to just say [editors] perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics. PS: I know this isn't relevant, but I support full deprecation for talk shows. Many thanks, please see the fact-checks and the more concise comments by other editors! VickKiang (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Downgrade to generally unreliable or even depreciated. Over the last year, coverage of Fox has only gotten worse. See eg. The second is that Fox News disseminates misinformation. This is the case for some proconservative misperceptions (Feldman et al., 2012; Harmon & Muenchen, 2009; Nyhan, 2010). Fox News ran stories with themes similar to..., or Discrediting the elite creates a niche in the media market filled by non-elite outlets (e.g., Fox news) which, because they are only demanded due to beliefs in the alternative reality, spread misinformation to reinforce those beliefs., or - a lot of these touch on COVID misinformation in particular, but they show that the problem goes beyond that. In past discussions people have theorized that a line of separation can be drawn between Fox's talk programs and its news coverage; but that isn't actually something most coverage focuses on, and COVID in particular shows that Fox's ideological mission-statement means that it will produce misinformation across the entire spectrum of its output when doing so is necessary to advance its political agenda. Being biased, of course, is not itself a reason for a source to be unreliable; but systematic, institutional bias that leads a source to regularly produce deliberate misinformation in the service of its biases absolutely is, because it means that these problems are not one-offs but are inherent to Fox's structure and purpose. --Aquillion (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Downgrade, as even at the last RFC enough evidence was provided that Fox news lies. Since Covid it has only gotten worse. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Upgrade Broadly similar reliability to similar left-wing sites like MSNBC. Sure they get things wrong, but so do other sites, Hunter's laptop being an excellent example. We should not have double standards. And everyone, please do use arbitrary breaks like the above in overlong threads. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Downgrade per evidence presented by others that Fox News has rolled steadily downhill from news to sensationalist crafting of a desired narrative. The news arm has been slowly subsumed by the talking head side. Zaathras (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Status quo. No significant change since a discussion in March 2022. It was just 4 months since the last discussion, and I do not see any new evidence from March to today that should change the consensus. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  Several of the links in the reference section below are newer than March 2022. Others were not discussed at that time. That discussion here does not appear to have been a full RFC. Andrevan@ 17:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Status quo. This ^^^^ No significant change since this early 2022 discussion. Bruxton (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Status Quo for a number of reasons. First, where are any examples of status quo causing issues? For politics and science we already caution people when using Fox as a source. Is there any evidence this caution isn't being followed? If not then we aren't solving a problem, instead we are creating a problem, one that Wikipedia is already suffering from, by violating the idea that RS should be judged on a case by case basis rather than using lazy/strategic bucketing of sources based on popularity. Second, what has changed since the last, stillborn discussion from just a few months back [56]? Some of the cited sources against fox predate the previous RfCs so nothing has changed there. They were considered but couldn't get consensus. That seems like people are just hoping if they ask the question enough times they will finally get the answer they want. As for evidence, Fox has a big target on it so it's not surprising that a lot of sources will try to score points with readers by attacking it (while ignoring the same out of sources that are on their own political side). One of the editors who open this considers it to be evidence that Fox has criticized Politifact as biased. That criticism from Fox is well founded. There are a number of examples of Politifact taking a set of facts and arguing to a conclusion rather than answering if that set of facts could reasonably draw the conclusion they are claiming to be false (I've considered opening up a RSN discussion related to this exact problem as I've been collecting examples). Some have cited News Guard's recent downgrade. If we are accepting NG then we need to upgrade source like the Post Millennial (green per NG) and downgrade MSNBC as well as the Daily Beast (a source that is already yellow). Really, this illustrates the problem with the RSP list. Rather than considering sources on a case by case basis it becomes a strategic effort to throw out sources wholesale. This is dangerous if Wikipedia's mission is to truly provide a range of views rather than become an echo chamber of just the sources editors like. Given the lack of evidence of an issue the status quo rating is clearly working thus no change is needed. Springee (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC) edit to fix per Firefangledfeathers's catch below! Springee (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  The 2022 discussion does not appear to have been a proper RFC. So to clarify, you do not consider Politifact reliable for fact-checks. As to a current problem with this being followed, ere are two recent diffs [57] [58] where I had to remove inappropriate usage of Fox News links. Andrevan@ 17:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Springee: it seems like maybe the first part of your reply was cut off. Care to make a bolded declaration? And is this properly indented? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks, Springee (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. Option 1 is redundant because it's WP:NEWSORG anyway. Option 2 is redundant because it's WP:RSCONTEXT anyway. Option is ambiguous because readers might think it means what was accepted e.g. in the last RfC -- but buried below is a quote not from there but from the WP:RSP essay, so I fear that anyone who !votes for status quo will be misinterpreted as !voting for what's in that. Option 3 could have been an excusable question if it had been alone and had been about what to do (see WP:DAILYMAIL1 for an example), but it wasn't. Option 4 is confused because "deprecated" merely means "not approved" so saying "generally prohibited" -- which lacks even the qualifying wording associated with the Daily Mail ban -- just makes the second part of the option a contradiction of the first part. And I don't believe the instructions at the top of this page ("Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source") were adequately addressed, which unfortunately may have inspired an idea that discussing Fox stories, without showing where in Wikipedia the story was used and disputed, is appropriate. Option 1 = WP:NOTCENSORED but I fear that !voting for it helps legitimize this procedure. I won't bother with potentially disputable claims, e.g. whether Fox is "owned by News Corp" or whether the "Past RfCs" list is even partial. I won't reply to heckling. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  Not to badger you, I agree narrowly that really we should be considering Status Quo vs Downgrade and I did think this would be clearer with fewer options but per the talk page, editors clarified that it is standard and more neutral to have 4 options so I relented on that point. I copied the language "Generally Prohibited" as well as the text in the status quo section from the current page, so that is not my invention. I will copy the closing from the last RFC into the status quo section to help clarify. As far as your point about current impetus, here are two recent diffs [59] [60] where I had to remove inappropriate usage of Fox News links. Andrevan@ 17:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Upgrade This partisanship on Wikipedia is so shameful. Imagine claiming to create an encyclopedia but then declare facts you don't like to be off limits? Chris Troutman (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  Well the point is that they dabble in disinformation and misinformation, not facts [we] don't like. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 Generally unreliable for politics and science. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Muboshgu: could you elaborate on your reasons? The closer might discount vote-like replies that don't present an argument. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    All of the evidence presented by other users below is so compelling that it seems obvious. But, from a CTRL+F search, I don't see that any of them mention how Fox News pushed the Seth Rich conspiracy theory or the Dominion Voting Systems conspiracy theory, so I will add those two major deceptions pushed by Fox News as reasons to depricate their work on politics and science (that's for their COVID misinformation and disinformation). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    Agree that these examples should be included as well. To your point, these lawsuits were only litigated or settled recently, with those two links dated 2020 and 2022, so they are good recent instances of the issue of Fox pushing actionable misinformation. Andrevan@ 17:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Status quo per WP:NOTBURO and Springee. I do not support using Fox News and a source and would replace it with a better source every time it's possible. But absent any big conflicts in the editing room which would require a broader consensus I don't see what's the purpose of this? The examples given below are all in the politics and science areas, for which using Fox News is already discouraged. In addition, I am very skeptical of the evidence assembled below, which, IMO, is original research by a fellow Wikipedia editor. Now, I know that this is not the article space and that OR is acceptable for the purposes of these discussions, but (as I said last time) I would prefer it if we were provided with high-quality secondary or tertiary sources stating unequivocally that Fox News fabricates information before deciding to deprecate one of the most popular media outlets in America. JBchrch talk 16:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  The status quo does not "discourage" Fox News. The fact checks below are mostly cited to Politifact, which is reliable for this purpose. Andrevan@ 17:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  Well, it seems there is now consensus to do so given the discussion above, but my point about WP:NOTBURO still stands. As for Politifact, it's still hand-collected evidence, and I would like to see it being done, assessed and published by a subject-matter expert or a reputable organization before supporting a downgrade for something as big as Fox News. JBchrch talk 17:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Fox News news website)

• For when this RFC ends… what we really need is a project wide discussion about How our articles cover politics and politicians, and the sourcing we use to do so. RECENTISM and UNDUE WEIGHT is a real issue in these articles. Thus goes beyond using Fox (or not). My feeling is that we are far too quick to include breaking political news, and we should be much more reluctant to use breaking news coverage (in general) to do so. We handle the whole thing inappropriately. Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  There are probably many examples of undue recentism, but we also must remember that recent breaking news very often is notable, verifiable, and relevant to making an encyclopedic article. One of the great strengths of Wikipedia is that it can react a lot quicker than Britannica or in some cases even the real news orgs. Certainly, reliable academic journal articles and scholarly books take quite a bit of time to be written. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article or information until it is, the source mix will change over time when it becomes available. Recent events will be largely based on reliable news when they are first happening, I think. Andrevan@ 20:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  No, actually, recent news is not actually notable, it is editors that think it is. This has led to articles with an incredible lack of neutrality because of editors' implicit bias that favors the left, when really we should be waiting a lot longer before having in-depth coverage of certain events so that we know how to write the overall positioning better. Editors need to think of writing for the 10-year view, not as if we were a newspaper. Masem (t) 20:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  I look forward to debating this topic with you when Blueboar starts the discussion in wherever that should be. Suffice it to say, that I agree with you on the 10-year view, but that doesn't preclude responsible notability and sourcing of recent events. For now, it's clear we don't see eye-to-eye on the bias or lack thereof of said practice. Andrevan@ 21:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Andrevan, I've looked at the first two items in your list assuming that they are representative of the whole list (let me know if this is not the case). I've read the original articles and fact checks and I'm not sure I agree with them.

Re #1, Leadstories take issue with the statement that Trump Tower servers were infiltrated saying that in fact only DNS data was accessed. There is some difference between infiltrating and "exploit[ing] ... access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data" [61] but it feels like splitting hairs.

Re #2, Fauci "cautioned not to use the study to make decisions about which vaccine to take for a booster shot" but "did not say he doesn’t trust the research findings," per Politifact.[62] This is not the same as dismissing the study entirely but "not to use the study to make decisions" is pretty close to "to reject serious consideration of" which is one of the definitions of the verb dismiss. They also write later in the article that he doesn't "doubt what they’re seeing." I can see how their bias impacts what they emphasise but I don't see misinformation. Alaexis_¿question? 11:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Alaexis, I would say that all the items in the list are slightly different, so I would encourage reading them all. There are also undoubtedly more and older examples, but I tried to choose relevant recent ones.

In #1, it is not splitting hairs at all, Fox reported something completely false and which affects the politics of the Clinton campaign and the Duraham investigation to support their party line. Leadstories clearly says, "Did Special Counsel John Durham's court filings say the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 paid to have servers in Trump Tower and in the White House infiltrated in hopes of establishing a link between Russian operatives and Donald J. Trump? No, that's not true: neither the new filing nor the indictment Durham filed in 2021 about events in 2016 say anyone infiltrated White House or Trump Tower servers." "Durham, the Special Counsel that Trump's attorney general, Bill Barr, appointed to investigate how the FBI acted on what turned out to be false premises, makes it clear that Sussman, an attorney paid both by the Clinton campaign and an un-named pro-Clinton tech executive, didn't have success documenting a Trump/Russian Bank connection. Nor the indictment -- against a lawyer who simultaneously worked for the Clinton campaign and for a pro-Clinton tech executive -- nor the new filing say that Trump Tower and White House servers were infiltrated at all." "The indictment filed by Durham charges Sussman with lying, but not actual infiltration of private Trump servers and does not mention White House servers at all" Clearly false and slanted reporting by Fox. As you should know, Sussman was found not guilty. Maybe if the facts Fox reported were true, it would have been different.

For #2, it claims Fauci dismissed the study altogether, but in fact, he did not. He did not even doubt the study's findings. "Fauci did not say he doesn’t trust the research findings, which indicated a disparity between the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines in their effectiveness at preventing COVID-19 infection. Rather, Fauci pointed out that the preprint study is preliminary, and should not be used as a guide on which vaccine to choose for a booster. When it comes to booster shots, he said, people should get the same vaccine they received originally." So, it's clearly false misinformation casting doubt on Fauci and/or scientific research. Andrevan@ 17:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Leadstories fact checks are not sacred scriptures so it's not enough that they said something is false. The fact that Sussman was found not guilty in May has absolutely no bearing on the article published by Fox in February. Alaexis_¿question? 17:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by your sacred scriptures comment. Do you disagree with the fact check? Fox News wrote an article claiming that the indictment said that White House servers were infiltrated and in fact, that did not appear in the indictment and wasn't true. Fox claimed: "Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House". Actually, they never did that. Andrevan@ 17:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

---

• Question: This won’t change my !vote (above)… but… The argument for downgrading is that Fox’s reliability has declined recently (last few years)… If this is consensus, how will we handle older reporting from Fox? Is the intent to retroactively downgrade all Fox reports including reporting from before the decline, or just apply it to reports since the decline? If the latter, what would be the cut off date? Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's a valid question but I'm not sure we need to draw a line between reliable Fox and unreliable Fox. It's always been pretty unreliable, just has gotten worse. I don't think we're doing anything useful by keeping old Fox reliable. Andrevan@ 17:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Status quo from WP:RSP and past RFCs

The status quo on Fox News from WP:RSP is: There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (talk shows). The statement would change to say, There is a consensus that Fox News is generally unreliable or questionable for politics and science.

Past RFCs [please WP:BOLDly add any others I missed]: 257, 238, 303. Andrevan@ 17:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Another prior discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_370#Fox_News

Close from previous RFC: The result of this RFC is that there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News (hereafter "Fox"). In regards to the areas of politics and science, there is strong disagreement over whether Fox has a demonstrable record of reliable reporting. Those opposed to Fox as a reliable source pointed to many instances where information was misrepresented, misinterpreted, or incorrect (what some might call a "spin first, issue corrections later" attitude for breaking news reports). Those in favour of Fox make the argument that everyone makes mistakes, with Fox correcting them if/when necessary and with no more mistakes than any other news outlet. With the exception of sensational headlines and doctored photographs, however, there is a reasonable consensus that Fox does not blatantly make up facts. In areas outside these two subjects, as well as reporting from local/affiliate stations, Fox is generally seen as reliable; there were little to no complaints made about these areas of coverage, with some of the opposition agreeing that they were acceptable. In other words: for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable. The closers would also like to remark on a few points that, while not directly in the purview of this RFC, should be mentioned. The pundits and talk show programs related to Fox were explicitly excluded from this RFC, and thus were not considered in the close; they have their own section at WP:RSP. There was a very large amount of what we considered to be bludgeoning from certain participants of this RFC. While there is no formal limit to the maximum number of times one may comment on a given discussion, replying with the same argument(s) to multiple participants holding an opposite viewpoint becomes extremely tedious (bordering on tendentious). Parallel discussions (such as the "Also CNN & MSNBC" section, predictions on how the discussion should close, etc) should ideally be kept to a minimum in contentious RFCs such as this one, not only to save on the word count but also on the amount of side comments and sniping that frequently accompany them.

Evidence added by Andrevan

1. Clinton campaign paid to 'infiltrate' Trump Tower, White House servers to link Trump to Russia, Durham finds. First on Fox: Lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an "inference" and "narrative" to bring to government agencies linking Donald Trump to Russia, a filing from Special Counsel John Durham found.. - see fact check here Special Counsel Did NOT Say Clinton Paid Tech Boss To 'Infiltrate' Trump Tower And White House Servers "The indictment filed by Durham charges Sussman with lying, but not actual infiltration of private Trump servers and does not mention White House servers at all"
2. Fauci dismisses study on delta efficacy between Moderna, Pfizer as guide for booster shots "Dr. Anthony Fauci has dismissed a study that deemed the Moderna vaccine as more effective than the Pfizer one against the COVID-19 delta variant." Fact-checked by PolitiFact: Fauci didn’t doubt vaccine study; he cautioned against using it for choosing a booster FALSE
3. 2 articles Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: 'Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand' CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo completely avoid Johns Hopkins study finding COVID lockdowns ineffective Fact check by Politifact: "The working paper is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, and its authors are not medical or public health researchers," Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told PolitiFact Published research contradicts findings Methodological issues
4. Coverage about the Steele Dossier and the John Durham/Sussman investigation ' Yet the standard for left-leaning media for years on the Russia-related material was it could hold up to scrutiny because it had not been specifically discredited, a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance. Despite acquittal, Durham trial of Sussmann added to evidence Clinton campaign plotted to tie Trump to Russia The dossier has now been largely discredited. Lots of media-bashing and litigating the Durham case. According to mainstream sources, some parts of the Steele dossier were corroborated
5. Hunter Biden, who famously had his scandalous laptop dismissed by much of the media in the run-up to the 2020 election (really?) Coverage on Hunter Biden laptop controversy: basically tabloid style media-bashing, not labelled as opinion but claims uncritically that there is a huge story which has been dismissed and debunked by mainstream sources, and said not to relate to Joe Biden at all. Essentially a right-wing talking point. See related Vanity Fair piece
6. Black Lives Matter says it stands with Hamas terrorists in Israeli conflict Fact check by PolitiFact - No, Black Lives Matter didn’t say it stands with ‘Hamas terrorists’' FALSE (response to WP:HEADLINE objection: Politifact: In the May 19 edition of the CNN newsletter Reliable Sources, media reporter Oliver Darcy wrote that "Fox stealth-edited the significant error out of its piece, and only attached a weak editor’s note to the article after I reached out for comment on why it hadn’t done so already." )
7. "Ever since the Biden administration attempted to redefine what a recession was" Politifact: "No, the White House didn’t change the definition of “recession”" (fact check is not of Fox but it's the same false statement)
8. The United Kingdom's government is increasingly reassured that the coronavirus pandemic was the result of a lab leak in Wuhan, China, according to a new report. While the theory that the coronavirus was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology was dismissed by world governments early into the pandemic, evidence continues to trickle out supporting the claim. Government officials in the U.K., U.S., and elsewhere have begun voicing support for further investigation into the lab leak possibility. Lab leak theory, articles claiming lab leak theory is likely. Science.org: Why many scientists say it’s unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a “lab leak” Fox: "The true origin of the virus that has killed millions around the globe remains unknown."New reporting from Fox News' "Special Report" showed there was an effort by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, then-National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, and other scientists to not mention the possibility of the virus originating in a lab. The consensus was reached on a call in early 2020 that the lab leak theory should be left out of an early paper on COVID-19 origins because it will add "fuel to the conspiracists." Two years later, there is no definitive proof that the virus started in nature or that it leaked from a lab. But the theory that the virus originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which studies coronaviruses, is no longer shunned as a conspiracy and is gaining more traction among scientific communities calling for further inquiry. FOX NEWS SPECIAL REPORT OUTLINES FRESH QUESTIONS ON WHAT FAUCI, GOVERNMENT KNEW ABOUT COVID ORIGIN Fox News talked to several scientists and investigators who have studied COVID-19 origins, and here are some reasons – science-based and circumstantial – why they believe the evidence points to the global pandemic originating from a Wuhan lab, possibly from a researcher accidentally getting infected during an experiment with coronaviruses and spreading it into the community. CNN: "The Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, China, was most likely the epicenter for the coronavirus." The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign? more lab leak articles that claim some kind of cover-up by Fauci et al
9. Calls Daniel Dale, CNN fact checker, a "liberal reporter","very obviously a rank partisan"
10. "PolitiFact appears to be shielding President Biden and Vice President Harris from criticism over their past rhetoric expressing distrust in the coronavirus vaccine during the Trump administration. "
11. more doubting the fact checkers: Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton pushed back against the fact-check, writing, "@Politifact is corruptly lying about Biden WH change to the definition of ‘recession.’ And now this lie, to protect Joe Biden, will be used to censor countless users on @Facebook and other social media platforms."
12. But the so-called "fact-checkers" at PolitiFact felt the urgency to defend the president from the tongue-in-cheek mockery.
13. PolitiFact's fact-check garnered criticism across social media platforms, with several accusing the outlet of bias, dishonesty and of "twisting facts." "It’s not like @PolitiFact has any credibility," NewsBuster's Dan Gainor tweeted. "And this is why."
14. more calling PolitiFact left-biased
15. The so-called "fact-checking" news outlet Critics panned the liberal fact-checker for its "false" ruling on Trump's remarks.
16. A new study suggests that PolitiFact is doing more to "defend" President Biden rather than fact-check him.
17. The liberal-slanted "fact-checking" website PolitiFact was the butt of the joke on Thursday over a job opening on its so-called "misinformation team." Critics pummeled the fact-checking website and its reporter for unintentional "honesty."
18. Fox News frequently amplifies sources we consider unreliable, "Three reporters on the byline for this story that could have been written by Ron Klain alone," Washington Free Beacon reporter Chuck Ross tweeted, referring to the White House chief of staff. , they also frequently cite The Federalist and its publisher is a major contributor. Andrevan@ 19:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Evidence added by Anachronist

1. (2021) "Biden's climate requirements" will "cut 90% of red meat from diet" to a "max 4 lbs per year" and "one burger per month." - FALSE - from TV but shown on news programs.
2. (2022) Natural immunity protects better than vaccination; "the mortality risk of an un-boosted person under age 30 was zero"; cloth face masks, school closures had zero benefits for children and some harm - MOSTLY FALSE - although this one is under "Opinion," it does claim to be written by a doctor, and offers specific health info.

Evidence added by Softlemonades

1. (2022) "Fox News lies debunked: Viewers know less than if they watched no news at all"

Note: The BI article is talking about Fox’s opinion programs - which are already considered unreliable, and not included in this RFC. Yahoo News isn’t a reliable source for fact checking other news outlets. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Yahoo News isnt the original source, its MSNBC. Ill remove the BI article thats my bad. Softlemonades (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I found the original MSNBC link and replaced the Yahoo News link so its clearer and better sourced. Sorry I shouldve done that the first time Softlemonades (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

MSNBC was also downgraded to red by News Guard. Kind of a paradox... Springee (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Since this is an MSNBC talk show clip (and summary), this should be treated as an opinion piece. I don't think this makes the cut when it comes to solid evidence for downgrade/deprecation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment from GoodDay

CNN's Arwa Damon sniffing a backpack in Syria, supposedly covered by a deadly chemical (which is odourless) & saying "There's something stinging here...". The chemical-in-question would've been fatal to sniff, so one would have to deduce that CNN's Damon knew the backpack was clean, before sniffing it. Just giving an example of how mainstream news media (if not all news media) isn't 100% reliable. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended content

Podchaser.com

User:Josepherino is uploading content to Thenmozhi Soundararajan from https://www.podchaser.com/creators/thenmozhi-soundararajan-107abHp5ia The info is taken from a revision of Wikipedia. Is it reliable? Primeive (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The podchaser.com website appears to be based around user-generated content, and accordingly shouldn't be cited for anything. [63] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)