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.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456

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

Fox News summary judgment

I read two caveats around published data on Fox's knowing promotion of the Big Lie raised in the last RfC - that it was court filings, not established facts, and that it was from opinion sources, not news. The legal situation has developed, not necessarily to Fox's advantage. Summary judgment has been granted in part to Dominion (https://www.npr.org/2023/03/31/1167526374/judge-rules-fox-hosts-claims-about-dominion-were-false-says-trial-can-proceed). The arguments that this was either opinion or accurate reporting of notable claims are both rejected in the judgment (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23736885-dominion-v-fox-summary-judgment). It is clear from the facts established that the problem was not opinions, or reportage around a false narrative, but provably false statements of fact.

In the Karen McDougal lawsuit, Carlson's (successful) defence was that no reasonable person would take anything he says seriously - very much the Wikipedia consensus that has governed use of Fox as a source for some time. The judgment forestalls that argument. Whether they were uttered with actual malice remains a question for the jury, as it relies on their assessment of the state of mind of the various individuals involved, but this distinguishes the Big Lie from the habitual use of hyperbole by opinion hosts.

It's also bigger than the opinion shows, regardless of whether anyone would mistake them for news. We now know that when Neil Cavuto cut away from a White House presser in which Kayleigh McEnany aired Big Lie claims, Raj Shah notified senior Fox News and Fox Corporation leadership of the 'Brand Threat' posed by Cavuto’s action. Cavuto is a news anchor, not an opinion host. When Jacqui Heinrich, a reporter, tweeted "top election infrastructure officials [confirmed that] there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised", Carlson texted "Please get her fired [...] Seriously… What the fuck? I'm actually shocked… It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It's measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke." Heinrich then deleted her tweet. Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott wrote to Lachlan Murdoch: "It's a question of trust the AZ [call] was damaging but we will highlight our stars and plant flags letting the viewers know we hear them and respect them" and "We can fix this but we cannot smirk at our viewers any longer."

This shows a Fox exec team determination to steer its content to what the viewers wanted to hear (because they were deserting Fox for NewsMax) rather than objective fact. With hindsight, this was obvious the day they sacked Chris Stirewalt for correctly calling AZ for Biden. Benkler et. al. described exactly this dynamic in Network Propaganda - in my view it has always been a "when, not if" thing. We have been working on the basis that Fox's obvious dishonesty applies only to opinion programming, but I would suggest that we now have sound evidence that - at least since 2020 - it also infects editorial policy, and that this is acknowledged by those responsible. Notwithstanding the "boiling frog" problem of the creeping radicalisation of Fox leading to endless RfCs after each new outrage, it would be a mistake to think that 2023 Fox News is the same beast as 2019 Fox News. It's not. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Can we set a cutoff point where it clearly turned unusably bad? (I mean, I'd concur that Fox was launched in bad faith, but ...) - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

2016 for sure, when they became the personal press for the Trump Administration. Zaathras (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The least contentious point would probably be after the Arizona call, since that appears to have been the catalyst for a conscious decision by management to publish knowing falsehoods more widely than the opinion shows in order to preserve audience share. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

While I'm on the record as saying they were already unreliable, the Arizona call strikes me as the most obvious inflection point, yes, since coverage here seems to show that after that, the distinction between news and opinion largely started to collapse as the owners panicked and gave news hosts like Bartiromo the green light to spread outright falsehoods in non-opinion venues. --Aquillion (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

No. The problem here was the talk shows, not the news reporting. Additionally, what if Fox decides to be more careful going forward? As with the previous discussions, the problem element is already viewed as not reliable. Springee (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

what if Fox decides to be more careful going forward? Then that remarkable and entirely hypothetical event would be worth a new discussion. the problem element is already viewed as not reliable The issue is precisely that we have the court evidence it was not confined to one element, per the above - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• The problem here was the talk shows - that seems to be specifically untrue. The entire issue here is that there's increasing evidence that the news side is subject to pressure to avoid contradicting the talk shows, and in some cases has also published falsehoods, which makes it equally unreliable. In particular, Bartiromo, whose statements at the center of the case, was classified by Fox as a news anchor at the time. From here (linked above): Prior to Dominion's claims that Fox was defaming it in late 2020, the network classified Bartiromo as a news anchor, not an opinion host. Or in more detail here, But the difference with Bartiromo is she identifies as a news anchor, as she indicated in her testimony. She was one of the ones most vocally spreading claims that Fox knew was false; and she was doing it as news, in her capacity as a news anchor, not as opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It was. And then it changed. Evidence in this case very clearly shows executives responding to demands from the opinion side that the non-opinion side of Fox stop "disrespecting" viewers by giving them accurate information. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

A thing to keep in mind is that every source that is a for-profit company is going to be thinking along the same lines as Fox, in that they will focus and adjust how it presents the news to keep their audience happy and thus maintain and/or gain new subscribers. This is not to say that the NYTimes operates as heavily biased as Fox did in the years in question, but we do have to keep that in mind. A more "obvious" example is the Wall Street Journal, which, ignoring its editorial board, still favors news that impact the wealthy, and thus tends to be more right-leaning than other news sources. Pure objective news coverage is dead because there's no market for that type of coverage.

Yes, what Fox did here is a problem for us in how we use them, but lets be clear that some of its actions at the core are those other sources readily follow as well. Masem (t) 22:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This sort of spurious equivocation between Fox and the NYT is a common pro-Fox talking point on RSN, and it isn't any more convincing this time around - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I clearly pointed out that what the NYTimes may do compared to what Fox does is definitely not equivalent in terms of impact on current bias, but simply that we should never pretend this doesn't happen at works like the NYTimes. They have a paying audience which they serve first and foremost over neutral news coverage, and while their neutral coverage really hasn't taken that big of a hit from it, its still there in the sidelines (eg their writing on trans rights has left much to be desired). Masem (t) 12:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

We have concrete evidence here of Fox News' malfeasance, there is no such equivalent for the NY Times. {{|we should never pretend this doesn't happen at works like the NYTimes}} is just you handwaving as what you imagine to exist. False equivalence. ValarianB (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say we need to take action against the NYTimes because there's no evidence they have done it purposefully or with malfeasance, or at the scale Fox has. But this should remain a guiding factor when evaluating sources in the future, that most news organizations have a commercial motive that they have had to adopt since the 2000s to keep alive. Most of the time, that may only become apparent in small parts of their coverage, but in the case of Fox, the evidence is clearly against their use of favoring the readers' interests rather than journalistic integrity. Masem (t) 12:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

NYTimes investigative reporting brought down Eliot Spitzer, New York’s Democratic governor; derailed the election campaign of his Democratic successor, David Paterson; got Charles Rangel, the Harlem Democrat who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, in ethics trouble; and exposed the falsehoods that Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, another Democrat, told about his Vietnam service. Fox and the NYTimes don't belong in the same paragraph. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an utterly unbiased source; but WP:BIASED covers a more narrow and specific sort of bias - obviously if you consider every source equally biased then the policy becomes useless; I don't think there's any room to seriously entertain people who argue that the entire mainstream media falls under BIASED. But either way, with both sources that meet the threshold of BIASED and those that do not, there are still reliable sources - ones that don't allow their biases, such as they are, to taint the accuracy of their coverage. And then there are some unreliable sources, where a source's biases lead them to eg. allow their news anchors to publish intentional falsehoods because it advances some institutional agenda In those cases, the bias is a noteworthy component of their unreliability because it suggests that the problem is institutional and systematic. Obviously the coverage here suggests that Fox is the latter. (An obvious caveat is that I believed that previous coverage already adequately established this; but this makes it glaringly obvious that they do not maintain the separation between news and opinion that some people in previous RFCs hoped they did.) That is not something that is common among the mainstream media, hence why this lawsuit is making such a splash. --Aquillion (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is true that the media are all biased, some much more so than others. But what happens with a 'reliable source' is they go in for ignoring inconvenient truths and things their audience don't like or doing a bit of spin rather than sticking in outright lies. Outright lies puts them definitely in the not reliable camp. NadVolum (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

See "Network Propaganda" by Benkler et. al. There is asymmetric polarization in US media. Liberal-leaning media (e.g. MSNBC) will lose viewers if they publish ideologically preferred but factually inaccurate content. As the filings and the summary judgment show, Fox, an exemplar of right-wing media, has the exact opposite dynamic. Customers will desert if given factually information that is ideologically unacceptable. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"Customers will desert if given factually information that is ideologically unacceptable." Great, an echo chamber in action. I will not not speculate what is their brand of a purity test is, but we have established that Faux News can no longer claim that it is "reliable for statements of fact". Dimadick (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

What new information do we have now that would change the non-consensus from just after Dominion released these messages? The summary judgement seems to be based on statements made by the commentary shows. Where is the new information that says the news programs are releasing false information? This would seem just to support the status quo conclusion we already have. We don't have a problem with people excessively relying on Fox News as a RS for contentious claims. Springee (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No, you missed a key point of the coverage. Maria Bartiromo, who was the source of some of the defamatory claims at issue, was classified by Fox as a news anchor at the time, not a talk show host. (See here, Prior to Dominion's claims that Fox was defaming it in late 2020, the network classified Bartiromo as a news anchor, not an opinion host - or in more detail here, But the difference with Bartiromo is she identifies as a news anchor, as she indicated in her testimony.) Fox has retroactively taken to calling her a talk show host, but I'm sure that you understand that from the perspective of our policies, that makes things even worse - it means that Fox doesn't maintain a clear distinction between news and opinion, which resolves one of the key issues that previously blocked us from reaching a consensus on their unreliability. If Fox themselves is inconsistent on whether Bartiromo is a news anchor or an opinion host, and if she was saying false and defamatory things while they were calling her a news anchor, then clearly that suggests that we can no longer reasonably split Fox into news / opinion sections - if they're not making a clear distinction, then they have to be judged as a whole. Likewise, failing to distinguish between news and opinion is one of the textbook indicators of an unreliable source, especially when they have someone who is notionally on the news side publishing what the network as a whole knows are deliberate falsehoods. --Aquillion (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Did we treat her commentary as need reporting or as commentary? Can you show examples where FN is being used inappropriately? Springee (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect Springee, I don't follow the logic here. Why would we need existing examples of inappropriate use? Does lack of evidence for inappropriate use mean that all future uses are per se appropriate? Entirely possible I am missing something. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The evidence doesn't show that FN's news reporting is unreliable. It shows that the talk shows are clearly not reliable. We already say FN political and science reporting is use with care/discretion. Do we have examples where that caution hasn't been followed? If not, what is the issue? What about the previous RfC is no longer valid? Springee (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think it would be hard to find an example where I introduced (vs argued that an existing reference is acceptable) Fox as a source. I'm not sure I ever have. Springee (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm certainly not accusing you of doing so--but Aquillion has introduced an argument above as to why we can't simply rely on the talk/news distinction anymore; I find it persuasive. You may not, but you haven't really addressed it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Did we treat the person in question as an anchor or as a source of commentary? I presume we already put her in the same bucket as Carlson thus already not a RS. Springee (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the network itself equivocated on her role, meaning (at least for myself and Aquillion) that the division has become at least somewhat porous. To me, that's enough--we have an admittedly unreliable opinion side which (again, to me) is not clearly cordoned off from news, and thus I think the entire operation is presumptively unreliable, but as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

"In the Karen McDougal lawsuit, Carlson's (successful) defence was that no reasonable person would take anything he says seriously [...] -@Guy"

Not really. His defense was that it was hyperbole. Harry Sibelius (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"Please get her fired [...] Seriously… What the fuck? I'm actually shocked… It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It's measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke."

I'm still not really understanding what the allegation of wrongdoing is here. I see this quote repeated on this noticeboard a lot as evidence that Fox intentionally lied about the 2020 American election, but I have never seen anyone explain how. I have also seen editors reproduce Carlson's quotes regarding his hatred of Trump, as well as his negation of Sidney Powell's claims regarding Dominion, seemingly as evidence of Fox's lying. It's also not clear to me what these facts have to do with Fox's credibility--the latter even seems to evince Fox's credibility, since Tucker Carlson attacked Powell's Dominion-Venezuelan voter-fraud theory both in private, and on his show. Harry Sibelius (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson, a high profile star and stockholder, was demanding that fact-checking of Trump's big lie should stop, because viewers were deserting Fox for OANN and Newsmax, and it was hurting the stick price. This would not happen in a legitimate journalistic enterprise. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

That's clearly untrue, because he attacked the Venezuela-conspiracy claims himself, publicly. How does it fit your theory that he attacked some claims of voter fraud, but not others? And are you honestly saying that no "legitimate journalistic enterprise" does not care about stocks or ratings? Harry Sibelius (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

No legitimate journalistic enterprise would continue to report what it knew to be false information because doing so would hurt its ratings or its circulation or its stock price. A news source with journalistic integrity would bite the bullet, issue corrections, and then take whatever non-journalistic steps were necessary to bolster its ratings, circulation, or stock price. I suppose there are those -- such as the folks at Fox News -- that think that the other course of action is acceptable, but they clearly don't really understand what journalism is supposed to be about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is the claim that they knew to be false information, but promoted anyway? I often see it claimed that it was Tucker Carlson's assertion, in private, that Sydney Powell's claims were false. But he also asserted that they were false publicly, on the Fox News channel. There is no contradiction there. When Carlson said that Heinrich should be fired for saying that "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised", this does not contradict his attacks on Powell, which were never private or hidden from the public in any way. The two claims are not equal, and can only be connected tendentiously.

If A alleges that B specifically did not steal the election, and C alleges that the election was not stolen at all, and A attacks C for saying so, that does not mean that A has contradicted themselves in any way whatsoever. Harry Sibelius (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I've believed that Fox should not be considered a reliable source for quite a while, but just to be very clear about this I do indeed believe that this new evidence is relevant and that it establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that they fail our standards for being a reliable source at least dating from November 2020, if not earlier. Loki (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Just as a brief addendum to my colloquy with Sprringee above, this is very much my take, and for me, the date of the 2020 election is as good a cutoff as any (though I can see arguments for earlier). Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with the above takes, but I would propose March 15th (the beginning of covid lockdowns and close to the beginning of serious campaigning for the 2020 election) as the cutoff date. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If some solid justification could be provided, I wouldn't be opposed to that either. But, the current evidence seems to weigh mostly on events post-election.

I personally feel like if not November 2020, there just shouldn't be a cutoff date: some of the issues with Fox have been long-standing and while it definitely seems to have gotten notably worse in November 2020, issues revealed in this court case do seem to bear on their editorial policy in general. It's not clear to me, for instance, that Fox ever made a clear internal distinction between opinion and news. Loki (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. There's no clear cutoff date because Fox has literally always been like this - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

While I may empathize with that sentiment, I wouldn't condone going back further unless it is also backed by RS, which may or may not be possible. The 2020 "Big Lie" Dominion debacle is documented, and therefore something every reasonable editor (regardless of their persuasion) should be able to agree on. It's conceivable that this event may have a domino effect that creates doubt that goes further back in time, but it requires RS and we definitely should start at 2020. DN (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a change that would require a new RfC. Springee (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against an RfC, but this seems to be a policy issue, and RfCs do not supersede policy. DN (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not a policy issue. WP:V is policy. A blanket view that FN is or isn't a RS in some given subject area is not a policy question. Additionally, this would be trying to supersede a recent and very well attended RfC. Springee (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This falls under the umbrella of WP:V, ie the reliability of a source, "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source". To paraphrase Aquillion, FN does not maintain the separation between news and opinion that some people in previous RFCs hoped they did.DN (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I am disappointed that you are arguing for FNC. Coverage of this case very clearly shows that the opinion side drives policy. Notional news anchors were coerced into following the demands of opinion host (and stockholder) Tucker Carlson. Whether this was out of concern for financial impact or personal ideology is largely irrelevant.

Recall, Fox News is largely the result of Roger Ailes, a media advisor to Nixon, setting out to ensure that no future Republican should be forced to resign after being found out criming. The only person who would see this as anything other than "broken by design" is Mary Poppins. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Remember, those are claims made by Dominion selectively releasing information. We don't know the opposing side's version of events. In all of this I don't recall seeing anyone claim the news side was proving bad content. The talk side may have driven what they wanted the news side to focus on but that isn't the same as false information from the news side. Combine that with the lack of evidence that editors are using Fox disruptively and the fact that we already say use with caution and I don't see an issue that needs to be fixed. Springee (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

To expand on this, Wikipedia has an issue in that, instead of deciding to use sources on a case by case basis we often resort to blanket decisions. In general those decisions are more favorable to sources on the left vs right. This can result in a skew in our articles. As an example, take the indictment of Trump by DA Bragg (or any of the other potential cases against Trump). In articles on those cases we presumably want a range of legal analysis/opinions on the way the law is being applied to the facts in question. If we only cite news sources on the left we risk having only analysis that left leaning audiences. It's easy to claim this is just a case of the right not picking good sources. However, take someone like Allan Dershowitz. In most cases if we are reporting legal opinions/analysis on a subject and Dershowitz offers one, it's probably DUE. It certainly comes from a one of the absolute top US legal scholars. However, sources like CNN don't ask him to come on. According to Dershowitz, most sources on the left no longer talk with him because he defended Trump during his first impeachment. This means in the end we may not get balanced coverage of the legal opinions on a topic because we have decided that sources that carry opinions that are more likely to appeal to the right are not reliable and thus can't be included. I think that is a serious blind spot in our neutrality. I certainly can see the issue if we were to pack Biden's article with every negative thing reported by Fox. However, if we have an article about the legality of something the president or Congress etc is trying to do then we are doing a disservice to readers if we remove Dershowitz'z opinion from our list of "reactions" simply because his views were part of a Fox vs CNN interview. Springee (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Please reduce the verbiage. I already commented on your Dershowitz analogy. And I was polite enough to not include that highly regarded legal experts disagree with him with increasing frequency. And your claim that no one on the left will speak with him is unsourced and imaginative; and your comment that we are doing a disservice to readers if we remove Dershowitz'z opinion from our list of "reactions" simply because his views were part of a Fox vs CNN interview. is also unsourced. Frankly, I don't see why you keep talking about him. Are you saying that only Fox, of the massive news sources, will say anything about him? If that's true, wonder what the reason is. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Please check the time stamps. The edit above (00:06, 19 April 2023) was the first time I mentioned Dershowitz and predates your first comment on the subject (13:22, 19 April 2023). Springee (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

OK I'll strike; but twice is twice too many. It's not a good example. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Specifically re. Dersh, people won't ask him for his opinions as a legal scholar because he flushed his own reputation down the toilet.

His lawsuit against CNN for "ruining his reputation" by accurately reporting his actual words, failed, because he'd already said that his reputation had been ruined by the Epstein allegations.

We're not in danger as a project from not hearing Dersh's hot takes on anything. He was a respected legal scholar, he's now a hack, and nothing he says can be taken at face value. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I know this is a bit off topic but, to set the record straight, the lawsuit failed not because the judge ruled Dershowitz wasn't defamed. It failed because he wasn't able to show that CNN's actions met the actual malice standard [1]. CNN didn't accurately report his words when they truncated a quote and then suggested Dershowitz said something he specifically did not.

From the ABA Journal article, Dershowitz claimed that a shortened clip and CNN news commentators falsely suggested that he thought that a president could do anything—including illegal acts—as long as a president thinks that it is in the public interest. Dershowitz had actually argued that a president can’t be impeached simply because he takes action based on a desire to be reelected, if a president thinks their reelection is in the public interest. But Dershowitz had also said a president can be impeached if they did something illegal, regardless of their motive. Dershowitz complained that CNN should not have taken out this sentence in edited clips: “The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were some way illegal.”

Also from the article, ... while actual malice wasn’t established, the facts did show “foolishness, apathy and an inability to string together a series of common legal principles” on CNN’s part, Singhal said. Springee (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Then he wasn't defamed under the legal definition. And, I agree with all that Guy posted. But then, why would we want to get into a legal argument here. Not our job. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I just feel the need to pipe in very briefly about Dersh -- he is obviously notable and his opinions might well be notable, but he is very much an outlier on many things (a statement with which I believe he would agree), and so we have to be careful about according him too much weight, as that might be WP:UNDUE in some circumstances where he is alone or part of a very small group in the legal academy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Guy said CNN accurately reported his statements. The judge disagrees. Springee (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Nope.

As CNN aptly argued during the hearing on this case, there is no requirement under the First Amendment for a reporter to talk about everything Dershowitz has ever said about impeachment or even all the various ways one can be impeached.

In context, he said:

Policy-based judicial opinions have had a twisted history in American jurisprudence. Some rulings are just ridiculously bad despite what common sense demands and what the author may have thought. See Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). Other decisions cause deep-rooted political and emotional turmoil by creating a “Constitutional right” that others then believe in, that isn’t anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). And in the case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the United States Supreme Court’s holding—while laudable in a different era—that the First Amendment requires public figures to establish actual malice simply has no basis in and “no relation to the text, history or structure of the Constitution, and it baldly constitutionalized an area of law refined over centuries of common law adjudication.” Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc., 991 F.3d 231, 251 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (Silberman, J. dissenting).

(Emphasis added). I take it we all know what "dissenting" means. FedSoc judges are constantly quoting dissents. They want to strike down settled law, here explicitly including Sullivan, to allow the super-rich to stifle criticism.

Reminder:

It is understandable why Dershowitz brings this case. Once Dershowitz responded to Senator Cruz’ question, reporters and commentators from around the globe ran with his answer in today’s “race to publish” world and spoke about his January 29 comments without contextualizing the comments with what had been said on January 27, and without any reference to impeachment law. And again, they were not required by law to do so.

Emphasis added. What he's arguing, is that he wishes they were required by law to do so, to apply maximum deference to obvious bad-faith arguments, to allow the powerful to silence criticism. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually they did accurately report his words. His beef was that they didn't report them the way he would have preferred, after the event. He knows that he advanced a monumentally silly argument, for which he was roundly criticised not just by CNN but by pretty much every respectable legal commentator. Singhal's comment doesn't undermine CNN, it's in the context of FedSoc's intent to strike down Sullivan - a long-term goal in service of the hyper-privileged, which we have heard from Trump (who appointed Singhal), Thomas, and others.

You don't get summary judgment if it's a close call.The judgment itself [2] contains a pretty brutal slapdown of Dersh's abject failure to meet the required standard of pleading. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be a gap between "did CNN's actions meet the legal standard" and "did CNN accurately report what Dersh said". It's clear the judge thinks the legal standard wasn't met but not because CNN's reporting accurately reported what Dersh said. There is a big difference between, "You can do what you want so long as it is legal" vs "You can do what you want". Leaving off a very important qualifier, as CNN did, is either grossly incompetent reporting or a lie by omission. Since the standard for a public figure would have to be lie by omission we can assume the judge felt the evidence only rose to grossly incompetent. I think my quote from the judge is sufficient to show CNN didn't accurately report what Dersh said. Springee (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Given that we already say don’t use the talk shows, and already strongly caution editors about using Fox for certain topics (especially politics and science), I really don’t see a need for this. Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Given how the sort of editor who adds Fox as a source observably behaves, we clearly do - David Gerard (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

    Can you show an example of this? Honestly, this comes off as a bit of a character attack/personal attack against unnamed editors. Springee (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

    Editors that ignore RS in favor of a particular POV would be the example here. DN (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

    Again, do we have examples of this? If not then the existing RSP entry works fine. Springee (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

    If you look at articles regarding Trump, the 2020 election, the Biden's, the Clinton's etc... you will probably find some edits of this nature. DN (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    Can you provide links to any examples? I don't follow those topics and honestly, try to avoid them. Springee (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    Seconded. This seems like a reach. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    I agree that we do, and copious evidence of problem attempts to use Fox have been provided. I also agree that it would be great to establish that Fox is generally unreliable starting in 2020 even if prior to that remains as status quo. Andre🚐 18:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    Can you share some example links? Springee (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    Here's a recentish example [3] Andre🚐 18:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    What's the issue? It seems like a reasonable add. It seems reasonable to use Fox as a source for an attributed POV. Unless your perspective is that any political content cited to Fox is unacceptable, a view not supported by the last RfC. Springee (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    Looking into your example a bit more, it was added once then removed. How is that an issue. There was no edit warring and, right or wrong, the content didn't make it to the article. Honestly, this is a very poor example of a "problem". Springee (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    This seems to be going off-topic quickly, and the goal posts seem to be moving. The discussion here is about the recent summary judgement against FN, and how that relates to it's assigned level of reliability. To reiterate, as far as this discussion is concerned, what unnamed editors are doing with FN is less relevant than what FN has been doing. If anyone wants to discuss editor behavior, maybe start a separate discussion somewhere else, otherwise it may be hatted, as it seems fairly off-topic. Cheers.DN (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    What goal post is shifting? I asked where the use of Fox was problematic. The diff offered doesn't support the view that Fox is being used problematically. It does relate to the overall question since any change to RSP entry should include some indication that we are fixing a problem. Springee (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

    Springee, this noticeboard (and discussion) is about reliable sources...not reliable editors...DN (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    I don't understand your reply. Springee (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    A Fox RSP entry does exist, and that entry needs to contain accurate information on how Fox should or should not be used in the future. The subject of current or past editor behavior is unnecessary to that discussion. I believe DN was requesting that we all simply drop that topic. Alsee (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    An earlier comment was that the use of FN has been problematic. I asked for examples and none were provided. Springee (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    None were provided? I think you are mistaken. After an example you requested was given to you, you dismissed it stating "Unless your perspective is that any political content cited to Fox is unacceptable, a view not supported by the last RfC.". From a certain perspective, you provided a brand new example in this very discussion. DN (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

    Again, that isn't an example of a problematic addition. It infact was a perfectly reasonable use. So, no, you are wrong. No examples of problematic use of FN have been provided. Springee (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

    Its reasonableness is disputed, and it substantiates an existence of a disagreement on the usability of Fox for such issues. Our current RFC closure indicates that Fox should be used with caution and possibly not used for controversial political topics, and that it should not be considered a high-quality source. Since policy and guideline already urge multiple high-quality sources for controversial statements and issues, this would not be usable. But, your disagreement proves that Fox should be downgraded since editors are still trying to wiggle it in for issues where it shouldn't be used. Andre🚐 17:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

    Your argument is circular. It pre-supposes that any use of Fox for political content is a problem. So you show an example of someone citing FN and proclaim it proof of a problem. However, your argument is based on the false premise that any use of FN is by definition problematic. That premise conflicts with the "use with caution" RfC closing. By your thinking any use of a yellow source is problematic thus proof that source needs to be downgraded. The burden is on you to show that this example, your example, illustrates a problematic use. An editor added an opinion of the Heritage Foundation reported by Fox with all the required attributions, I presume in good faith (do you think they acted otherwise). Another editor decided it was UNDUE and removed it. Where is the problem? Are you going to suggest any time anyone adds verifiable but arguably UNDUE claims that the source is now problematic? That would at least be logically consistent with your claims here. Springee (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

    Do you believe it is acceptable to use FN for politics? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

    Per the RfC closing yes. Use with caution is not the same as don't use. Springee (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

    I never said all claims are UNDUE or Fox is UNDUE by definition, it just so happens that most of the time editors want to use it to launder right wing propaganda. Andre🚐 00:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

    But you presented that specific diff and said it was evidence of a problem. A single example of FN being used, with no evidence of edit warring etc, without some sort of explanation why it was totally unreasonable to have been ever added doesn't support your case. It might actually be a perfect example but you would have to say why. Springee (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

    I second everything Springee has said.

    @Darknipples, your comment about moving the goalposts is very curious. @David Gerard commented that "Given how the sort of editor who adds Fox as a source observably behaves, we clearly do" [need to downgrade Fox as a source.] You, @Darknipples, seemed to support this, writing that "Editors that ignore RS in favor of a particular POV would be the example here", and that "If you look at articles regarding Trump, the 2020 election, the Biden's, the Clinton's etc... you will probably find some edits of this nature." When there seemed to be a paucity of evidence for such edits, you commented "This seems to be going off-topic quickly, and the goal posts seem to be moving", not seeming to acknowledge that it was you who had moved the goalpoasts. When Springee, reasonably, responded to this about-face with confusion, you condescendingly wrote "Springee, this noticeboard (and discussion) is about reliable sources...not reliable editors..., " despite the fact that it was @David Gerard alleging that there was a problem with "reliable editors", not Springee, and that you were encouraging David Gerard's position, not attacking it. It's all well and good that we return to talking about Fox itself, and not the editors that use it, but I don't think this about-face should go unnoted. Harry Sibelius (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  • "In most cases if we are reporting legal opinions/analysis on a subject and Dershowitz offers one, it's probably DUE." It depends. I would suggest that we should avoid Dershowitz's legal opinions on sexual abuse cases involving minors, since he has been accused of "misconduct"" in such cases since 2015, and he is accused of having non-consensual sex with minors in his own right. Dimadick (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    The person who made that claim recanted [4]. Springee (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

    Dersh's legal opinions are not what they were. Very much not. He is now a pariah, by his own admission, and no reputable source calls on him for his legal views, again, by his own admission. He sued CNN for it (and lost). Guy (help! - typo?) 16:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• The talk shows of the likes of Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, etc are already unreliable. This does not really change anything...  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Fox News Rating

Looking at WP:FOXNEWS(excluding politics and science) the rating is currently green and considered reliable, while WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS(including politics and science) is white with no consensus. Given the RS provided by Guy at the beginning, I feel both of those ratings need to be reexamined at the very least, and possibly downgraded. DN (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• I would agree regarding the political coverage… but not on the rest. Their coverage of mundane news is fine (example: their reporting on things like tornadoes or hurricanes is probably MORE reliable than the other cable outlets, since they can draw from local affiliates for information). Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Forgive me if this is something obvious to US based editors, but would the point on affiliates not equally apply to other affiliate based stations with news divisions like NBC, ABC, CBS, etc? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• As was mentioned above, any change like this would require a new RfC. I don't agree that the issues associated with their talk shows warrant a change to their news reporting. Springee (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Only some of the issues are related to the talk shows. And I'm tired of asking when the news shows are on since nobody seems to watch them, whenever they are on. Seriously the "news" media defamation case appears to be the largest lost in history, and an hour after, the Fox News site had a huge article at the top of the main page suggesting someone in the Biden administration cheated in the 2022 election for what was actually a minor infraction in front of a small audience as opposed to KelleyAnne Conway's multiple, widely seen public infractions for which there was no penalty. But, this is all pointless. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  Provide the examples where the issue was the regular reporting. Springee (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  This was already provided at the very beginning by Guy and Aquillion, which it seems you dismissed, seemingly without actually reading the parts that mention it involves news anchors and EXECUTIVES. It goes all the way to the top including RUPERT MURDOCH, who quickly took to calling news anchors "hosts". There is undeniable evidence FOX news intentionally blurs the lines between opinion and fact for years and years. How is any reasonable editor able to ignore this well known fact? Here are the diffs...Guy Springee Aquillion....DN (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have asked multiple times when is this "regular reporting" and no one responds, presumably because no one watches it. Is Kurtz one of them? He stated two days ago he was ordered not to talk about the case. Is that news? [5] O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• The “regular mundane reporting” occurs on programs such as: “Fox News @ Night” with Shannon Bream (airs at midnight), “America’s Newsroom” with Dana Perino and Bill Hemmer (9 - 11 AM), “America Reports” with Sandra Smith and John Roberts (1 -3 PM), and “Special Report” with Bret Baier (6 PM). There is also some mundane news reporting during the morning “Fox and Friends” show… but morning news tends to be superficial no matter the network.
• That said, I suspect the real issue for Wikipedia isn’t what gets broadcasted on air (and when), but what gets written and published on their website and app. After all, that is what is usually cited here on WP. And I do have to agree that their web site sucks… it over hypes the sensational and partisan stuff, and buries the more mundane stuff. Blueboar (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  This keeps coming up again and again ...... it has been decades since Fox News has been this way. Are Americans not taught about this sort of stuff in school? Moxy- 01:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  "I feel both of those ratings need to be reexamined at the very least, and possibly downgraded." I would support downgrading their reliability in matters of politics. But we haven't heard whether their coverage of science is equally bad. And frankly, I don't see why would editors cite a television network in a topic which it rarely covers. Dimadick (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have a feeling FOX NEWS' stance on CLIMATE CHANGE is totally accurate (snark).DN (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that given the longstanding but increasing extent and extremity of the issues, and of other RS' reporting on them, "For politics and science [...] Fox News is considered marginally reliable" needs to be revised downward at least after 2020. This isn't a matter of guessing what the court case might have found in the future, but of acknowledging what RS have said, including about things that came out in relation to the case or which the court already did determine. (And "should the existing RSP entry on Fox continue to list them as reliable for politics?" is something we can and should determine based on whether Fox is reliable, not based on Wikipedia editor conduct, pace the one editor asking for examples of the latter.) -sche (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
• DN is right. The key words are "any reasonable editor". Those who are still in denial need to really think about how anyone can still consider them "reasonable editors". IDHT behavior is tiring and disruptive.
• Here are the stark facts: Fox News fact-checkers were threatened and news staff blocked from covering the whole story, with the knowledge of the top brass. Fox News has a problem in maintaining their obviously false claims that they are a news agency. No, they are a propaganda agency. They fail the most basic of requirements for being considered a RS.
• This lawsuit will not change anything. They will just be more careful to not libel companies, but will still tell lies. Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson says Dominion settlement ‘Won’t Change the Way Fox Does News’ -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• I'm sorry but that sort of thinking is deeply flawed. The idea that any editor who might consider citing fox is, by your definition, not a reasonable editor is really problematic. Reasonable editors can disagree and reasonable editors can evaluate sources on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  I did not say that. I am thinking of any editor who continues to defend Fox. In every discussion about Fox here, we find the same little group of editors who never change their tune. They always use the same arguments to defend Fox, even in the face of the indefensible. They are learning nothing from the history of Fox News and its consistently serious deviations from journalistic norms. It was never intended to be a normal journalistic news source. It was and is an extension of the GOP and only serves the GOP party line. That's why Roger Ailes created it, and he always defended Nixon and his unethical behavior. "Fox News is no longer the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. The Republican Party is the legislative arm of Fox News." It's okay for a source to be openly and honestly related to a political party, but Fox News is deceptive about that issue. That's a problem.

  I definitely agree that reasonable editors can disagree, but around here they are supposed to learn, to know how to vet sources for reliability (a CIR issue), to show a progressive and positive learning curve, and to not sit entrenched in one POV and be unmovable regardless of what RS and other editors tell them. They know when to give up their opposition to progressive information and change their mind. They know when to drop out of the discussion when their opposition to progress is disruptive. That's why we have WP:IDHT. It recognizes that even experienced editors can slide into unreasonable behavior because they are not learning and progressing. We expect editors to demonstrate a positive learning curve and to give up their conservative and regressive ways of thinking that block progress here. Continued defense of Fox News is disruptive. Period. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Fox News folded and now has to pay Dominion $787,500,000

See NPR - PBS - NBC - APNEWS...DN (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

You listed NPR, PBS, NBC, and AP news sources -- but not Fox News. Google shows dozens of stories in RS. For humor value, read the Fox News story [6]. Although released after the result of the suit, it doesn't say it was resolved. It only says that some of Trump's allies and legal staff made false statements, not Fox. It says nothing about Fox or about the settlement. And the Fox News site looks like a tabloid with three anti-LGBTQ stories and headlining Biden's income. Fox is not a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

As if we needed further evidence: they are even lying to their audience about having lied to their audience. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

A key point here is that we cannot treat any of the reported evidence as being true or what it may seem on paper because the court did not rule on it, and it does not appear to be in the settlement terms that Fox has to agree to admit to lying. Thus, all that evidence that Dominion casted that got discussed here is really hard to do anything with without putting our own prejudices in place. All we know is that they still likely should be avoided for political and science news (as they are now) but little else we can extrapolate from that. --Masem (t) 01:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Really? So Fox News just paid $800 million because they thought they were going to win? I can't tell if you're joking or oblivious to the irony of what you are suggesting. DN (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

They folded most likely to avoid having a whole bunch of questionable details of their operation bubble to the forefront, including details from Murdoch, etc. While Fox will have to pay a lot of money, this is a win for them in terms that they appear to get scott free with their current news ethics and practices, since this case goes down without any judgement. Masem (t) 01:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this lawsuit was never about righting the wrongs (i.e. the right-wing Lie Machinations) of the Nov 2020 elections. This was only ever about a corporation protecting its shareholder value against another corporation's malfeasance. Zaathras (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

We still have to figure out how this may affect their reliability on Wiki. Fox paid to end the suit, so they obviously lied. The evidence in the case already shows as much. They continued to push The Big Lie to the bitter end. I don't see how any reasonable editor here can be expected to ignore this, or continue to put faith in reports by FN after such an obvious capitulation.DN (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Fox paid to end the suit, so they obviously lied. is not a stance we can take. We may want to believe that as much as we want, but there's going to be no legal resolution to that matter. --Masem (t) 02:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

That is completely ignoring the evidence in the case. Do you really expect editors to keep treating FN as reliable after this?DN (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

That's like saying a certain RS citation can't be used because some random authoritative figure didn't get a chance to give their opinion on it. DN (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Courts determine legal liability, not reality. You can live in a world where O.J. Simpson is innocent and Bruno Hauptmann guilty, if you like, but that's not the world in which I reside. Reliable sources and commentators have already weighed in on many things found in discovery in this case. Determinations by a court of competent jurisdiction should certainly be taken into account, but "no legal resolution means we must pretend it didn't happen" strikes me as unhelpful. Dumuzid (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm hundred percent with you re "courts determine legal liability, not reality" but that also means that the outcome of this particular case by itself should not have much bearing on the status of FN. As always we should see what RS make of the evidence and summary judgement and follow them. Alaexis_¿question? 09:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

ETA: Apologies for ruminating on the fly, but I think it is categorically false that there is no legal resolution to the matter of whether Fox lied. That factual issue was completely disposed of by way of summary judgment. It was decided. The jury could not have found otherwise (indeed, the issue could not have been argued). To quote the judge, it was "crystal clear" that "that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true." That is from p. 43 of the ruling. Now, we can split hairs, I suppose, and say that perhaps the falsehoods were inadvertent, but that strikes me as a bit sophistical. Anyway, I will cease blathering now. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I will agree that you're right, the summary judgment does say Fox lied, but only about their commentary about DVS. A lot more about why Fox News should be downgraded further in the prior discussions were based on additional "lies" that were found in DVS's evidence but not directly tied to DVS (such as Fox not wanting to lose viewers). Because these fall outside the bounds of what the summary judgment gave, and now will remain only evidence (and no verification of truth or not), we have to be careful to take those all as fact in determining Fox News' status. I'll stand that what we have now (unreliable for politics and science, and definitely not anything from their talking-head shows) remains as best consistent with the knowledge from this trial. Masem (t) 03:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for sort of doubling up on Loki below, but I am still a bit confused (honestly, that's me more than anything else). I would certainly agree that we can't take Dominion's allegations as "true" for any Wikipedia purposes. But certainly we can take note of reliable sources commenting upon things that came out in discovery? Dumuzid (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Masem: Fox News is not currently unreliable for politics and science. From WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS: For politics and science, there is consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear […] As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable. Shells-shells (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not true: if it's reported as true in reliable sources, we can rely on it, even if a court did not actually judge it to be true. Notably the court actually did judge several of Dominion's claims to be true already in summary judgement (and that's a major reason why they settled).

It's also not totally clear yet that Fox did not have to admit fault of some kind. Loki (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not Fox News is reliable should be determined by conclusions published in reliable sources, not by our own. CNN settled with Nicholas Sandmann,[7] while the SPLC settled with people they accused of Islamophobia. Having to settle libel cases is of course evidence of unreliability, but whether it is conclusion is a determination for which we should look to expert opinion.

So far, the majority of RS I've seen (above) all seem to come to the consensus that FOX not only lied, but knew they were lying...and did it anyway.DN (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, both The Washington Post and SPLC took steps to correct the record, something I think noteworthy in the reliability context (especially as to the Post, which did so before the suit). If Fox news does nothing more than the statement released in the immediate aftermath of settlement (yet to be determined, obviously), I would say the record remains uncorrected, but reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Do they say that Fox actually lied or simply that Fox hosted external commentators who they internally doubted (in stronger terms). Given this was a legal case it's always important to be clear about what has actually been shown etc. As an aside, Dershowitz's take on the case (self published on YT) is interesting. On one hand he questions some of the judge's actions. My understanding is he feels the judge was wrong to declare findings of fact (a task that should be left to the jury). However, he also felt that there is likely more to the case that is publicly known. The feeling being that the potential avenues for appeal were strong based on both the preliminary rulings and the feeling that damages on this scale would be very hard to prove (did any states drop vote counting contracts)? He suggests this might mean Fox had more that they wanted to hide but that is purely speculative. Springee (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Springee, I would invite you to read the judge's decision for yourself. And while it is quite true that in most cases, juries decide facts and judges decide law, motions for summary judgment are filed incredibly often in common law jurisdictions. In fact, I'd say it's very difficult to find a civil case without them. Now they are not granted nearly as often as filed, but there was nothing remarkable or unusual about the judge's decision here--which is not to say, of course, that it can't be disagreed with. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This is certainly some good context to go along with that [8]. Ultimately I don't see this really changes things since we already said Fox talk shows/commentary are not reliable and that was the heart of this issue. Springee (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought the heart of the issue was that the news reporting, not just the talk shows, was specifically omitting facts and publishing blatant lies without retraction relating to the topics at hand at the pushing of Murdoch and Fox executives? It's funny, I see multiple people pointing that out to you in discussions above. Strange you would still be pushing such an inaccuracy after having been repeatedly corrected. Almost as if you have an immense bias in trying to ensure Fox News isn't considered unreliable, as all of your arguing in this thread seems to indicate. Silverseren^C 05:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

First, the accusation is totally uncalled for. As I previously mentioned I don't think I've ever actually added FN as a source (reverting what appears to be an incorrect removal excluded). Second, not publishing or over/under emphasizing aspects of a story is not the same thing as publishing false information. Anyway, since you say I've been corrected, please show the diff and what sources are provided. I do have a bias in this. I have a bias against totally throwing out sources. I think that goes against the spirit and text of WP:V as well as WP:RS. Using Fox with caution (warranted) is not the same as saying we can't use Fox. This is especially problematic in cases where we cover the views of legitimate experts on a topic. Many of the news sources seem to focus on experts who share their perspectives. See my recent Dershowitz hypothetical. Springee (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever actually added FN as a source (reverting what appears to be an incorrect removal excluded). I find no difficulty in believing this claim, simply because your style of mainspace editing appears to focus on removing content and reverting edits (I say this not as a criticism—plenty of content needs removing—but merely as a neutral characterization of your style). Your claim is, however, unresponsive to the allegation that you have an immense bias in trying to ensure Fox News isn't considered unreliable, because whether or not you have a bias in favor of Fox News being a reliable source is totally separate from whether or not you personally choose to add Fox News as a source to articles. (But I must note that your personal bias is irrelevant to the question of whether Fox is reliable.)

In response to your request for the diff and what sources are provided that corrected your assertion that we already said Fox talk shows/commentary are not reliable and that was the heart of this issue, I will provide an example. Some days ago you claimed that The problem here was the talk shows, not the news reporting […] the problem element is already viewed as not reliable. David Gerard and Aquillion both responded directly to you, explicitly refuting your claim and providing sources: see here and here. In particular, Aquillion demonstrated that Fox News has blurred the line between news and opinion, which you apparently did not contest. I hope these examples suffice to fulfill your request.

Finally, you also say that I do have a bias in this. I have a bias against totally throwing out sources […] Using Fox with caution (warranted) is not the same as saying we can't use Fox. I think I agree with you on this point, but your position is not in opposition to the users questioning the reliability of Fox as a source. As far as I can tell, no user in these discussions has argued in favor of totally throwing out Fox News. The focus has been almost solely on Fox News's political coverage, and it is my impression that users are on the whole entirely open to Using Fox with caution in that area. Many of them are simply convinced that Fox News is in fact less reliable (in this area) than it has previously been believed to be. Shells-shells (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

David Gerard's reply was related to a speculative forward looking question so it doesn't address if our existing rating already covers this issue. Aquillion's reply shows that Fox News listed Bartiromo as a news anchor (and still does [9]) but it does so for her own shows which look like talking head shows rather than news reporting. Would we have considered Mornings with Maria news reporting or commentary? Given it was a talking heads show I think this would fall into the same bucket as Carlson et al which we have already said is generally unreliable. I don't think the it has been shown that the news programs (the shows we would view as news reporting, not commentary) were compromised. Why does this matter? Take the Indictment of Donald Trump article where there are sections talking about legal analysis and commentary. Given Alan Dershowitz's expertise, would it seem reasonable to include his perspective in the section? We have the legal opinions of people picked by other news sources. If someone added Dershowitz via, as an example, this Fox interview [10], should it be retained or not? Many editors already treat Fox News as a remove on site if the topic is even remotely political. Is that approach reasonable in my hypothetical case? What if Dershowitz gave the exact same content to MSNBC, would we then consider it acceptable? wp:RS tells us we really should be considering the claims in question, not just the source. However, over time this has evolved into a game of "do we collectively agree with that source". That doesn't make for better articles in the end. Springee (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The Dershowitz example is interesting. Just this morning, CNN had a Republican insisting that after slavery, Blacks got full freedom because of the Second Amendment. Craziest concept I've heard on a news program in ages. Of course the anchor heavily challenged the concept. Would have Fox? So yes, it matters on what program Dershowitz is a guest. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The thing about Dersh is that, years ago, his opinions on legal questions were respected and often worthy of inclusion. That is very much no longer the case. So the only reason we would need to discuss him is in response to RS reporting of something he did. I would never use the primary source for that anyway. So we lose nothing by not being able to cite Fox for some statement he made on their shows. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Dersh is firmly on the lunatic fringe at this point, not a respected academic and legal thinker. So this example really proves the opposite. Andre🚐 22:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Any evidence of this? Where are the scholars who are claiming his legal analysis and understanding of the law is no longer accurate? When did this change occur? Surely this is something we would have covered in is BLP. Springee (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

[11] [12] [13] [14] the fall from grace is real. Andre🚐 23:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

From the Politico article, "Maybe the question isn’t what happened to Alan Dershowitz.

Maybe it’s what happened to everyone " Two of the article are just op-eds that are mad he was willing to defend Trump. If this is the best you have it's very weak. Springee (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You say that David Gerard's reply was related to a speculative forward looking question so it doesn't address if our existing rating already covers this issue. This is an inaccurate characterization of David Gerard's comment. David Gerard replied directly to your statement that the problem element is already viewed as not reliable by saying that The issue is precisely that we have the court evidence it was not confined to one element. David Gerard's comment does address if our existing rating already covers this issue; it argues that our existing rating is outdated because newly available evidence demonstrates that the problems are broader than they were once thought to be.

With regard to Bartiromo, you say I don't think [that] it has been shown that the news programs were compromised. Yet you simultaneously say that Fox News listed Bartiromo as a news anchor. What is your criterion for identifying something as a news program? Shells-shells (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Fringe fringe and more fringe [15] Andre🚐 23:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we are missing something here. Yes, we must be very careful about what we print in mainspace. But, we are allowed to make our own judgements on reliability of sources for use in Wikipedia. We don't need a court of law for that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t disagree… but… I think we need to make those judgements on a more granule level - on a case by case basis. We all know that source X can be unreliable for statement Y, yet reliable for statement Z. We can apply this to Fox.

As a community, we can determine that FN is unreliable for its coverage on Dominion, yet we can also deem it perfectly reliable for its coverage on other stories… a massive warehouse fire in Detroit or a flood in Texas.

We need to resist the temptation to throw the baby out with the bath water. Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that everything is political these days. A flood or fire is caused by Biden's "woke" policies, or Rothschild space lasers. What came out of the recent case is that Fox management believes keeping their viewers happy is more important than facts. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

We should be basing such decisions on clear evidence that the source is bad for us. EG for the Daily Mail, it was pushed hard to be classified as unusable, but only got consensus to be that way when multiple documented cases of falsification and made-up information were demonstrated. Here, we can use the case to definitely keep Fox News out of any political story, and strengthens why we don't ever want to see opinions from Tucker and the other talk shows on here, but that doesn't speak to the rest of Fox News in other, more general news departments. Masem (t) 12:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I am unconvinced by the distinction. I believe we are creating a distinction here for Fox that we would not for almost any other WP:NEWSORG. If the San Francisco Chronicle was found to have lied knowingly and repeatedly at the direction of the editors about a particular topic, would we really say they're still reliable for reporting on other topics? Or would we just toss the whole source? Loki (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The general news departments of Fox News took their direction from the big bosses in terms of what to cover in terms of their priorities on the 2020 election lies, that is what the Dominion case summary judgment finds. Andre🚐 18:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

We should ditch the over-generalizations that are inherent in such listings. Actual reliability is context specific.....expertise and objectivity with respect the the text which cited it. Also remember that in Wikipedia this isn't just about wp:ver. It ripples through into using wp:NPOV to POV an article, to suppress coverage of one side of political issues, in this case by far the largest news organization which covers that "side" North8000 (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Problem is, Fox doesn't cover that one side reliably. Fox broadcasts lies -- for years. And is it actually a "news organization" just because it says it is? And don't other news organizations cover both sides? O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

No, in the US that era is unfortunately long gone. The major medias are now all at least partially advocates or tilted towards for one side or the other. And they under cover, over cover or fail to cover things and angles accordingly. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

That's really not the case, but for the sake of argument, if it were the case, we should deprecate all of the corporate news media in the USA. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, NPR, ABC, NYT, WSJ .... I'd say they're all reliable except FOX. I hadn't heard that WSJ was on the chopping block. Do you consider WSJ tilted? Andre🚐 19:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

With regard to making over-generalizations, in my opinion, We should ditch the over-generalizations that you just now made in your comment. These are very broad, very absolutist assertions that are not particularly helpful to the question at hand. Do you have sources to support your position? Shells-shells (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I know that claim is constantly made by the extreme right. I don't see it. CNN has Republican guests every day. The NYTimes has performed embarrassing investigating of Democrats. Both have had critical articles of the Biden administration. With the wealth of news sources, I cannot accept the idea that only Fox can be used for right-wing (extreme in many cases) angles. Besides, it sounds like you are saying we should start using Fox for politics and science, unlike most everyone here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Replying to the above three post, to clarify, what I advocate is ditching this entire process of overgeneralization regarding media sources. The standard should be expertise and objectivity with respect to the items which cited it Eliminating the largest cable news source would have widespread negative effects. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, and that's not a viable approach to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Andre🚐 14:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with North8000 here. Springee (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the idea of particularized reliability, if I may call it that, is that Wikipedia's current idea of reliability is heavily premised upon the ideas of editorial oversight and fact-checking. While expertise definitely plays a role, institutional norms and culture certainly do as well. I agree any results here will have widespread effects, but what was revealed in the Dominion suit strikes me as fairly unprecedented for a major media organization. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with North8000, blanket bans of established news organizations are bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and since Fox News is not a real news organization and does not have a reputation for accuracy or fact-checking (our minimum requirements for being a RS), we don't need to worry about its ignominious fate. Only fake news organizations like Fox, OANN, Newsmax, Daily Wire, Breitbart, etc. should be banned. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems that the only news organizations you think should be banned just happen to all be American media organizations allied with the Republican Party. Are there any organizations that don't fit this description that you think are fake as well? Harry Sibelius (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

There have been attempts to start left-wing radio stations. Problem is, no one listens to them. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

And yet they exist. Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

As no one listens to them, they quickly fail. It appears folks on the left aren't into listening to lies, exaggerations and extremist thought. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Harry Sibelius, you need to factor in the huge differences between people on the American political left/liberals and right/conservatives. The highly-respected and politically neutral Pew Research Center studies this stuff. In their coverage of Political Polarization & Media Habits, they found that consistent liberals view a wide variety of sources (and tend to trust all mainstream media, both American and foreign), whereas consistent conservatives tend to focus on few sources, and 47% focus on Fox News, and they distrust all other sources, especially after Trump told them all sources that said anything negative about him, true or not, were "Fake news#Donald Trump's misuse of term" and to not trust fact-checkers.

ONE SOURCE(!!!), with no reputation for accuracy or fact-checking, and a proven history of lying and pushing conspiracy theories, think about that. What type of damage does constantly listening to their deliberate disinformation (not just accidental misinformation) do to the thinking of conservatives? We must follow what RS say about Fox News and downgrade them. Many other sources have been deprecated and blacklisted for far lesser offenses, so be thankful we are currently giving Fox News undeserved favorable and preferential treatment, contrary to our PAG. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

While it's common the US for people to let everything they say be dominated by which "side" in the political divide they are on, I urge them to rise above that here. This discussion is about potentially deprecating the largest cable news organization. Conversations revolve around "did they every say anything unreliable in the zillions of things that they have produced?" and coupling that with the unspoken "in the US political wars, they are on the team opposite to mine" we need to keep in mind that a common if not the most common use of excluding sources in political areas is in wp:weight battles on political topics and excluding the largest cable news source from that balancing would both do us harm and also further harm rather than improve our bias creditability problem on US political related articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Not all of us are American, and I urge people to wp:agf. We should judge a source solely on whether or not it can be trusted. It should not be some kind of wp:falsebalance where we give equal weight to untrustworthy sources in the name of NPOV. A lie is a lie, no matter how many people believe it, and we should not be including lies. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

North, surely you understand this poll is about whether Fox is a "news organization", "the largest cable news source", usw? SPECIFICO talk 14:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

North, lying is the "house style" of the Murdoch stable. Apart from WP:THESUN (already deprecated), The Australian maintains the standard: Graham Readfearn (7 May 2023). "Climate scientists first laughed at a 'bizarre' campaign against the BoM – then came the harassment". Guardian Australia.. Like the fabled scorpion, "because it is in his nature". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Trusted on what? In wp:weight battles on political topics it about coverage of the various sides and points on a debate. I advocate complete elimination of this whole overgeneralization of sources system, but in the meantime not making the problem worse per the points in my previous post would be good. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Why does FOX News get a free pass on Politics and Science? Do we do this for all news outlets?

• Um… responding to whoever created this sub-header… we say to NOT use Fox for politics and science. Which is the opposite of giving them a “free pass”. Perhaps you meant something else? Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  Could the assertion be that we're giving Fox a free pass by separating its politics and science coverage and assessing it separately from its coverage on other topics? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  But that's not exactly special, and it happens for other outlets, too (e.g. Rolling Stone, Sixth Tone, WP:BUZZFEED vs WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS, CNET, The Points Guy, Newsweek). Distinctions get made when they have value, and my list would be longer when those were made without using separate entries. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Many of those are time-based, which is a different situation: we're not trusting editors that are unreliable for one topic to be reliable for other topics if we say that the reliability of a source has declined over time. The remainder have some very concrete reason why their unreliability in one area would not spill over to other areas. Buzzfeed News is a separate organization that just happens to be under the same brand as Buzzfeed's clickbait content, for instance. Loki (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  You claim that we say to NOT use Fox for politics and science. This is not entirely accurate. Fox News is considered marginally reliable with regard to politics and science. It is not considered unreliable. Shells-shells (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  oops...Sorry It looks like my signature didn't take on mobile. I see now that these rules seem to apply to many sources, and for politics it kind of makes sense, but a major news network not being reliable for SCIENCE seems like an extremely egregious line to cross from a standpoint of RELIABILITY.

  What other major networks are considered generally reliable, but not for SCIENCE?

  Not being reliable for reports that involve SCIENCE seems like a huge issue. If it is politicizing something that is supposed to be as fairly mundane as science in order to appeal to an audience that doesn't care about empirical research or WP:VERIFIABILITY, then why would anyone be surprised when they cross the line into plain old journalistic reports? They seem to cater EVERYTHING around a biased political viewpoint. It has been documented that Fox News has been pushing scientific falsehoods for years. See Fox News controversies-Coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic and Guardian-Fox Climate misinformation. The list goes on and on... DN (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think it would be fine to use Fox as a source for anything that does not intersect with either politics or science. I doubt they lie about sports results (though even that would not surprise me at this point). Guy (help! - typo?) 17:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  The problem is, what doesn't ever interact with either of those things? We know they're not reliable on business or law news either because they're lying about this case. Sports isn't completely apolitical: what if Colin Kaepernick decides to try to make a comeback? Do you really trust Fox to report on that accurately? Loki (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  For that matter, you can't trust them on anything involving race or LGBTQ; both of which arise often in sports. And they did spend months lying about gas prices. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  They never lied about gas prices. You keep making that claim and it's wrong each time you do it. Springee (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  They never lied on gas prices. It was infographics that at a casual glance biased the data to make it look more severe, but the text data 100% matched up with their source (a reputable one). Tha/ type of problem falls info the "93% of statistics are made up" realm that all sources do even if the simple text numbers are fine. Masem (t) 21:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Is there a link to this infographic and the story about (alleged) lying abut gas prices? Zaathras (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Oddly, no. But I documented here for months. Over 100 times it was updated near the top of the page with a number double the actual average price of gas, higher than any state average, claiming as a source AAA which never had any such numbers. Again, I'm not suggesting using this in the article -- only for our own evaluations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  It was discussed at length in the last RFC. Andre🚐 22:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  The text stated "Average Price" and the only number statically displayed was about double. If you were on a non-mobile device, you could see accurate numbers by state by hovering your mouse over a state. But, the one number that you could see without effort was higher than any state. The text stated that the source was AAA, a reliable source; but AAA had no such number anywhere on the displayed url. Interestingly, they did not link the url, so you had to take extra effort to see it was a lie. This was a lie repeated with a different wrong number each day. This number was of enormous importance to tens of millions of Americans and fit FN's claim that inflation was the fault of Biden's "woke" policies. If you believe this wrong number was a technology problem, as Springee repeatedly claimed with no evidence; then their carelessness is beyond anything I would consider RS. And all sources' statistics are NOT grossly incorrect 93% of the time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Again, you were wrong then and wrong now. It was a script error that didn't auto adjust the color scale as gas prices changed. Contrary to your repeatedly incorrect claims, it was not falsely presenting the average price of gas. Springee (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  That is not correct. It clearly advertised a number that was not correctly calculated, and was significantly higher than any gas price in any state. Andre🚐 22:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  A.) This has NOTHING to do with the colors. B.) You are just making that up. You have zero evidence of anything about any script. It stated "Average Price" and then had a number which was higher than the average in every single state. And this number was nowhere at the AAA page cited. If this was a "error" reported in a prominent spot for over 100 days; we shouldn't trust them to report the time of day. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  No, you were wrong then and you are still wrong. The issue was a color bar on the side of the screen that didn't scale correctly as the averages changed. It was a simple scripting error that you tried to claim was a big conspiracy to mislead readers. Springee (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think I can see where you're coming from with this "scripting error" hypothesis. It is, however, a red herring. Earlier, you said that the infographic was not falsely presenting the average price of gas. I believe this is an inaccurate statement, and I will provide a concrete example.
  Here's an archive of Fox News's homepage captured at 00:12 23 August 2022 (GMT). On the right side is the infographic in question. The only value displayed there is $6.309. If you hover your cursor over the map, you will see individual state averages (which appear accurate) and another value will pop up on the low side of the color-bar: $3.963. Now here's a capture of gasprices.aaa.com around midnight, 22 August 2022. The average gas price given there is $3.901; moreover, no state average even approaches the value $6.309. There is an apparent discrepancy here, one that I think justifies to a great extent the claims made by Objective3000. I encourage the reader to open up both these links and compare them. Shells-shells (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  This was all discussed last time O3000 complained about this script error. Please note that the plot is a heat map with relative values across different states. Now notice that the key for the heat map is almost all red. That would suggest to anyone who say has experience creating such tables/plots in things like Matlab that the key is not scaling to the updated data in the table. As an example consider this heat map (with gas prices that look very low) [16] Now consider what the key would look like if a script error said the minimum price (on that plot) was $3/gallon. It would show red from end to end. One of the common mistakes amateurs make when doing things like FEA studies is looking at the auto generated color map and ignoring things like the actual strain limits of their material. Yeah, this looks like a scripting error, nothing more. It also never says the price in question is actually an average. O3000 was wrong before and is still wrong now. Springee (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Your point is somewhat undermined by the rather obvious fact that an accurate bar would have had 5.324 at the right hand end, and the red and blue shaded sections of the bar would have been roughly even sizes. Any assumption of good faith on Fox's part in making an error like this is squarely in Mary Poppins territory. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• ARRRRGH:

  I have never said anything about any bar or scaling. Why do you keep claiming this?

  You keep talking about a "scripting error". What are you talking about? I have been in the IT field for well over a half century and lectured on IT in five continents and this is an absurd statement with zero evidence. What is the name of the script? Why do you keep repeating this? What is your evidence? Has FN ever once claimed this -- or are you simply making it up?

  I said absolutely nothing about a conspiracy theory and request that you strike this accusation as per WP:AGF and WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS.

  O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Because you keep claiming the number on the bar was meant to be the average gas price. The key doesn't say that and the fact that the key is almost all red vs scaled to show what all the different colors actually mean further supports this. Has FN ever said that $6 number was the average price of gas? Was there ever a time when the average US gas price was that high? Perhaps if you were in some area of data analysis instead of what ever you did you might see this mistake rather than claim Fox is trying to lie about the average price of gas. Springee (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  The number shown appears nowhere. It is an error, but not one of a heat map or a color scale or a scripting error. It's just a wrong value shown and is incorrect, and not excusably so. It happens to be incorrect in a way that creates the idea of $6 gas: when in fact gas never got anywhere close to $6, anywhere at all. Andre🚐 00:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  At least you agree it's an error. I hope you can also agree that the bar graph that is meant to be the key to the heat map is screwed up since it doesn't show any of the cooler colors. Perhaps because I have experience creating and working with plots like this I recognize it for what it is, an error. I guess some people might be fooled into thinking it is trying to claim gas is $6/gallon but that is not the same as the claim that Fox spent "months lying about gas prices." That was O3000's claim. Springee (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  As I have explained before, I also present daily charts on financial volatility on web sites, including Bloomberg and NASDAQ. I would be extremely embarrassed if I was off by a small fraction and would apologize. This cannot happen with an RS for over 100 days. So, either they lied or are incredibly incompetent in a manner that happens to fit their political narrative. Either is non-RS. In any case, you are making this all up. You have zero evidence that this is some error. Zero. We have had this discussion over and over and you continue to claim something about which you have no knowledge. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  So you are backing down from the lie claim? Springee (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Stop make false statements. I did no such thing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  if you were in some area of data analysis instead of what ever you did Actually, I am and upload realized volatility numbers to Bloomberg and NASDAQ after every business day. You need to stop these comments. Tell me, what is anyone reading their site supposed to think this number means? The number is nowhere on the cited page, and the only text says Average. How can you trust this as RS? And, it's even higher than the high in any state. In any case, a number changing every day important to tens of millions of viewers that is always grossly incorrect, rather a lie or mistake, makes is just one example of the fact they are not RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  So you are saying it's not a lie now? You are accepting that is an error in the code now? I mean if you want to say it was a stupid mistake sure, I agree. But you called it a lie. Springee (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Can you two stop? You're not convincing each other, and neither of you is going to defeat the other with some rhetorical flourish. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  As you likely know, the purpose of discussion on such pages is often not to convince the other person as it is impossible. It is to present your view, which cannot be done without clarifying your view in the light of false statements about your views or facts by another. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  This back and forth isn't doing that. Please stop it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  I absolutely said no such thing. I said even if. It is pointless to discuss this with you. Strike your false statements and stop WP:TEND. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, you spotted my point ;-) Yes, the right has made *everything* a political purity test by now. W took action on climate change. Imagine the 2024 Republican candidate running on tackling the biggest single problem facing humanity today. Or even admitting that schools should teach accurate US history, and absolutely not teach creationism. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think much has changed. Fox News may be broadly OK for national and local US news stories, but its political coverage has a history of pandering to its audience. This was true even before the Dominion saga unfolded.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  True, but it actually changed around 2015, according to Network Propaganda. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

How long

How long are we going to entertain false balance and political axes to grind on this? There should be a critical mass of support to downgrade Fox for politics based on what has been revealed about Fox and Dominion lies. The case was settled yes, but the discovery revealed factual information in RS. This information is damning and adds to the already considerable record on Fox that has been revealed in muliple RFCs, which is conveniently forgotten by a significant contingent along political lines every time it comes up. Well, let's draw a line then. Downgrade to generally unreliable starting in 2020. Andre🚐 23:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If you want to start an RFC to see if said critical mass exists by all means. I dont necessarily disagree with you, but the above section is not going to come to anything. What you need is an RFC and to not have editors responding to any vote they disagree with so that the discussion does not get so unwieldy that no sane person wants to close it with a consensus for anything. nableezy - 23:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Not yet another Fox News RfC, please, and this is coming from the person who opened the 2020 one. The current status quo of considering Fox's coverage of politics questionable is fine. We don't need another month of this noticeboard being clogged up and then having to get somebody to spend a lot of their time assessing the consensus. Maybe we can have another RfC in a year or two, but it's too recent since the last one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I would normally agree with you on it being too soon, but there seem to be material differences between then and now. And we're clogging up this noticeboard now anyway. nableezy - 23:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Too soon? Isn't that a bit like Thoughts and prayers, ie a way to ignore recent events and maintain Status quo? Lord forbid we clog up the notice board with discussion regarding the largest media settlement in history...so far. I honestly empathize with the cynicism, but that doesn't mean I go around telling people to just ignore it and "stay the course" like Exxon at a climate change summit. DN (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If we just had a discussion and it attracted a large amount of participants, and there has been no material change in the circumstances then it is unreasonable to ask people to do it again, thats just editing by attrition. While here I agree there are some material differences, no TOOSOON is not just a way of maintaining the status quo, its also a way to avoid generating needles animosity within what is supposedly a collaborative community. nableezy - 17:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I see your point, thanks for the response. DN (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to start a new RFC if we are constrained to the usual 4 point format. I'd start an RFC, downgrade to red for politics only, yea or nay. If people don't think that RFC is fair or neutral enough even though I think it's the obvious only meaningful point of contention, then let someone else start it. Currently, the status quo for politics is yellow, which indicates marginal reliability, but not general unreliability. This might, in practice, be kind of the same thing because people only seem to want to add controversial things that end up being unreliable - on the other hand, people who oppose any change to the status quo on Fox, then still act like Fox is already red for politics. Andre🚐 23:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much this. Stop talking here. Wait 3-6 months so the community has some time to recharge their arguing about Fox batteries, then try a highly structured RFC with word and reply limits. At the very least, everyone who's added more than 1000 words to the above discussion should just disengage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the above discussion may seem a pointless waste of time. But, Fox is the mostly viewed news source. As a result, it is constantly brought up as a source on numerous articles, where such lengthy discussions repeatedly take place because no one can point to a decision that it is not RS and just use one of the other innumerable sources, many with Pulitzers and other awards. So, as huge and silly as the discussion above may be – it is nothing compared to the sum of all other discussions on so many article TPs. At some point, reality must prevail to reduce the sum of timesinks.. Isn’t that the point of this page? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's starting to feel like truth is becoming more of a popularity contest than a measure of rule and policy. If this is the way Wiki is headed, it will fail in it's endeavor. DN (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC: downgrade Fox News for politics?

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.

---

Should we downgrade Fox News to "generally unreliable" for politics starting in November 2020? Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Fox poll

• Yes, deprecate Fox News starting in November 2020 when management redoubled their efforts to portray falsehoods as truth. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, based on the new evidence given. Andre🚐 19:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  • I'd happily upgrade my support to full deprecation for all time anytime. Andre🚐 22:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes but I would go further back than November 2020. I don't think they've ever been reliable for politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, but back to the beginning, not just 2020. "For politics and science [...] Fox News is considered marginally reliable" needs to be revised downward. In keeping with the very reason Roger Ailes created Fox News, they have never been a RS for politics or science. There should be nothing positive left to say at WP:RSP. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - I would actually prefer they be graded as generally unreliable across the board (at least since November 2020), but to my mind, an overreaction here is preferable to the status quo. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The lawsuit is further evidence that the talk shows are are red sources. It did not provide evidence that Fox's new reporting and provided false information. Additionally, no evidence has been provided that the current use with caution rating is not effective as Fox is already rarely cited. The last RfC was just 6 months back and had significant participation. The current rating is fine especially since case by case should be the standard we use rather than a blanket block which is what is being proposed here. Springee (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Here's a source about how "serious news anchor" Bret Baier tried to reverse the network's call of Arizona for Biden in the 2020 election, saying it should be "put back in [Trump]'s column", even though it never was to begin with. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for including that source. Peer review is present six times in our description of reliable source for a reason. If someone as strong as an on-air anchor at a network insisted that Arizona be "put back" in Trump's column and nevertheless Fox News refused to do it, meaning, the correct outcome was maintained by Fox News, an outcome manifestly contrary to their editorial stance and with a clear potential hit to their bottom line, that means that their peer review system worked. This is what we expect from a reliable source, and therefore the article you linked demonstrates support for an "Oppose" vote. Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Mathglot, that decision to call Arizona for Biden is actually an example of the exception to the rule and seen as a mistake from which they sought to recover by doubling down on election lies. That was seen by Fox News as a mistake and loudly complained about by the rest of Fox News hosts and management. After that, they put all their efforts toward recovering from the damage caused by that correct decision. Viewers immediately fled from Fox News and turned to even more extreme right-wing sites. The internal messaging at Fox revealed in the Dominion case shows they all considered that to be a fateful and very harmful action. It was not a "correction", but seen as an "error" from which they sought to recover by lying even more. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I tend to agree. Mathglot's argument seems to cherrypick quite a bit, as you've pointed out from RS that have not recently been successfully sued for defamation damages. Not to mention the upcoming Smartmatic lawsuit, which hasn't even begun. If FOX loses again, would that still not change your view, Mathglot? Any anchor, journalist or news outlet can lie and still call themselves journalists, anchors or news outlets...The question is not whether it is "journalism" or 1st amendment speech... The question here is if it should affect FOXNEWS status as WP:RS, and currently there are about 787.5 million reasons, and counting.DN (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  The thing is, they called themselves opinion hosts or personalities. I can excuse an opinion host being wrong or misleading, but when a so-called journalist does it thats more reprehensible. CNN MSNBC and others call their hosts journalists yet fox calls themselves opinion hosts or personalities. We shouldn't take tucker or brett as a reliable source, but many of the fox online stories are fine and are actually written by journalists. PalauanReich^🗣️ 01:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  A rose by any other name would smell as sweet... DN (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fox News was the first network to call Florida for George W Bush in 2000, which was of monumental importance given the closeness and eventual recount. Who made the call for Fox? One of Bush's cousins, who was communicating with George and Jeb throughout the day. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  The other networks followed four minutes later. Breaking news frequently contains errors, no matter how professional the network. TFD (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fox News was the first to call Arizona for Biden. The man responsible was fired, and Maria Bartiromo promoted, when it became clear that the audience would not forgive them for accurate reporting. 2023 Fox is a different beast even from 2014 Fox. Read Network Propaganda. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  While the Arizona call ended up being right, it was more due to coincidence. The call was obviously premature. Prcc27 (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's entirely beside the point. The point is that the Fox decision desk called Arizona early for Biden and Bret Baier said "put it back in Trump's column" Andre🚐 20:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  The decision desk said "Biden will win Arizona" and he did. I see no reason to think it "premature." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Weak yes - I HATE all generalizations and am very wary of saying that any media outlet is unreliable for “politics”… that is just too broad a scope for my taste. I would much prefer a narrow it down further to a more defined scope. I would definitely agree that “Fox is not reliable for their coverage of the 2020 US presidential election and it’s aftermath - especially their claims about Dominion.”
• That said, given that I thought we already said that Fox was unreliable for politics, I can’t object to doing so now. Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, provided it is time-limited, ending no later than the end of 2024.- Paying $780 million, or whatever the exact amount is, is not a good sign, to say the least, and a timed downgrade is appropriate. BUT I would oppose an indefinite downgrade as it would amount to disparate treatment. For example, the NYT was never downgraded for their lies here, which are uncorrected to this day.[17] In light of the need to avoid disparate treatment, we need to have a definite ending, and I think a full US election cycle is enough. And has a single academic publication involved in the COVID-19 debate taken notice of the fact that academic input from the People's Republic of China is censored by Xi Jinping?[18] Adoring nanny (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

back and forth somebody else thinks is not needed

Adoring nanny, you write "uncorrected to this day". That article has two corrections. The New York Times (a real news source) and Fox News (a GOP propaganda source) live in separate universes, and to try to compare them is just plain wrong. As far as time-limited goes, that ignores the fact that the problems are not exclusive to the election cycle, but existed before and will continue to exist. Fox will just be more careful not to libel a company, but will continue to tell election lies and any other lies necessary to retain their Trump base. There is a reason why good people left Fox News. Chris Stirewalt, Chris Wallace, Shep Smith, Gretchen Carlson, Julie Roginsky, Carl Cameron, Bill Sammon, Stephen Hayes, and Jonah Goldberg, etc. left for good reason. They were never allowed full freedom to be real journalists, and that will not change. When Fox's own fact checkers get threatened and news hosts get silenced, Fox News fails to meet our minimum requirement for a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC) The big lie in the article was that Mike Nifong had the evidence to take the Duke lacrosse case to the jury. That was a lie when it was written. It remains one today. The most recent archive of the article I am aware of is here[19]. I see a single, minor correction, which has no bearing on the big lie. Other lies followed from the big one. Based on what criterion do you argue that the Fox lie was "propaganda" while the NYT lie was not? Adoring nanny (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Adoring nanny, do you have links to our article content about that aspect of the incident? There should be RS there, and I'd like to read about it. Otherwise, comparing Fox News with other RS is a fool's errand, as Fox News does what is right as an exception to the rule, whereas other RS commit errors as an exception to the rule. The prudent course with Fox News is the same as when dealing with Trump: "Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward." Fox News comes nowhere close to being a RS. With the knowledge and approval from the top down, their own fact-checkers are threatened and news hosts are blocked from reporting the facts. They fail (that's the news desk) our minimum requirements for all other RS. Why make an exception for Fox? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Our article content? Not other than what I gave above. The most thorough source I am aware of on the Duke case is the book Until Proven Innocent [20]. A widely-read blog by one of the authors repeatedly covered the NYT, for example here[21] and here[22]. I can't agree with an attitude that assumes that certain sources are always lying. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Yes, our article(s) on the topic, as it's safer than to depend on one source. Of course, if there's nothing else, how strong is the case that the NYT is still lying? Please point me in the right direction. What article(s) do we have? Is it only the [[Duke lacrosse case? Whatever, the point still stands that with Fox, it is the rule, not the exception, that they are generally unreliable, whereas with RS it is the opposite. There are certain people and sources that are generally untrustworthy, so much so that one should always be suspicious of them. Trump literally, not hyperbole, can't say 3-5 sentences without there being some form of deception or manipulation. Fact-checkers have measured it and counted how often he engages in deception. It's that bad. Fox News has such a strong agenda that they are in the same boat. They are forced from the top to stick to an agenda, facts be damned. Being around someone like Trump, or listening to a source like Fox, just corrupts one's sense of what is true or false, what is right or wrong. One misses out on so much information that normally lets one know when they are lying that one's whole worldview changes for the worse. One's moral compass gets skewed. It's generally pretty obvious when editors get their info (I would say almost "any" info) from Fox News. They end up defending them and don't understand why other editors still criticize Fox. They don't realize they've been sucked into that fringe bubble. It's better to only stick to RS and never listen to Fox. It's not enough to say one should avoid the talking heads. No, it affects the news side too, much against the wishes of some of the real journalists. That's why so many of them have left. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC) OK, time to play "substitute one thing." Here it is: The NYT has such a strong agenda that they are in the same boat. They are forced from the top to stick to that agenda, facts be damned. The agenda: white males bad. So they supported an effort to railroad three white males for a rape that never happened. Plenty of people were sucked into a bubble where the Duke three were "guilty". And the NYT is still "reliable". Adoring nanny (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC) I would point to the fact that The New York Times afterward reckoned with and recognized failures. Fox has not done so, and their statement in the wake of settlement merely acknowledged that the judge's rulings existed. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC) And has a single academic publication involved in the COVID-19 debate taken notice of the fact that academic input from the People's Republic of China is censored by Xi Jinping? Yes, see Abazi, Vigjilenca (2020), "Truth Distancing? Whistleblowing as Remedy to Censorship during COVID-19" in the European Journal of Risk Regulation—it discusses the censorship of medical whistleblowers. Better examples may exist; I did not look very hard. Interestingly, this tangent is completely irrelevant to the topic of the RfC. Shells-shells (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Glad to hear that at least some journals have noticed. I do believe that we have double standards and that's a problem. I therefore believe this "tangent" is relevant. I would be more comfortable with a Fox downgrade now if there had been a previous NYT downgrade in the wake of the lies I mention above. You are welcome to differ with one or more of these opinions. But the way these RfC's work is that everyone gets to have their say in their own little section. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC) To be honest, I meant to undo my comment for being superfluous, but it edit-conflicted with your reply. I think your initial comment stands perfectly well on its own, and I have not added anything productive to this RfC. Would you mind if I collapsed my reply and the subsequent comment chain? Shells-shells (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - But confining the rationale exclusively to how Fox has misrepresented reality since November 2020 really misses the point. In 2001, after 9/11, I was appalled at how Fox's quest for ratings not only drove its own coverage but how its success at poisonous warmongering drove other major channels to replicate that grotesque and dishonest approach to the news. Here's a good example from the NYT about how Fox affected public opinion, and hence, public policy. Ironically, the Times itself joined the odious ratings contest by regularly printing absolute "weapons of mass destruction" rubbish by Judith Miller on its front page. It pushed MSNBC, for example, to hire Michael Savage while it fired Bill Press and Phil Donahue who had too energetically sought to tell the truth. (Ironically, MSNBC hired Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan to provide "balancing" conservative voices.} Activist (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  So in effect, you're blaming other outlet's poor editorial practices on Fox? I don't think this is exactly the best point. Assuming that Fox did affect other news outlets, shouldn't that be more of a testament to the unreliability of those said sources, since they were so easily driven to replicate Fox new's practices just to pursue ratings? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, and I would also support downgrading Fox to generally unreliable in general. Last time this came up for an RFC, I believed that there were sufficient problems with Fox's reporting to downgrade them at that time, and I continue to believe that. The fact that there is a smoking gun now doesn't mean that Fox was reliable before.Loki (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - This has a long history, going back to Australia, the UK (where Murdoch’s phone hacking scandal likely cost over $1 billion), and now the US where Roger Aisles, media consultant for US Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, and Mayor Rudy Giuliani, was hired as CEO. The house of cards is falling and there is no reason that WP should be under the collapse. There is a wealth of news sources from around the world with Pulitzer prizes and other awards. We have no shortage of sources. How can we use FN as a source and claim reliance on our five pillars? BUT, it must be at least politics, science, economics, race, religion, LGBTQ, most anything else including sports and entertainment as they include race, religion, LGBTQ, etc. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes No question from this narrow period (2020 onward, politics only) that Fox cannot be anywhere close to reliable from their news desk. I would generally add as a footnote that for most other areas not covered by the RSP entry for Fox, that WP editors tend to look for better sources before resorting to Fox as the source, but that doesn't mean Fox is unusable on WP. --Masem (t) 01:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. The problem isn't confined to opinion - Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch admitted under oath that they all promoted false claims about the 2020 election, which he believed was fair. But the difference with Bartiromo is she identifies as a news anchor, as she indicated in her testimony. See also [23]. Even before this, there are scholars who reject the idea that Fox should be considered a news source at all, claiming instead that it should be considered something more akin to propaganda; and in 2021, the same source for the above summary describes it as ...a source of information that embraces a highly partisan perspective with inconsistent commitments to the accuracy of their reporting... A summary of the (still ongoing) Smartmatic lawsuit states that Fox News aired thirteen reports either explicitly stating or implying that Smartmatic played a role in stealing the 2020 presidential election and notes, again, that people making these claims were presented by Fox as news reporters, not as "opinion mouthpieces." It seems difficult to argue that a source whose reporting has the sort of academic coverage described here can reasonably be said to have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. I'd also be strenuously opposed to an expiration date; coverage makes it clear that they've had systematic problems from the start, even if things have gotten worse, and there's no particular reason to think it will ever get better - certainly not within the baffling single-year window that a few people have inexplicably advanced. In the unlikely event that Fox somehow changes its entire direction and business model, we can start a new discussion to re-evaluate it then, but the idea that it could go back to WP:MREL automatically is a total nonstarter. EDIT: I would also support a simple statement that Fox is generally unreliable for all topics. The core problems that these sources reveal show a fundamental issue with how Fox is structured, its core purpose, and its fundamental lack of a commitment to fact-checking or accuracy, which necessarily taints everything they produce. We would not usually make so many carve-outs for a source that had this much coverage indicating unreliability; we'd just declare the whole source unreliable and be done with it. --Aquillion (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes with the following Suggested Specifics:
  • Extent: The deprecation shall include strictly political news reporting, but not opinions, interviews, and commentary by Fox employees or guests, for which, however, Fox can be quoted as a matter of record only, e.g. "XYZ said abc on FoxNews yesterday [link to FoxNews]."
  • Begining: The deprecation should start with any and all political reporting made by Fox on the date of the November 20,2020, election, and go forward to the present. Setting a date earlier than that would only result in seriously chaotic conditions; going forward, best leave this as a task of replacing with better sources, as the opportunity arises.
  • Ending: Fox News remains one of the most watched medium in the United States. An indefinite deprecation is a step that probably should be taken with significant and somber consideration, i.e. we should not get carried away too much on the basis of recent news. We should have a time limit, upon whose ending the status of Fox as a deprecated source should either be revoked or indefinitely extended. The year 2024 suggested by Adoring nanny looks about right for this. I suggest revisiting the deprecation, if it presently comes to pass, on Saturday 30, 2024, which is the last day of the month of the next U.S. presidential election.
  -The Gnome (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, thoroughly - Fox was started as a political propaganda exercise from the beginning - David Gerard (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes They have been unreliable in this regard since well before 2020. Obviously nobody should be using them as a source on the 2020 election, the January 6th insurrection, or voting machines, we know for a fact that the people right at the top of the networks' chain of command willinglt particpated in spreading false information, their willingness to do so suggests they are totally unreliable as a source of information relating to politics. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Fabrication is a no no. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Is this a proposal to deprecate or downgrade to generally unreliable? Those are subtly different as per WP:RSP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think "downgrade to generally unreliable" was clearly what was meant, @Binksternet is using the non-jargon common meaning of "deprecate," but perhaps he wouldn't mind updating the section header text to be consistent to avoid confusion. Andre🚐 17:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed with Andre. Loki (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, "downgrade" is clearer. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Downgrade to unreliable, but not just for politics and not for a limited time frame. We shouldn't trust a source willing to knowingly lie to the public as being reliable at any point in time on any topic. They have demonstrated a lack of credibility as a source of information.4meter4 (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Absolutely. There's nothing new about Fox "News" being propaganda. Hell, that was the entire point of the documentary Outfoxed twenty years ago. And despite the equivocations and hemming and hawing, the idea that there's a distinction between news and opinion shows, or between the TV channel and the website, is and always has been nonsense. The Dominion case proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. The entire operation is rotten to the core, and has been since day one. oknazevad (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Honestly, Id go further than this, if you can find something only in Fox then in my view it probably is not true, and almost certainly is misleading. But for the question as posed, yes. nableezy - 20:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, deprecate politics coverage after 2020. Also all of its other coverage. And after 2016, or 2012, or 2008, or 2000, or all they back to 1996. Whatever it takes. Fox News was founded as an alternative to perceived liberal bias in media, so it's been tainted from the beginning. Deprecate it all. Woodroar (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• Downgrade only for politics. Do not deprecate the entire website as they provide reliable sports and weather coverage. However they are unreliable in politics. 69.119.89.11 (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC) struck block evasion ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
• No - stick to status quo. There is no good reason to depreciate this source - this RFC is mainly about the settlement story on voting machines. The left wing news sources have had to do settlements over defamation cases recently too such as CNN settle $275 million over racist defamation of Nick Sandmann and Washington Post had to do the same Washington Post settles defamation in 2020. The current status quo already deals with these issues. Aside form the nightly commentators, general news reporting from Fox is reliable - as many mentioned in the last RFC last year RFC: Fox News (news): politics & science. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes for a downgrade to generally unreliable. It's been clear that Fox News has deceived and lied to its viewers for some time now, and as such should not be considered reliable. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• FYI I've listed this at WP:CENT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. The Night Watch (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - Whereas Ramos1990 cites defamation settlements regarding the 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation as proof of misconduct at other outlets, Fox News was forced to settle over lies on the fundamentals of the 2020 United States presidential election, a far more significant event, told over a far longer period. Besides the specific falsehoods highlighted in the court case, the editorial policy of focusing on viewership over fact-finding clearly disqualifies Fox News as a reliable source, at least until the Saturday, November 30th, 2024 date suggested by The Gnome. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 17:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, from the very beginning. This isn't a new thing that we're all pretending to be shocked is happening; this is fundamental to the network and has been so well-known for decades that primetime flagship shows in Fox's entertainment division have gone to the well more than once to make fun of of the news division; as Lois Griffin said in 2010, "even true things, once reported by Fox News, become lies". It's time for us to stop pretending. Sceptre (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes and backdate so the stuff can be removed by script. It would be highly subjective to try and determine when it started to become unreliable, so best to backdate and remove. scope_creep^Talk 20:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes also support downgrading Fox to generally unreliable if more evidence, showing cause to do so, is revealed. Why is no one that surprised? Conceivably, we have been worn down over the years to just accept that FOX NEWS knowingly lies at seemingly conspiratorial levels, from the top executives and "hosts", including the Murdochs, to the front-line journalists and anchors, that almost no laymans and few seasoned editors seem to be able tell the difference between. Once caught, FOX quickly just moves the goal post....It's been done so many times it's no wonder even they probably can't tell the difference themselves. Some might also feel the need to argue that they did this at the risk of American democracy, at the very least according to Fred Wertheimer. Reasonable editors are rightfully bothered by these developments. How could we so cynically advocate for "business as usual," much like what FOX NEWS currently seems to be doing? It is likely because we have failed to regularly reexamine the question of where to draw the line, to prevent harm to ourselves and others. Unfortunately, FN will likely continue stonewalling and obfuscating in order to continue to muddy the water between truth and opinion. DN (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• No The complaint by Dominion appears to be against Fox News Channel hosts, not Fox News reporting. Statements by talk show hosts are not considered reliable. Also, there is considerable movement of talk show hosts and others between the networks, so they are equally guilty in their talk shows. Jonah Goldberg for example who achieved fame for Liberal Fascism which claims that modern U.S. liberalism has its roots in Italian Fascism, a claimed widely debunked by actual historians, left Fox and now contributes to CNN and MSNBC. He was actually interviewed about the book by CNN host Glenn Beck, who later moved to Fox. Meanwhile, the notorious Fox News host Tucker Carlson previously worked at PBS, MSNBC and CNN. TFD (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  TFD, I absolutely respect your opinions on this, and I also believe this is something where people can, in good faith, come to differing conclusions. That said, I feel like this argument is too clever by half. Which hosts on other networks spread easily debunked lies about Dominion? Could it be that other networks have stronger safeguards in place to prevent occurrences like this? And it is interesting that you choose Jonah Goldberg (for whom I have no great affection), because his own claim was that he left the network because of "propaganda that weaves half-truths into a whole lie." Apologies for the interruption. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's quite possible the reason for the confusion is due to the fact that FOX NEWS very likely isn't WP:RELIABLE...it's just a business that calls itself "news"..."Lying in the press is unethical but does not necessarily strip liars of the protections provided by the First Amendment. There is an exception to this: the defamatory lie, one that injures a person or organization’s reputation. That is what got Fox News sued...Anyone can claim to be a journalist, irrespective of their actual function. Any business can claim to be a news organization. Functioning irresponsibly in either role is largely protected by the First Amendment and is therefore optional." - John C. Watson Associate Professor of Journalism, American University. DN (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Dumuzid, we agree, but for TFD's sake I'll point out that while "stronger safeguards" are what keeps normal journalists from making egregious errors, with Fox News there does not exist ANY type of safeguard that would work because this is a "feature" not a "bug" type of thing. It was knowingly and deliberately perpetrated on viewers to keep them from running away to OANN and Newsmax, which they did immediately after Fox called Arizona for Biden. Fox New had always been lying to viewers, but when they for once told the truth, they immediately paid the price, so they returned to doubling down on lying to viewers to get them back.
  When Fox News' own fact checkers sought to correct outright lies, they were threatened and the NEWS division hosts were blocked from touching the matter. This has been going on for years, but the Dominion lawsuit just brought our attention to it. All those private communications revealed that every single person at Fox News, top to bottom, knew Trump's election lies were lies and that Biden won, yet they repeated those lies to audiences to keep them at Fox. That's not an "error" or "bug", that's a malicious "feature" that no "stronger safeguards" can prevent.
  There is a reason so many good journalists have left Fox News. So to sum up the problem, it involves the whole gamut of people at Fox News, including the NEWS division, because it comes from the top. They all know what's true, but deliberately lied to keep their viewers from fleeing. The outcome of the Dominion case just means they'll be more careful not to libel a company but will keep on lying and keeping vital information from their viewers. That's how they have always rolled. That's why Fox News exists. It was created to operate that way by Roger Ailes.
  "The complaint by Dominion appears to be against Fox News Channel hosts, not Fox News reporting." is a red herring. The problem exists, not because of the NEWS hosts, but because everything at Fox News, including the NEWS division, is controlled from the top, and the NEWS division is not supposed to function like an honest news service. It must follow the party line, dictated from the top. So good and honest journalists in the NEWS division are often prevented from covering certain topics and are required to lie to viewers. For many of them that is just too much and they leave. What we're left with is a Fox News that is still defective to its core. It fails the bare minimum (fact-checking itself) we require of all other RS. Why make an exception for Fox News when they do not intend to allow fact-checkers to do their job? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously the other networks' hosts did not lie about Dominion because they tend to lean Democratic, but they also broadcast misinformation such as when Glenn Beck approvingly interviewed Johnah Goldberg about how modern American liberalism derives from fascism. Beck also continually presented the views of the conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen and wrote an introduction to his book about how the New World Order controls the world. While Beck was there, CNN also had as host the nativist Lou Dobbs whose virtually sole topic was "illegal immigration," claiming that Mexicans were responsible for most of America's problems. False reports of the 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation were carried on numerous mainstream news outlets. Similarly, media coverage of the Duke lacrosse players' case was extremely biased against the accused (who were innocent), with CNN talk show host Nancy Grace arguing the prosecution case night after night.
  All major U.S. news media of course misled the public in supporting the false claim that Iraq was behind 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction and for years that America was winning in Iraq and Afghanistan. The even had their reporters "embedded" with the U.S. Army, which is highly controversial to say the least.
  Major media also misled the public in claiming the COVID-19 lab leak theory was a "conspiracy theory" although it is now considered a possibility, even if remote, and the FBI now says with low confidence that is what happened. CNN also had on night after night the now disgraced ex-governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, presenting him as being on top of the covid pandemic even while he was covering up nursing home deaths. His brother, who was a talk show host at CNN, was helping Andrew defend himself in the media against sexual misconduct allegations.
  The reason journalists can so easily move between Fox and other cable news is that they are similar. They both have relatively reliable news programming telling people what actually happened and relatively unreliable talk show hosts telling them what they want to hear.
  I disagree that Fox News should be considered unreliable because its talk show hosts are. As I mentioned, they often go back and forth between networks and are not considered reliable sources anyway. TFD (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  journalists can so easily move between Fox and other cable news Um...what? SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  I am happy to leave it there and agree to disagree. Have a good week. Dumuzid (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  TFD, you have a point, but I think you're missing the broader picture. You're right that there is a difference between individual journalists and the network as a whole. For example, Judith Miller committed extreme journalistic malpractice, but that doesn't mean the New York Times as a whole is disreputable, same with Dan Rather and CBS News. However, when the network as a whole is staffed with so many of those disreputable figures, particularly at the top, then it can only be expected that what is pumped out through the TV outfit bleeds over into other divisions, which is what is proved both with this lawsuit and the decades of grounded and fundamental criticism. Curbon7 (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  The smoking gun is the messages talking about how they could not afford to offend their viewers. Rather than following the facts, they told the audience what it demanded to hear, even knowing that it was not just a lie, but a ridiculous lie. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, but that's simply not true. The lawsuit was against Fox News Channel and Fox Corp, not Carlson or Hannity or Dobbs. If Fox could have argued opinion, they would have had a solid defense under Sullivan. This was Fox News Channel, as a body corporate, placing retention of viewers above factual accuracy, even knowing that this might result in a successful lawsuit against them. They valued the loss of market share to Newsmax, above the knowledge, recorded in the documents released in the case, that what they were promoting as "fact" across both news and commentary shows, was not just false, but ridiculous: unserious claims advanced by unserious people, who were nonetheless highlighted in news shows as if they were "just asking questions". And actually, wee've known since the Seth Rich case that Fox reporters (not talking heads) have fabricated quotes and pushed known lies (e.g. https://www.wbur.org/npr/540783715/lawsuit-alleges-fox-news-and-trump-supporter-created-fake-news-story). Fix was created by Roger Ailes, Richard Nixon's media advisor, to ensure that no Republican ever had to resign again. This is Fox working as designed. It's the antidote to Woodward and Bernstein. By design. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Lab leak related

Conspiracy theories do not get "upgraded" to "possibility" because believers exist, although it's a common argument to deny conflicting knowledge and confuses fringe with "unpopular". Behind conspiracy theories there always are "possibilities" and cherry picked data (they tend to misrepresent, irrationally connect dots, focus on blame, feature straw men and sham "investigations" and sometimes even use a redefined vocabulatory designed to dismiss reality and actual knowledge discovery methods). Then if it's a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method is needed to validate it, not mediatic noise with a tradition of arguments. The leak claim can be best described as a minor hypothesis as well as a group of conspiracy theories, especially considering the grandiose allegations that must be entertained about everone who must somehow have been involved in concealing claimed "evidence", scheming maliciously, then because of the scientific implausibilities. For instance, historical leaks have not resulted in pandemics, claims of engineering failed to provide plausible evidence, there is nothing suspicious with spillover and human adaptation and that was actually predictable. Research for mitigation and vaccine development are not nefarious and have happened with previous concerning Coronaviruses (SARS-1, MERS). Standard lab practice involves documentation and tracing such that in case of an incident it is more easily contained than when discovered already running in populations (in addition to in-lab physical barriers). Virology and epidemiology have mundane "default" explanations that have not been plausibly challenged by more sensational ones: viral transmission and adaptation have been studied before, working with evidence-based knowledge and there even was progress to understand the origins of SARS-CoV-2. As with many things, we may never know every detail and this never automatically validates outlandish claims. —PaleoNeonate – 06:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• (followup) Then there is post-truthism, where a certain number of people can be made to believe and promote falsehoods, exploiting ignorance, using massive propaganda, as well as policy-enforced "reality" (i.e. geocentrism in the 1600s, pseudoscientific Lysenkoism, Intelligent Design's wedge strategy). The latter cannot change facts, only perceptions and reactions and be used to suppress, oppress or exploit. It constantly needs to preach and whine about "truth" because it lacks the reality framework to support the "reality" it wants to dictate. To come back on topic, among other falsehoods Fox News massively promoted the Big Lie (that is not just a baseless description), despite its dangerous consequences, with the defamation lawsuit being another reminder that also presented evidence of it. The "because they lean democratic" above suggests the false equivalence ("they're all equally bad and post-truth") and whataboutism (pointing at a failure elsewhere to forget the real problem at hand). Journalistic integrity is a thing. Better media have reported about the claims and conspiracy theories, who promoted them and why they were dismissed, without needing to constantly push uncertainty propaganda to suggest that it may have some legitimacy. Fox already has a bad RSN record that the RSP entry attempted to summarize, not for nothing. —PaleoNeonate – 06:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Fox News has been spewing misinformation for decades about politics. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes for anything relating to American elections and specifically how they are carried out, retain status quo for everything else - the lawsuit highlights that Fox is unreliable for claims relating to US elections, with them basically admitting that they let stories air in regards to the election narrative, even when many knew that the stories are dubious at best. However, I don't see that this is enough to affect talk show hosts (who are already essentially deprecated and who this lawsuit primarily targeted), and the website (which in spite of the claims made by @Oknazevad, there is an unequivocally an undeniable difference in, especially in regards to non-political stories). I especially don't see how we should be deprecating non-political stories, which are fairly mundane and more comparable to the rest of the MSM. The lawsuit further indicates primarily that the talk show hosts are unreliable and as for the website, indicates that anything relating to 2020 US elections is probably fabricated, and that material relating to future elections in the United States at least on the federal level probably shouldn't be trusted either. However, most other political stories more mundane in comparison; just exaggerated and sensationalistic, and probably should just retain a yellow for being analyzed on a case-by-case basis, sort of similar to the WP:DAILYBEAST. I also agree with @Adoring nanny's statement that while yes, nearly a billion dollars is a big deal, using defamation lawsuits (or in this case, attempted lawsuits) to deprecate sources, is opening the floodgates for a massive, unwieldy, and generally bad precedent (for example, the multi-hundred million dollar lawsuits that CNN and the WaPo endured and settled with relating to the Covington kids). If Fox news is to be entirely deprecated for politics, then deprecate until Decemeber 1, 2024, after the month where the US election occurs, for the aforementioned reasons. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. If Fox didn't treat "news" and "opinion" differently, as became clear as a result of the lawsuit, then why should we? Downgrade politics and science coverage to 3/red/unreliable, downgrade all other news coverage to 2/yellow/caution, and downgrade their talk shows to 4/darkred/deprecated. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - We are rather quickly nearing WP:SNOW. For better or worse, the RfC topics were narrowed to politics, media, the arts, and architecture -- not including science, for example, or race and LGBTQ. One might argue that they are part of politics, but what isn't these days and that's not how the topics would be selected. Not suggesting they be added now as, perhaps, it makes sense to proceed piecemeal. Just means that we won't bring in folks interested in climate change, anti-vaccination, Gensex, CRT, {are Jewish space lasers included) and such that in normal days wouldn't be considered politics. Not making a suggestion -- just a comment. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Just wanted to briefly chime in to say that I agree with both your general analysis and sense of where we are headed, but when we're talking about such a major source (the most-watched cable news network in the United States by far), I think we really should err on the side of caution by leaving things open for a long time and inviting as much comment as possible. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think the fairest way to resolve this is to let this RFC tick for at least about another week, and then if it's still in WP:SNOW territory close it. Then open a second RFC for Fox News's political coverage prior to 2020 and a separate third one for Fox News's coverage prior to 2020 in general.
  I see there's a fairly large number of people here clearly saying that they want to go further than just a downgrade from 2020 onward, definitely more than people who explicitly oppose such a thing, but there's also enough people being vague about it that I don't think we'd be able to clearly say there's a consensus right now. Loki (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Fox News repeatedly spreads lies and then claims that it's not actually news to get out of liability for that. It's news only in branding. The recent court judgement and settlement show clearly that they are a propaganda network and not reliable for politics. Galobtter (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. And not just since 2020 (they've been unreliable for some time, at least 2016 if not earlier), and not just for politics (also science/medicine, e.g. climate change and covid). We should indicate, at a minimum, that "additional considerations apply" to citing Fox for any contentious topic, in addition to them being unreliable for politics. As others have said above, we don't give any other source anywhere near as much leeway as a few people keep trying to give Fox: if any other source was this intentionally inaccurate, we would consider that source suspect ("additional considerations apply", if not "unreliable"), not go "well, they lie about politics ... and science ... and medicine ... but there's no reason to think they're anything other than reliable for most stuff!" We should acknowledge they're unreliable for politics, and science / medicine, and say caution or "additional considerations" apply to citing them in general, if not simply saying they're generally unreliable. -sche (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC) slightly expanded -sche (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes The revelations that emerged in the Dominion lawsuit make it very clear that lying Fox propagandists are in charge there, and that top management sides with lies instead of facts, and defers to the demands of the propagandists instead of siding with the occasional Fox journalist who attempts to tell the truth. A network that says that Maria Bartiromo is somehow a legitimate journalist can be trusted with nothing. If Fox News sometimes tells the truth, then certainly we can easily find a far better source to cite for verification. Their pernicious lies, after all, far exceed any genuine journalistic scoops. Cullen328 (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• To the question as asked, yes, obviously: it is a matter of public record. For AMPOL in general, without a terminus ante, also yes: there will always be stronger sources for anything factual they reported. Folly Mox (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes deprecate Fox News since it was founded and not just for politics. Lightoil (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• No, clearly biased political poll. One major incident makes it suspect, sure, and if it happens again then a better argument could be made. But the settlement was made with the intention of owning up to a rather large mistake.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ortizesp, this is not about one major incident, but it was this incident that once again confirmed what we have complained about for years. They lie and do not fact-check. As far as this incident, it wasn't a "mistake". It was deliberate and prolonged. It revealed that when fact-checking goes against the party line, the bosses threaten the fact-checkers and block the NEWS division from accurately reporting the matter. The "mistake" (in the eyes of Fox News hosts, management, and viewers) was when they called Arizona for Biden. They did the right thing for a change, and it was shocking to the world. Normal people were amazed that for once Fox News was honest. To Fox News viewers and Trump sycophants, it was a grave "mistake" and they immediately left for OANN and Newsmax, as they weren't interested in facts, but only wanted to hear positive things about Trump. Fox News noticed they were hemorrhaging viewers and immediately went into damage control mode by threatening their own fact-checkers, blocking accurate NEWS coverage, and doubling down on election lies, while continuing to tell all the other lies they have always told viewers and still tell them. Fox News is not a real "news" channel. It's a propaganda channel with a huge agenda, and that's the way Roger Ailes intended it to function. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Of course we should. Duh.—S Marshall T/C 07:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, absolutely - it's a no-brainer. Roger Ailes created FN as a propaganda outlet, after all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, same logic as WP:THESUN, and the same treatment should apply. Indeed all Murdoch outlets should have a cautionary rubric because economy with the truth is his business strategy. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes (for all information, as they politicize medicine, climate change, Science in general, its hard to think of something they do not politicise), they have admitted lying, they played all kinds of games before finally settling. They no longer have a reputation for fact-checking, they have a reputation for telling lies. Note as well we have been discussing this for years, with a gradual downgrading of Fox, this is not some Knee jerk reaction based upon recent news, rather recent news has confirmed what many of us have argued for years, Fox News tells lies. Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Question: Much of this RFC is focused on Fox’s coverage of the 2020 presidential election and their claims about Dominion. And I agree that Fox’s coverage of that was extremely unreliable. But… does this unreliability translate to their coverage of all political topics? For example, did they show the same bias and engage in the same false reporting when covering the various 2020 House, Senate or Gubernatorial races? I guess what I am asking is this: Are we making a broad generalization based upon one (admittedly egregious) specific case? Are there other instances? Blueboar (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Blueboar, just to answer your question for myself, I guess I am a bit skeptical of sources in general. For every mistake we know about, I assume there are several we don't know about or at least near misses. This was, as you say, an egregious case about basically their single biggest story over a prolonged period of time. Now, it's entirely possible (perhaps even probable) that their other reporting is sourced better than to a time traveler who speaks to the wind--but how can we know for sure? If they were willing to engage in this conduct over this big a story, what lines can we safely say they would draw? That's why I come down as I do, but as I like to say, reasonable minds may certainly differ and I am happy to go with the wisdom of consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think most definitions of reliability consider some element of consistency. If a source sometimes deliberately misinforms, I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is unreliable. CT55555(talk) 23:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. To answer User:Blueboar, this WP:RSNP note lists 23 discussions, not counting the RFCs. A random clickthrough of recent RSN archives shows numerous unlinked threads about something shady Fox News has done, often through opinion makers. In this clear instance, case discovery has demonstrated beyond a doubt that even at the very highest levels of management, even THEY don't believe what they've been broadcasting. I urged deprecation last RFC. BusterD (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Well… good news for those who hate Fox because of Tucker… he just got fired. So… perhaps they are turning over a new leaf? Whatever is decided in this RFC, we will need to re-assess in a year to see if they have improved. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, re-assessment can always happen later. Right now they are in CYA mode, but will that mean they also will ignore what their viewers want and tell the truth, regardless of those viewers' wishes? I doubt it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. If they make some effort at correcting the record, I would certainly think a reassessment is in order. Unexplained personnel moves are less persuasive to me, but I am just one old guy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don't hate Fox. I hate the way they are poisoning political discourse in the US. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. If nothing else WP:RS says that reliable sources should have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Regardless of the exact reliability of Fox News, they don't have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy at this point. Hut 8.5 17:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes on what I dare say are obvious grounds. Moreover, the idea of a time limit on the downgrading does not make sense to me. (It would be, I believe, unprecedented.) We revisit and re-discuss these matters when circumstances warrant, not when we guesstimate that they might. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, downgrade. Would support downgrading prior to November 2020, as well. Useight (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, downgrade to generally unreliable for post-2020 coverage. In December 2020, the CEO of Fox News told anchor Eric Shawn that the fact-checking "has to stop now" because it is "bad for business". Very notably, Eric Shawn is part of Fox's "hard news" lineup (and quite a decent guy), not the host of an opinion show. An outlet's reliability depends on its editorial independence and editorial thoroughness, and that comes straight from the top. An outlet where executives interfere with newsroom activities because of political concerns is not reliable on politics. Aquillion provides more excellent sources, and XOR'easter is correct to point out that a time-limit would be unprecedented and pointless. DFlhb (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. We have bent over backwards to be fair to our conservative editors, but this is not a remotely close call. The facts clearly show that executives put viewer retention above even the most basic journalistic standards. Fact-checkers were shouted down. The man who accurately reported the Arizona call, was sacked. The shark was jumped. And all of this is documented as far back as 2015 by Benkler et. al. in Network Propaganda. We know they lied, we know why they did it, we know that the incentives in conservative media lead to asymmetric polarisation and a departure from the fact-checking dynamic. To assume good faith of Fox in any topic related to partisan politics, is to interpret neutrality as the average between reliable sources and propagandists. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes with great obviousness. Fox News has pushed a false and deceptive narrative since at least 2016, and doubled-down in 2020, it should not be used as a citation in any article. Zaathras (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• The Fox News business model has always been, first and foremost, giving a particular part of the population exactly what they want to see and hear. Reinforce existing fears, values, biases, mistrust, and understandings; filter current events through pre-existing ideologies. Secondarily, it is a tool for political influence. These two purposes are explicit, not just inferred, and have an inevitable effect on one another, resulting in a product which takes the genre conventions of news but has never quite tethered itself to traditional journalistic standards. By any analysis or measure of accuracy, bias, editorial oversight, fact-checking, or external influence, it falls short of what we typically expect from a reliable source. It's been that way for years. Since the mid-2010s, it's increasingly also moved from serving a traditional conservative majority to providing a gateway to the extreme right. Disinformation and conspiracy theories begin in more obscure extreme publications/platforms and find their way to a larger audience thanks to shows on Fox News.
  With the Dominion suit, we see an intersection of all of this: fringe conspiracies, external influence, a desire to give people whatever they want even when the hosts know it's untrue, buy-in from those in charge, reprimands for fact-checkers and anyone who challenges profitable misinformation, and a total disregard for journalistic standards. It's not new, but it's been laid bare.
  For absolutely any other source, it would've been considered generally unreliable or deprecated years ago. The only reason it hasn't been is because it's extremely popular, and we're all afraid that the huge number of people who watch Fox News will add Wikipedia to the list of "liberal media" -- that catch-all group of publications which include liberal perspectives alongside any outfit that doesn't prioritize catering to or cultivating conservative beliefs. At the end of the day, we don't want to alienate anyone; we want people who hear news about election fraud from Fox, etc. to come to Wikipedia and read our articles about election fraud. Maybe even follow the links and read some material they wouldn't otherwise consume. Fox's only value to this project is the extreme loyalty and trust so many people put in it. It is not valuable as a source of information on politics or just about anything, but like a Boob Tube Demagogue, we can bet that it won't hesitate to stoke outrage among its viewers with a bunch of "Wokepedia" stories. That's the main reason I've opposed multiple past efforts to downgrade Fox -- it's just a cost-benefit analysis predicated on the fact that we already don't really permit Fox to be used for politics for all of the reasons above. So we bend over backwards to draw lines: ok it's useful sometimes but not others; ok its newsroom is fine but the talk shows are bad; ok it's fine for some subjects but "no consensus" about science or politics; ok it's lousy for politics recently but "no consensus" before 2020... we don't do this for anything else.
  At this point, come on ... the jig is up. It's time to just accept that we're not being true to WP:RS to continue to entertain the idea that Fox is ever reliable for anything remotely connected to politics. If someone's going to put us with the "liberal media" category, so be it. We can join science and universities in Rush Limbaugh's "corners of deceit". We do reflect the scientific consensus on climate change, we don't say the 2020 US election was stolen, we don't say that vaccines cause autism, we don't treat QAnon as credible, and we shouldn't continue pretending that Fox News has any redeeming value to a project concerned with summarizing the best sources about a subject. Fox News is, fundamentally, never going to be the best source about a subject for a project that upholds values like WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:RS. Support. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Adding: To be clear, my support is not restricted to particular time-frames. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, and deprecate for all information - "generally unreliable" doesn't go far enough for a source which has been proven to have deliberately published information which they knew to be false, motivated by a political agenda. We normally deprecate propaganda outlets, and I don't see any reason why Fox News should be an exception. It doesn't matter if it was a handful of reporters and commentators nor that those individuals may have been terminated - part of being considered a reliable source is maintaining editorial oversight to prevent the publication of outright falsehoods, but Fox News failed to do so either because they do not have proper editorial control or, worse, because their editorial board supports this agenda. Continuing to consider it reliable in any way would bring Wikipedia into disrepute - if Wikipedia continues to rely on sources which are widely known to have deliberately published misinformation, how can anyone continue to rely on Wikipedia as a source of truthful information? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, we were long past the point of this being a necessary change. There was already evidence of this unreliability in reporting long before this particular court case put Fox's purposefully inaccurate reporting on the national stage. And with the evidence from the court case, I do feel like it calls into question much of their other reporting as well, such as on scientific topics. Silverseren^C 22:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, even before that court case it was pretty obvious they were ready to make up news out of thin air. I don't believe firing Tucker will change much to that, especially since he wasn't the only one involved. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. They lied. On purpose. That's called Disinformation. Why is this even a question??? Who thought unclosing was a good idea??? My first thought is that after we're done with this, we should go to a broader discussion about deprecating them for everything per Snowmanonahoe. casualdejekyll 23:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
• NO. It has been asserted, over and over again, that Fox News intentionally lied about the election, and everyone mutters and nods their heads. The evidence offered has been entirety incoherent. What exactly is the claim that they knew to be false information, but promoted anyway? I often see it claimed that it was Tucker Carlson's assertion, in private, that Sydney Powell's claims were false. But he also asserted that they were false publicly, on the Fox News channel. There is no contradiction there. When Carlson said that Heinrich should be fired for saying that "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised", this does not contradict his attacks on Powell, which were never private or hidden from the public in any way. The two claims are not equal, and can only be connected tendentiously. If A alleges that B specifically did not steal the election, and C alleges that the election was not stolen at all, and A attacks C for saying so, that does not mean that A has contradicted themselves in any way whatsoever.Harry Sibelius (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Seriously? They reprimanded a journalist for saying that Biden won. They sacked Chris Stirewalt for accurately calling Arizona for Biden. We have emails from executives promising to stop the fact-checkers from contradicting the Big Lie, because factual information about the election was losing them viewers to NewsMax and OANN. Fox paid out more than three quarters of a billion dollars because it was lying, and it knew it was lying, to appease an audience that wanted to hear lies. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fox effectively admitted they broadcast false information about Dominion voting machines. Andre🚐 01:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Harry Sibelius, a court of law already found that Fox lied about the election, in some cases by endorsing, agreeing with, or repeating fatuous arguments from guests. While I will be the first to say that courts do not determine reality, and we are free to disagree with their conclusions, in this case I, personally, find the reasoning persuasive. You can read the decision here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've seen claims that Tucker Carlson was fired from Fox News, but for the duration of these omnishambles, why hasn't Tucker Carlson or FOX NEWS corroborated any imputation that would signify W hornswaggled H into absquatulating from A to trick T into some obvious palaver? DN (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Downgrade for politics, but no change for other articles. Fox Business articles, and content focusing on sports and entertainment should be okay. I would recommend only using Fox News to cite American-conservative opinions, given compliance with WP:FRINGE. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Is there a single topic of importance in America today that hasn't been made political by the right drawing battle lines in its culture insurgency? Guy (help! - typo?) 08:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  A few… but those were made political by the left drawing battle lines in its cultural insurgency! Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Met Gala? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, and deprecate for all information. False information is false information, and it's not a question of left vs right: I would've said the same if, say, NPR fabricated stories. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Unreliable for factual statements about politics (but reliable for its own political opinions and assertions if attributed) - This is tabloid level news and pandering to the gullible audience. That said, with removing these sites like Fox and Daily Mail we may run into a problem with bias, as they are the main representatives of right wing views, so in my opinion Fox News (and Daily Mail) should be unequivocally considered attributable. Maybe it doesn't need to be said, as I think we know policy allows attribution of unreliable sources, but it may ever be appropriate to insert a "but Fox News claimed such and such about the topic", if only to guard against completely silencing opposing points of view, wrong, false, or not. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Unreliable for anything - preferably deprecation noting in particular User:Rhododendrites comments on the 25th. However, per SPECIFICO'S argument below is convincing so I would support using allegations and opinions if there are sufficient reliable sources to establish weight.I would exempt attributed statements of opinion or allegations when attributed. I don't want to completely silence per the post above and others. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Deprecate Any noteworthy content will have other sources, so there's no benefit trying to craft convoluled exceptions in which we would use Fox News any more than we would devise exceptions for any other self-published unverified narratives -- bloggers, youtube, tik-tokkers, et. al. @Doug Weller: I would not except attributed Fox News opinion. Such content would need secondary RS reporting to establish NPOV weight. Finally let's face the fact that, in American Politics at least, we have editors who are closeted Fox followers. They get their content ideas from Fox News, then google to find (cherrypick) a source for UNDUE or demonstrably false article content. So we need to draw a bright line. Any valid article content will have ample non-Fox publications that discuss it. Fox as a primary source for its own opinions is Pandora's box. SPECIFICO talk 13:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO That's a reasonable point about wanting secondary sources. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO: and @Doug Weller: I definitely see what you mean. From what I have seen on RSN (admittedly limited in scope) I think it would be unusual to completely prohibit attribution of opinion to a source. We allow religious and fringe sources and such that are found unreliable here to be used as sources for their own views, without demanding (to my understanding) that these views have received coverage in reliable sources. Still, you are correct, there does need to be some means to clamp down on editors shoehorning bogus, irrelevant or non-noteworthy views into articles. I don't have a ready answer and I don't have enough experience with contentious topics and reliable sources to say what the answer might be. Here is the relevant passage from WP:DUE:

  Reliability should be judged relative to the statement being sourced. Any source can be a reliable source for its own opinion. However, not all sources have relevant opinions. Please do not give the opinions of sources undue weight. Making a statement about a fact other than someone's opinion requires a higher degree of reliability. The more extraordinary the fact, the higher the degree of reliability needed.

  I think given Fox's broad reach, its opinions would tend to have some weight, as attributed opinions. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Why would any particular Fox statement be noteworthy, even for the Fox News page, if that statement has not been discussed by some second party? Excluding Fox's attributed statements ABOUTSELF for its own page. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Noteworthy because a huge number of people would have been exposed to the opinion? —DIYeditor (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Well[24] O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ok I guess I see how this would work. It still does seem like a step further than is usually taken for questionable sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Excellent point re opinion - in fact the reason we are here is because we now know that Fox "opinion" is simple propaganda, published regardless of truth. To cover each new outrage in the manner "Fox said outrageous thing, source, Fox saying outrageous thing" is a clear failure of NPOV (to say nothing of being recentism). Guy (help! - typo?) 13:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• No/Bad RFC - The issues and lawsuit have been about Fox News's opinion talk show hosts, which are already deprecated and treated separately in WP:RSP from their news operation. There's been a persistent tendency to sloppily ignore that distinction in these discussions, criticize the opinion hosts, then advocate action against the news organization. It's like arguing for the deprecation of the New York Times by using a bunch of stuff about the New York Post (or just having the New York Post on your mind). I don't think any action should be taken against the news operation unless the RFC makes it clear that the opinion talk shows are off-topic for the discussion. Furthermore, Fox paid a big settlement and fired Tucker Carlson, which is a positive sign that they could be addressing the issues that are there. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  This comment is not accurate. This RFC is indeed scoped to news content. 2600:4041:524F:C600:BC9F:9325:534:D344 (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  As previously stated several times, the issues absolutely are not limited merely to Fox opinion hosts, and instead include both statements from hosts that Fox themselves categorized as "news", and pressure on hosts that everyone unambiguously categories as "news" to lie outright. Loki (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, it "fails to adhere to basic journalistic practices". Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. Downgrade is warranted due to the well-documented, pervasive integrity and accuracy issues with this source. VQuakr (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• No For all of the other reasons given plus: Would be a massive overgeneralizatoin and this would have a particularly high impact. Reliabiltiy is specific to the situaiotn and measured by objectivity and experetise with respect to the item which cited it. Also removing the largest cable TV news source would ripple through far beyond wp:ver into distortions in coverage under wp:weight. Such an impactful decision would need more visibility and participation than a thread in a noticeboard. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  more visibility It is listed at WP:CENT presently. I do think this should remain open rather than be snow closed, and in that time anyone is welcome to post neutral pointers to this thread elsewhere.
  distortions in coverage under wp:weight - WP:WEIGHT is predicated on using reliable sources (making sure that the perspectives therein are reflected appropriately and proportionately). If we allow unreliable sources into articles, then yes, it would have a significant impact on how we understand WP:WEIGHT. If your meaning is simply that "there are perspectives on Fox that we should be including", could you provide some examples? I recall several arguments in e.g. the Daily Mail RfC and New York Post RfC about specific types of coverage they could be used for (sports, for example), which we would lose if deprecating them, although in this case the proposal is very narrow (politics). What kind of political stories/perspectives are uniquely provided by Fox and not present in any better source such that we should be relying on Fox directly? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: I tend to not even attempt the goal of non-bias and am more concerned about the lower bar of missing information due to bias. And in the US these is much that is undercovered by the media depending on which "side" of the US political divide they are on. (and nearly all are on 1 side in this respect). Maybe as a quick example, the hate crime related discussions on the Tenessee mass shooting, or what the specific charges were that the Tenessee legislators were expelled for. These are just off the cuff....I did not analyzee because I don't inhabit those types of articles. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  While I agree there is probably some tendency toward selective reporting, possibly due to editorial bias or a desire to control the narrative, or simply due to monetary motivations on the part of news venues (pandering to the audience), that doesn't change the fact that the NY Post, Daily Mail and Fox News are abysmally low brow shitshows. They appeal to the lowest common denominator at best and deal in sensationalism, blatant falsehoods and conspiracy theories. If no reputable large audience right-leaning sources come forward, for whatever reason, that is not the problem of Wikipedia. Or rather, it is a problem for Wikipedia, but it is not a problem for Wikipedia to solve. We can't use garbage sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Here's The New Republic and NBC reporting on the hate crime related discussions on the Tenessee mass shooting. Here's CBS and NPR reporting on what the specific charges were that the Tenessee legislators were expelled for—namely, disorderly behavior. CBS also provided direct links to the three motions to expel, in PDF form. These articles, too, were found just off the cuff; I expect I could find more if I took more time. I am not immediately seeing that there is much that is undercovered. Shells-shells (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. The Fox News empire is an egregious fabricator of mistruths and pernicious denier of truths. They peddle lies and conspiracy theories, and spread disinformation and doubt that erode foundations of civic trust (America), scientific integrity (Vaccines), and planetary habitability (climate catastrophe). To continue to rely on them as if they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is dangerous and utter nonsense. We are better, and our readers deserve better. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. I don't see it in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All. I don't see an editing dispute re "The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used" for what is apparently the issue (an electoral fraud accusation), and if there is such an issue then don't use it in whatever the relevant articles are, rather than propose a ban on "politics", which might be broadly construed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  It looks like the rfc tag was never put back after the closure was undone. I've put it back now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes – Fox News has been shown to value ratings more than fact-checking, especially in political topics. At this time, I only support deprecating Fox News as a WP:RS for politics (broadly construed) and would like to see this revisited in four years unless they are further deprecated. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Of course Wikipedia is a reality-based project and no diversion based on a false equivalence, claiming that all sources are bad, will change the fact that some sources are particularly renown for deception. Wikipedia doesn't only care about verification but also about the reliability of the sources used. It makes a distinction between verification and reliability and its neutral point of view policy is about accurately representing the analysis of reliable sources, not "neutral" editor synthesis using any source to present a false balance to "let the reader decide" with confused uncertainty propaganda. Fact checkers evaluate the quality and fairness of the analysis done by sources. Unreliable opinion shows mixed in with news and trying to confuse the two is an indication of an intent to mislead. Further evidence is how some people who were expected to subscribe to journalistic ethics have also been implicated in populist post-truth narratives promotion (in "news" reporting) and how representatives acknowledged that to appeal to certain demographics and compete with some extremist sources designed for radicalization, the factual accuracy and fairness were sacrificed. This has not only occurred in relation to Trumpism but also for climate change denial purposes, the obstruction of public health management and to promote the persecution of minorities. Fox News "analysis" is understood to be unfair. I would also support deprecation if asked. —PaleoNeonate – 06:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - I would not limit the downgrade, either in time or by subject matter. The summary judgment has only provided documentation for the way that Fox News already was operating, and there is no justification for concluding that something happened after the election that somehow changed the way they do everything. In the past I have argued that downgrading should apply only to politics and science, but I now believe that was the wrong conclusion. Rather, Fox News is willing to be unreliable on any subject where there is a political connection, and it finds a political connection to everything. The mere fact that its reporting happens to be accurate some of the time does not mean it is reliable; rather, that is the opposite of reliability. John M Baker (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Are there any actual Fox News articles which discussed and stated that the Dominion Voting falsehoods which the on air personalities promoted were rooted in truth? If not, why is black listing Fox News now necessary? Thriley (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes As a right-winger myself, I find that I can no longer defend their reporting. I think Fox News has been unreliable for politics since Gamergate or when the current culture war started. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think of it more as a culture insurgency, since it is being waged only by one side, regressives who are unable to understand that acknowledging the existence of a thing they hate is not the same as causing the thing they hate to exist. They seem to believe that nobody grew up gay when surrounded by exclusively heteronormative influences. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Consistency with the Daily Mail decision - I disagreed with the wholescale filtering of particular sources that are ultimately legitimate news organisations and not actual propaganda outlets like Global Times or Russia Today, if ones with low reliability. However, as a source, it is not clear to me why there is any distinction between Fox News and the Daily Mail, as both are essentially tabloid news sources. If anything, the Daily Mail operates within a frame work that holds it to a higher standard than the one that Fox News operates within. There being no consistency between the propaganda outlets of dictatorships (PressTV, RT etc.), which are not mostly not filtered, British tabloid sources (The Sun, The Daily Mail), which are mostly filtered, and US tabloid sources (Fox News), some of which are not filtered, gives the impression of a biased and inconsistent approach. FOARP (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  somewhat ironic, since the entire point here is that we now know Fox is exactly what you describe: an actual propaganda outlet. They are judging the news they publish by its acceptability to an audience that would rather hear lies than have its biases challenged. Discovery was not a good thing for Fox. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  The kind of discovery that can only happen in a country where a defamation lawsuit is brought against a media outlet, which was my point.
  The bad reputation British tabloids have comes in large part from the number of times they have been sued successfully for defamation in UK courts where, for better or worse, it is easier to sue for defamation than in the US. They have also been the subject of proceedings before the regulator, something that doesn’t even really exist in the US. For the longest time editors here used that as evidence that British tabloid outlets were worse than US ones when in fact they were no worse and probably better simply from fear of being sued.
  But I do disagree on one point: even the Dominion case has not exposed Fox as a propaganda outlet on a par with Global Times or China Daily (which remain unfiltered last I checked, though that was some time ago). Hu Xi Jin’s paper literally has carried out its own astro-turfing operation at Hu’s instruction (see the Richard Burger controversy) and China Daily was infamous during my time in China for basically inventing stories out of whole cloth (not, as at Fox, getting on guests who they knew were crazy).
  I no longer bother to ask that the decision as to what sources be used (where they are at least media outlets) be left ultimately up to editors, just that these sources (UK tabloids, US tabloids, dictatorship propaganda outlets) be treated consistently. FOARP (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  English defamation law changed after the passage of the Defamation Act 2013 (full disclosure: I know Simon Singh and several of the people who were involved in getting that law passed). I have also been sued under US defamation laws, by malicious quack Gary Null. Luckily he sueed in New York, which has a robust anti-SLAPP law. I would never defend the use of tabloids as a source. But I would also never defend use of right-partisan media as a source, after having read Network Propaganda. Normally I would qualify that with "for anything contentious", but the partisan media have done an excellent job of removing nuance from everything and turning practically everything into a contentious partisan topic. Look at the attempts to smear the victims of the Texas shooting this week, or the defences of the white man who killed a Black man having an obvious mental health issue in New York today. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Situations can change and consensus can change. What we know now, as a result of the revelations from the suit, is that there has been a longstanding corporate effort to present falsehoods as news, even when known to be false, and that this infected the news content, and not just the commentary. There simply is not going to be any sort of information in recent news that we would need to source to Fox, because it can be sourced to other, reality-based, news sources. There is no longer any possible justification for treating Fox as an encyclopedically reliable source. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes and we should also blacklist the Fox News website and consider everything from them unreliable Qwv (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, they lied. 1.136.110.231 (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC).
• Yes, but for everything. Other than the ample evidence already provided on their inaccuracy and promulgation of fallacies and lies on anything related to science, politics and society; it's now been established beyond doubt that they do not maintain adequeate separation between "facts" and "opinions", that the latter is utterly biased and fallacious, and that the network's management prefers it so for the sake of profit. Depracate the website and TV channels for all subjects, except for content that originates in self-managing local affiliates. François Robere (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes – absolutely deprecate for scientific claims per its history of defying scientific consensus (at least they purportedly don't deny climate change anymore). I'm OK with just labeling it unreliable for politics and other things. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC); edited 15:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Wow, I knew that Fox had a reputation for altering images. What I didn't know was that such instances can come up randomly from reading stuff online (see also Politico). Trust me, this was purely incidental. It makes no sense to just deprecate images, so now I'm for full deprecation. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 15:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes and deprecate as an explicit propaganda mill, per my arguments to that effect at every previous RFC about this I have attended. I would be happy to see this website finally and completely blacklisted for all topics. They make no effort beyond the superficial to be a reliable source of information and our treatment of them should reflect that. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, per all of the "yes" arguments above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes: Good grief -- when numerous major figures at the network all the way up to Murdoch himself admitted in legal depositions to tailoring -- or wishing they had -- their news and statements to what they thought their audience wanted to hear? That's not a "news" source. That's an entertainment channel. Nor am I impressed by Fox News being the most watched cable channel as a reason to demur. So frigging what? We've deprecated many large media outlets as unreliable, and their viewership/readership has nothing to do with it. It comes down to whether we can trust that the outlet is reporting the truth. There are reams of testimony under oath to tell us that we cannot trust Fox News to do so. Done deal. Ravenswing 10:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. Daily Mail is popular and unreliable. CT55555(talk) 23:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Seems to have a history of not fact checking, including sharing misinformation presented as news, on the news channel. I don't overlook this just because it's a chat/opinion now, as it's on the news channel. Settling claims of untruthfulness helps me with this conclusion. CT55555(talk) 22:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - I am still on the fence about this, but from my limited knowledge, most of the misinformation about politics seems to come from talk shows, which we have repeatedly found by consensus to be generally unreliable. The Dominion suit largely appears to be related to the actions of talk show hosts like Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, etc., who it now appears intentionally allowed guests to spread falsehoods about the 2020 election to appease their audience despite knowing they were false. I may have missed it, but I haven't seen that Fox has a tendency to spread misinformation via news articles. Therefore, I don't find the unreliability of talk shows (which are opinion shows, not news) to be a convincing argument for why we should downgrade the entire network. I also don't find many of the arguments above convincing; many seem to range from throwing out the baby with the bathwater, to ad hominem attacks, to simple dislike of Fox News, which I have my fair share of. That being, said, I just pulled up the |politics page, an the top three headlines are "President Biden slams 'MAGA Republicans' as the 'real problem' at DNC reception", Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signs bill banning transgender treatments for minors", and "McCarthy takes Congress back to school on AI". Sure enough, all of these stories have been reported by countless other news outlets, many of which are uncontroversial. While there are certainly lots of opinion pieces and what appear to be segments from talk shows (I haven't checked) listed on the front of the politics page, I haven't seen that Fox News has a tendency to inaccurately report on politics in their news coverage (again, I am not referring to talk shows, opinion shows/articles, etc) anymore than any other networks. Sure, they choose what they report on, but all networks do that. Bias is not the same as factual inaccuracy. Therefore, I can't yet say I support deprecating Fox News politics coverage post-2020 or before or declaring it generally unreliable. I think this is something we need to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think based on what you've said here, you've clearly missed the several previous comments which mention findings that show that it was not just the opinion hosts at issue, for two reasons:

  1. Maria Bartiromo was internally classified by Fox as news and she openly spread election misinformation. Or in other words, by Fox's own classification they were spreading misinfo on their news side. This either means that Fox's own internal distinction between news and opinion is useless (so isolating the issue to "opinion" doesn't help them) or, even worse, that an actual news anchor was spreading conspiracy theories on air.
  2. Probably more importantly, anchors everyone agrees are news were pressured to lie by higher ups after the Arizona call. Once the misinformation is coming directly from the editors, that itself should be enough to declare a source non-reliable. Part of our definition of a reliable source is that it has an editorial process to separate truth from falsehood. If their editorial process is separating truth from falsehood and publishing the falsehoods, that's the exact opposite of a reliable source.

  Loki (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  By opinion, I was referring to the all of the cable talk shows, including Bartiromo. All of these shows are "opinion" shows, regardless of what they call themselves. I thought this has been established in multiple past discussions about this network and others. I don't think Fox calls any of their shows "opinion shows". But these are different than news articles published online, regardless of whether or not Fox considers them to be the same. There is a huge difference between publishing news articles about an event, and talking about an event and then giving your opinion about it (or having someone else do it on your show). We don't normally cite recordings of talk shows on Wikipedia; instead we usually rely on news articles. With regards to the Arizona call (and I admit I don't know everything), I'm not surprised that management encouraged them to retract their call; it clearly would have appeased their viewers. But there also seems to have been a controversy about whether or not Fox called Arizona too soon (see this article), as a significant share of the vote was not yet in, and all other networks called Arizona much later. Could this have possibly played a role in efforts to retract? In other words, was the view amongst management something like "We better reverse our call, because if we are wrong, our viewers will never forgive us", "Biden probably won Arizona, but our viewers are not giving up hope that Trump may still somehow pull it off when more votes come in", etc.? In other words, Fox may have actually called Arizona too soon, something that other networks have done before, probably most famously in 2000. With regards to news, I still have yet to see that Fox has a long history of publishing false news stories. Sure, the vast majority of the news stories they publish end up being largely useless and lost to history. That is true of most news articles. But I haven't seen a convincing argument for why we should not allow Fox articles about politics that can be easily verified to be cited on Wikipedia. Some have mentioned that anything reliable covered by Fox News is likely to be covered by other reliable networks. That is true, and we could just cite other networks, but I don't find that to be a convincing argument for why we shouldn't be allowed to cite them if they are reliable. That being said, I will be changing my !vote to "Support for all talk shows only, oppose for all political coverage", as the current consensus from past discussions seems to have largely focused shows like Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham, etc. I would extend this definition to talk shows that the network classifies as news, including Bartiromo. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Bartiromo and Baier were both classified as news anchors. Regardless, talk shows are already unreliable. This is about the news website Andre🚐 22:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Isn't that what I already said? By "talk show" I was referring to all opinion shows, regardless of whether or not the network themselves classifies them as "news". But none of them are news. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for all political coverage, support for all television programs - see my comments above. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Note - I have changed my !vote to "support for all television programs" because I was unaware that a consensus had not been reached on whether or not all television programs were unreliable. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:DAILYMAIL. Fox News has been generally unreliable since well before 2020, and I wouldn't trust them to tell me what day of the week it was. Miniapolis 01:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, but I would go further and depreciate Fox News for science and politics back to its inception. It's wiki page is just a long list of Fox News's lies, misinformation, and racist rhetoric which would make the KKK blush. Fox News should join both the Daily Stormer and Daily Mail and be banned from being used as a source on wikipedia. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Yes and 'generally unreliable' is a significant understatement. Just check out their today's featured news: https://www.foxnews.com/media/middle-school-student-allegedly-sent-home-refusing-change-shirt-said-only-two-genders. What did we learn from this? Absolutely nothing. It's a rinse and repeat right-wing propaganda launder machine that brings nothing of value and nothing new. When it does bring actual news, it's never something that more reliable sources do not already exist for. They do not adhere to any journalistic standards. –Vipz (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, IMO the summary judgement above add to concerns with the previous failed fact-checks and issues in previous RfCs. Therefore, from my perspective the fundamental requirement of WP:RS, which is a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy, is obviously questionable for politics starting from November 2020, justifying a downgrade to generally unreliable (for this specific timeframe). VickKiang (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, according to the leader of https://unfoxmycablebox.com/ , Fox is just hate, extremism, and lies. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, Fox has been consistently unreliable for a very long time, and I'd say they were designed that way from the beginning especially with regard to politics. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes It has been indicated that Fox News moved from bias to fabrication around that time. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 13:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, and back to the beginning, not just from 2020. Valjean puts it well above: "Comparing Fox News with other RS is a fool's errand, as Fox News does what is right as an exception to the rule, whereas other RS commit errors as an exception to the rule." For example: Fox scrambled to recover from calling Arizona for Biden, and courted forgiveness from MAGA by firing the man responsible. Bishonen | tålk 14:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC).
• Yes: Fox news has been a much ridiculed joke of a news source for the best part of a decade now. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• No: One story should not depreciate an entire network. Additionally the majority of complaints were against opinon television hosts not reporters. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  The documents revealed in the lawsuit showed that despite their public claims, Fox News basically treated "journalists" and "opinion hosts" basically the same internally. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. I'd argue that it should go back further than this, as well, though I'm not sure exactly where the line should be drawn. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes downgrade politics for a limited time period, per Adoring nanny and The Gnome. In light of Tucker Carlson's firing, I have reason to believe that this is one indication that the young guard at Fox might be trying to ease the network back into its 'fair and balanced' heritage. Allowing Fox some rope would also go a long way in forestalling criticism of WP being biased toward one viewpoint. StonyBrook _babble 20:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Are you aware that Fair and Balanced was recited nightly to whet viewers' appetites for a smorgasboard of conspiracy theories and undocumented assertions on Fox TV? SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Citing a paywalled source to back up a contentious assertion in an attempt to badger my !vote only corroborates my concerns about this space being perceived as sliding too far in one direction. StonyBrook _babble 21:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  To save you further insinuating bad faith from other editors, here's a clear copy - David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for that David. No mention of conspiracy theories, only that Fair and Balanced was a marketing ploy concocted to convince viewers that Fox offered an alternative to the perceived liberal biases of other media. While this may indeed be the case, there is no disputing the fact that real attempts were made to present both sides of an issue, in programs such as Hannity & Colmes. Your article makes the point that the phrase was dropped in 2017 (after they started falling in with Trump) and I am saying that recent events might be the catalyst for them to bring this idea back.  StonyBrook _babble 21:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Putting it another way, "Fair and Balanced" was not an "idea". It was a marketing slogan, no more an idea than "Think different" or "America Runs on Dunkin." SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Fun fact: Fox sued Al Franken over his use of the term "fair and balanced" in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. They lost. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, and make it a blanket ban rather than from 2020 onwards. This article has existed since 2006 and outlines enough reasons for an indefinite ban. Anarchyte (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Reading through the discussion, I'm uneasy about this RfC. It seems at least some editors are treating this as an opportunity to expunge a disfavoured source rather than soberly analysing its accuracy. Of course, the mere fact that some have supported downgrading Fox for bad reasons doesn't magically imply Fox ought not to be downgraded, but it makes me worried enough to leave this comment. – Teratix ₵ 14:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Not sufficiently reliable in general, and now abundantly clear that it NEVER has been. In a past Fox-RFC I was willing to set aside a serious pile of red-flags and !voted argued to accept Fox because (1) it was big and (2) I was bending over backwards to give it the benefit of the doubt for source diversity. However we are long past the point where we have to acknowledge that Fox News was never a reliable news source and never had any commitment to any standard of journalism or integrity. Like Russia Today, any valid news they carry is just incidental filler to pad out the unreliable propaganda and tabloid content. Trying to salvage "good enough" content from a fundamentally unreliable source is a fool's game. Part of the reason we need to acknowledge the non-reliability of Fox News is to acknowledge that any oppinion or so-called story or so-called scandal warrants absolutely zero weight for mention in an encyclopedia just because it was published at Fox. If a story or scandal or viewpoint is meaningful enough to mention in an encyclopedia, then surely it can be found somewhere else. Alsee (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes for all topic areas and including pre-2020 coverage, per my comments in previous RfCs. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, support blanket deprecation of Fox News - Pursuit of the truth should be paramount and should not bow to crocodile tears from those who profit from farming outrage from the right. 2020 showed a more aggressive and reckless approach to fabrication, not a "[move] from bias to fabrication". ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• No. For web content and coverage outside talk shows, deprecation for a single story spread by talk show hosts (is ridiculous. Maybe if there was more evidence that the other Fox outlets spread malinformation? But until then, whatever the talk show hosts say bears no relevance to such an RfC . Also, per North8000. -- Mebigrouxboy (talk)
• Yes, strong yes. After the Dominion Voting lawsuit was settled, it's abundantly clear they make up news to push an agenda. Tucker Carlson leaving is likely related to it as well. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• Reluctant Yes Fox is pretty much the only major news network that is not editorially left of center and their willingness to cover stories often ignored by the other networks has been an important contribution to providing some level of journalistic balance. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to ignore the overwhelming body of evidence that Fox deliberately promoted kooky and seditious conspiracy theories, that they knew as a matter of fact, to be false, in order to curry favor with the far right and prop up their ratings. That is conduct that I consider absolutely antithetical to what is expected of a reliable source. I do not regard this as a final and immutable judgement and may be open to reconsideration somewhere down the road. But recovering from this kind of reputational damage will take time. And for clarity, I am talking years. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  It depends how you define center, and indeed news network. NPR is neutral, but looks far left by comparison with Fox and its ilk - as indeed does Attila the Hun. The center of US politics, right now, outflanks Reagan on the right. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not sure this discussion is still open or not (no light blue background, so it appears still open); not sure the 3-day "rush closing" has been extended or not either, but I am presenting my point of view on this matter. Not even sure I am posting under the correct section (or subsection) or not. If this is the wrong subsection, to an admin, please feel free to relocate my post.
  First, I am an independent, so I come here with no agenda other than an independent's agenda, if there's such a thing; not a liberal nor a conservative either. What I am is a believer that Fox News shouldn't be "nailed" forever (or even temporarily) for one single HUGE error, even if that error was intentional. Fox News has provided an alternative point of view for many decades and, in any society, it's important to get both --and all-- sides of a story --any story-- and let the individual decide, rather than allowing the media decide for us, no matter if that media is right or wrong or if it's left or right wing. I compare this approach to 2 siblings before their father telling their side of an event (such as a fight) between the 2 siblings where the father wasn't a witness. Now, consider if the father wanted to listen to one of the 2 sides only because in the past the other side told a BIG lie. It wouldn't be a fair process, IMO; the father should always allow himself to listen two both sides, regardless of past history, and then decide based on having listened to both sides. Likewise, IMO, with Fox News. Yes, this viewpoint will probably generate a lot of responses, and I welcome them all, as I hope any responders did welcome mine herein as well, but I doubt I will respond back to any because, again, it's my opinion and, also IMO, that my opinion it's representative of the opinion of many others, just as each opinion herein is, I believe, also representative of many others. Mercy11 (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Comment "Yes, this viewpoint will probably generate a lot of responses, and I welcome them all, as I hope any responders did welcome mine herein as well, but I doubt I will respond back to any because, again, it's my opinion and, also IMO, that my opinion it's representative of the opinion of many others."...Huh?...Might I suggest WP:AGF for some clarification? DN (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• No I have no love for fox news, but Bneu2013 is exactly right. There are obvious editorial problems with fox's TV programming, including so-called news anchors, but the accusation that this also applies to reporting on foxnews.com (the source we typically draw from) is made without real evidence and constitutes guilt by association. Has Maria Bartiromo been cited as a reliable source on wikipedia even once? Show me an example of a fox article printing an outright lie or a higher-up pressuring a print journalist to fudge the facts and I might change my mind. Reliable sources do not need to be neutral, and it is impossible to achieve NPOV without the inclusion of right-of-center sources. We would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. —Rutebega (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  1. We actually do have evidence that the website is bad.
  2. "Guilt by association" applies when there's no obvious hierarchical structure or directed information flow between entities, which isn't the case here.
  3. In the spirit of WP:BURDEN, it is incumbent on those arguing for inclusion to demonstrate Fox News's reliability, not the other way around.
  4. In the spirit of WP:5P1, we should be using only the best available sources, not arguing on why some source "isn't bad enough"; if we're having that discussion, then it probably is.

  François Robere (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  I appreciate all the work you put into collecting documentation on this. I would conclude this is evidence of an institutional problem and this is completely unacceptable. The anonymous statements here are also suggestive of an environment hostile to factual reporting. Nevertheless, both the untruths I've cited were ultimately corrected, and nearly all foxnews.com articles I've found are basically factual, if extremely slanted. In my opinion, these examples support the status quo: Fox is marginally reliable when it comes to politics and science, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Clearly they have a spotty record, but even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors, and I would set the bar a little higher for downgrading, which would effectively ban the source from all BLP articles (or those related to politics and science, anyway). Again, I think this would have a deleterious effect on NPOV across the project.

  Also, it's barely relevant, but that isn't even remotely what WP:BURDEN is about, and it's a classic misapplication of the concept. It doesn't matter how many true things fox has reported, it's impossible to "prove" they're always reliable (which isn't even what I'm arguing). —Rutebega (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  There's an enormous gulf difference between other news groups that have instances of occasional shoddy reporting and missed fact-checking episodes, and Fox News which was just exposed in litigation for releasing disinformation (not mis-, dis-) to sway public opinion away from one party and towards another in regards to election results. That is unforgiveable, and renders them completely unusable for sourcing in this project. Zaathras (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  My point was really to invoke the principle of NEWSORG, not to draw a false equivalence between Fox and any other news source. The status quo already reflects the fact that Fox is not as trustworthy as other sources, and it shouldn't be used without some discussion. Immediately below WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS you can see that their talk shows are already considered unreliable, so the lawsuit really doesn't change a thing from where I'm standing (I suppose we could formally deprecate the talk shows, which I frankly think would be warranted, but that's not what this RfC is about). The last RfC on this was less than a year ago, and any new information that I'm aware of just isn't dispositive when it comes to the sources we actually use on wikipedia. —Rutebega (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• You say "it is impossible to achieve NPOV without the inclusion of right-of-center sources"...No one here is saying FOX NEWS will no longer be "included", only that it's status should be changed to more accurately reflect it's current level of reliability. Further more, no one here is saying right-of-center sources can no longer being included. You are using Straw man arguments. DN (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry DN, I didn't intend to put words in anyone's mouth. I was only pointing out one of the encyclopedic benefits of using fox as a source, in line with what North8000 said earlier. I have to challenge your assertion though, because it seems that there are at least a handful of editors including the person whose reply preceded yours who would like to stop using Fox, and might object to being called straw men. If you strongly disagree with that perspective, you'll have to take it up with them. —Rutebega (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  What those FEW editors are talking about is WP:DEPS...What you seem to be claiming here is that these editors are calling for Wikipedia:Spam blacklist of not just FOXNEWS, but "for right-of-center sources" in general... BTW..."Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation, contrary to what has been reported in media headlines. In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. While some deprecated sources have been completely eliminated as references, others have not." Now, one might reasonably argue that FOXNEWS's settlement in the dominion lawsuit was indicative of possible Defamation, seeing as FOX NEWS decided to pay one of the largest financial settlements in a defamation case, in history to avoid further discovery, but we still have the upcoming Smartmatic lawsuit for which FOX NEWS will again be facing claims of Defamation. If they decide to settle yet again, will you still continue to defend their status as "reliable" on Wiki?...Cheers. DN (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  You are using Straw man arguments....What you seem to be claiming here is that...

  Come on now. —Rutebega (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  The difference being I gave you an opportunity to correct me instead of making a declarative statement. Obviously your grasp of logical fallacies is limited. Best of luck with that. I wish you would have at least bothered to answer my question and avoided the old "I'm rubber you're glue" defense. In the spirit of WP:CIVIL and on the advice of another editor I struck a portion of my previous comment. Apologies. DN (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• No per Bneu2013. I'm not a political person at all, but my impression is that the Fox network talk shows are biased in favor of Trump/republicans, but are generally reliable on news reporting, and CNN talk shows are more biased towards democrats, but generally reliable for news reporting. All sources have their imperfections, and if you go looking for them, you will surely find them. If we are eliminating sources in this manner, we soon won't have any left. I think this RfC is *probably* really more a demonstration of the strong political bias of our editors toward a democratic political stance against the republican beliefs of Fox news. I think there isn't anything wrong with Fox news talk shows having their political views any more than CNN has theirs as long as they are both reporting the news accurately enough. We have to remember that we are the assholes who decided primary sourcing wasn't good enough, and straight up facts can't come from the original source, but they have to be "interpreted" through secondary sources. Well, there you go. Secondary sources don't always agree what the "interpretation" of the facts are. If we are eliminating sources in this manner, we soon won't have any left. (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  If we are eliminating sources in this manner, we soon won't have any left. I think this RfC is *probably* really more a demonstration of the strong political bias of our editors toward a democratic political stance against the republican beliefs of Fox news. What evidence leads you to believe we are "eliminating" FOXNEWS? How is it you can claim to read the minds of all the editors here in order to make that determination while also assuming good faith? I would hope that most editors here would feel the need to have a disscusion about any so called "reliable" source, right or left leaning, in the event of evidence such as this coming out. Perhaps all news sources will eventually be downgraded, and if so, maybe it is for the best. DN (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  I feel the need to chime in and clarify my comments once again. My objections to banning the use of Fox News for all political coverage stems from the difference between talk shows and news reporting. While they are usually conflated, talk shows are not the same thing as news articles or nightly news broadcasts. Talk shows are largely opinion shows. While they often talk about happenings in the news, they don't exactly "report" it. Instead, they talk about the news and then give their opinions about it and/or bring someone else on to give their opinion about it. This is what has gotten Fox in trouble here; in this case, they have had people on their shows who have said false things about the 2020 election. This is not the same thing as reporting false things about the 2020 election. This brings me back to my main point that cable talk shows are not the same as news reporting. Next to none of the controversies that people have cited to justify their opinions that Fox News should be deprecated involve news stories that the network has published; they overwhelmingly name Carlson, Hannity, Bartiromo, Ingraham, Perino, Baier, and a bunch of other people I can't name. Is Fox's news reporting flawless? Of course not. But we wouldn't deprecate, say, a major newspaper because they published opinion articles that contained falsehoods. My point is, we need to distinguish between outright reporting falsehoods as truth and/or lying and allowing someone to say something on air that is false without taking a stance on whether or not it is actually false. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  My point is, we need to distinguish between outright reporting falsehoods as truth and/or lying and allowing someone to say something on air that is false without taking a stance on whether or not it is actually false. How are we supposed to distinguish them when FOXNEWS, itself, doesn't? There is current evidence that the entire organization was in on the lie, and there seems to be no end in sight despite the looming SMARTMATIC lawsuit...

  CNN 4-23 "Fox denies wrongdoing and is fighting the Smartmatic lawsuit, which is unfolding in New York state courts."

CNN 4-23 “Fox Corp. CEO Lachlan Murdoch said there will be no change in strategy at the company’s top rated right-wing network, despite the firing of its top rated anchor Tucker Carlson and a massive $787.5 million settlement to Dominion Voting Systems that resulted in the company swinging to a loss in the just completed period. “There is no change to our programming strategy at Fox News,” Murdoch said in response to an analyst who asked about Carlson’s ouster during the investor call Tuesday to discuss its financial results."

NPR 4-23 "In speaking with investors on Tuesday, Fox Corp. executive chair and chief executive Lachlan Murdoch did not apologize for the network's repeatedly broadcasting bogus claims that Dominion Voting Systems conspired to cheat then-President Donald Trump of victory in 2020." - "Texts and emails disclosed in the Dominion case showed most Fox journalists, executives and corporate officials did not believe the claims of election fraud from Trump and his allies. The network aired them anyway to win back viewers who peeled away after the conservative network was the first to project that Joe Biden would win Arizona. How a civil war erupted at Fox News after the 2020 election What happened at the time and since represents a dual failure, the network's critics argue.

First, executives did not act to prevent Fox's hosts from amplifying and, in some cases, endorsing false claims that Dominion committed election fraud, despite knowing those claims to be untrue. These observers note the company also failed to apologize afterwards publicly or on its programs.

Most news outlets hold that correcting the record on fatally flawed stories is fundamental to retaining public trust. CBS News retracted a story about the deadly debacle at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, based on claims from an unreliable source. The Washington Post corrected accounts of allegations against Trump that did not hold up. Fox has not retracted or appended editors' notes to any of the segments in question. By design, Fox's power rests in the Murdochs

The Hill 4-23

The Independant 4-23"Despite the settlement, there will be no retractions or on-air apologies on Fox, a source with knowledge of the agreement told The Independent."

Fortune 4-23 Murdoch said viewers, and investors, should expect no change in direction from Fox News. “We made the business decision to resolve this dispute and avoid the acrimony of a divisive trial and multiyear appeal process, a decision clearly in the best interests of the company and its shareholders,” he said. Fox still believes it was properly exercising its First Amendment rights to report on newsworthy fraud allegations made by former President Donald Trump, even though that defense was shot down in a pretrial court ruling in the Dominion case, Murdoch said.

That’s important, since Murdoch said Fox intends to use the same defense against a similar lawsuit by another elections technology company, Smartmatic. That case is not expected to go to trial until at least 2025, he said.

Fortune 4-23That response aligns with principles widely touted by professional news organizations and established in the ethical practice of journalism. Although journalism scholars and practitioners vary in their definitions of what a news organization is and who can claim to be a journalist, there is firm agreement that reporting facts, or at least making a good faith effort to do so, is an indispensable mandate for both. Yet Murdoch has not indicated an intention to discipline en masse Fox News employees who violated that ethical principle. Nor is he required to.

Even the Society of Professional Journalists, the nation’s foremost advocate for ethical journalism, rejects punishments for those who violate its principles. Its ethics code says in part: “The code is entirely voluntary. … It has no enforcement provisions or penalties for violations, and SPJ strongly discourages anyone from attempting to use it that way.” The organization concedes that news outlets can discipline their own journalists. Because journalists and their employers may be considered to be one entity, any disciplinary action is voluntary self-discipline. Neither journalists nor the news organizations they personify have to be truthful unless they want to. Lying in the press is unethical but does not necessarily strip liars of the protections provided by the First Amendment.

There is an exception to this: the defamatory lie, one that injures a person or organization’s reputation. That is what got Fox News sued.

Reuters 4-23

The Hill 4-23"Shareholder sues Murdoch, Fox board members over 2020 election coverage"...DN (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have carefully read all of these articles, and each one is about something that was broadcast on a talk show, not published in a news article. Not to mention that over half of them are about the same thing, that Fox is refusing to apologize for these broadcasts, a decision I strongly disagree with. I also looked at a list of the 20 segments that Dominion claimed were defamatory, and while I didn't watch the whole thing, I read this summary. 18 of these were talk show broadcasts, at least half of which named something Sidney Powell said, and the remaining two were tweets by Lou Dobbs. While many falsehoods were said during these broadcasts, none of them were reported in news articles by Fox as facts. i.e., Fox never said "The Dominion voting software contained a glitch which flipped votes from Trump to Biden", they just brought people on their shows who said this. You said that "There is current evidence that the entire organization was in on the lie", yet the NPR article you cited completely contradicts this. The investigation has revealed that many of these hosts and executives knew behind the scenes that claims of fraud in the 2020 election were bogus. Yet instead they chose to pander to their audience. I don't like that, but that's what all networks do, and occasionally it gets them in trouble. But I will reiterate that as far as I have been able to determine, the controversy has been about things that were said on Fox's talk shows, all of which are sensationalist and opinionated, not news reporting. I haven't seen it demonstrated that Fox has a tendency to report falsehoods in their news reporting. Sure, it is biased, but bias does not equal inaccuracy. If we disallowed all sources that were biased, we wouldn't have any reliable sources. I'm aware that a lot of people don't like the things that Fox chooses to report on (again, I am not talking about cable talk shows here). I get that, but what matters is if the material they are reporting is true, not whether or not it is biased or anyone cares about it. Another objection that I have seen is that Fox commonly reports on things other people have said or opinions they have expressed. That is not the same thing as reporting opinions as facts. An example would be this article posted less than an hour ago that reports that some people have accused New York Governor Kathy Hochul of improperly handling an ongoing migrant crisis. Are those accusations warranted? I don't know. But the important thing is that Fox is only reporting that people have made these accusations, not taking a stance on whether or not the accusations are warranted. We could argue about the merits of whether or not this story was worth reporting, but the important benchmark that must be met for reliability is if it is truthful or not. If Fox had made up this story or taken a stance on these accusations, then you would see me arguing that Fox is probably unreliable for political reporting.

This brings me to another one of my main points. For a lot of the supports for downgrading I have read, while they do contain many strong arguments, the editors are clearly letting their personal biases show. I have tried my best not to do this; as I mentioned initially, I am not fond of Fox News by any means. However, when I see editors claiming that we should downgrade all political reporting by Fox (or go further) because of something that was said on a program which is clearly opinion, not news, without providing evidence that Fox has a pattern of reporting falsehoods in their news reporting, I feel that is going too far. I won't deny that I am concerned about the ramifications that downgrading Fox News to unreliable could have for the reputation of Wikipedia. Some conservatives have already accused the site of having a left wing bias. I think that most of these accusations are overblown and exaggerated. But if we do end up downgrading the site for all political coverage because of things that were said on opinion programs without demonstrating that the network promotes falsehoods in all of their political coverage, that will be indicative of bias and a disregard of NPOV. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It's been shown again and again that Fox's propaganda and misleading info are not limited to talk shows or TV in general, but extend to their news website. See the evidence as compiled in the prior RFC [25] by myself and others, and extensive discussion. Andre🚐 22:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't read all of the articles you provided on that discussion, but I will take a look. It looks like some of them cite "Special Report", which is a not a news program, despite what they may claim. I'm not sure some of the descriptions given about the articles tell the whole story about what the articles actually said, either. But there also seemed to be some editors who didn't think that these were all evidence of unreliability. I'm not denying that there were reporting errors, but all outlets make mistakes from time to time. But cherry picking a bunch of random articles isn't usually enough evidence to demonstrate a general unreliability or reliability or a systemic pattern of such. Are there any academic studies that demonstrate that Fox News' news website is unreliable? Bneu2013 (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

There are many such studies as provided by @Aquillion, @JzG, @François Robere among others. Andre🚐 00:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I've seen Robere's list, and most of the citations are to news articles and tweets. I also don't have access to some of the studies, but it appears that some of them are about the influence that Fox News has on people's opinions, nothing of which I am surprised by. While the coverage bias on the website is awful, I don't see that the overwhelming majority of what they publish there is false. That's why I think Fox News articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, as opposed to outright banned for political coverage. If we can find the same information published by better sources, which we usually can, use them instead. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, no information is going to change your mind, and you're not offering any new arguments either. Editors will just have to abide by the consensus when that is formally found. Editors can engage in good faith on arguments about concerns but in the end if you're going to just hand-wave dismiss the copious evidence then there's not much we can reasonably discuss on the merits. But don't act like the evidence wasn't offered. Andre🚐 01:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't have time to read through hundreds of articles and studies, but I still plan to look into this more. Note that I have also changed my !vote to "downgrade for all television programs", as I was unaware that shows anchored by Bartiromo, Baier, etc., had not already been downgraded and some people seemed to think that I was arguing they are reliable. I think we have established a consensus that they are not. Just because Fox executives conflate these shows with their website doesn't mean that we should. I stand by my claim that the website is in generally marginally reliable for political coverage, but am open to change my mind if I can find that they have a tendency to publish falsehoods a significant share of the time. But unfortunately, I don't have time to dig through thousands of articles. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I referred to a published academic book, based on peer-reviewed research: Network Propaganda. This shows, very clearly, the inflexion point in Fox from being a right-leaning news org - designed by Roger Ailes, remember, so that no Republican president would ever have to resign in disgrace again - to a part of a self-referential right-wing bubble of increasingly extreme sources all chasing the same audience. It documents Fox's replacement of fact-checking with ideological purity as the arbiter of inclusion. We knew this was happening. Shep Smith left because of the lies spread by the opinion shows. Same with Chris Wallace. Chris Stirewalt was sacked for accurately calling an election result first. It is impossible to argue in good faith that the Fox of today is the same as the Fox of 2015. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair. Although I haven't read the book and don't have time to. But from my experience, the shows are indeed not the same as eight years ago. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. The lawsuit showed that Fox news, as an organization, intentionally turns a blind eye to facts and truth, and gives a platform to lies, if and when doing so improves the ratings of Fox news. That's a disqualifier for a reliable source. Bammesk (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes - downgrade for all time; all topics. Their style and depth of reporting has been consistent with their sister publication, WP:NYPOST. Don't see why they should be treated any differently. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose banning Fox I have no idea where to post this; anyone can refactor. Look, folks, Wikipedia itself already solidly leans three directions: "left, lefter, and leftest". Banning Fox is a huge self-congratulating pat on the back and slobbering self-kiss for the Not Silent Majority here. It also further tilts WP, over to "lefter, leftest, and propaganda tool". You are creating a left echo chamber here. Moreover: Russian collusion hoax. Ban... who...? [Note: I freaking hate Trump; I kid you not. He's a buffoon at best and far worse at worst.] But Wikipedia is smugly headed toward propaganda tool. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 11:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Your argument is meritless and has no bearing on the discussion. We do not accept or prohibit sources because of their (perceived) ideological bias, that is not the reason Fox News is being considered for deprecation. It is being considered because of a demonstrably proven, and by their own admissions, that they have introduced disinformation into the reporting streams in order to favor a particular candidate and party. Calling to keep Fox because in your mind it balances out the "lefter, leftest, and propaganda tool" is just daft. Zaathras (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Nah. You missed the part about "Russian collusion hoax... ban who?" Point here is: lefty sources banned? Is not gonna happen, unless they are advocating bombing public buildings. Right sources banned? Yes of course. Naturally. Only common sense, of course, and who could doubt it? Those sources are just so very obviously not RS. And speaking of "by their own admission".... did anyone give back those Pulitzers for the hoax? No. There's no "by their own admission" if you just pretend it didn't happen... and everyone is willing to let them pretend it didn't happen... Please see Ling.Nut's Law. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 12:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

References

References

Discussion of close

This discussion was originally closed as following:

The proposal carries. Fox News is considered "generally unreliable" for politics starting in November 2020. There was some support for downgrading further to "deprecate", as well as for having no time-frame on the deprecation, but not enough to clearly establish consensus for that; we would probably need a second proposal for that. Additionally, some people proposed that we should set the "generally unreliable" rating for a date in the future, such as November or December 2024; that's a pretty unique way to handle any source, and I've never seen any discussion propose some future date for such a situation. It's possible to start a new discussion to establish that, but I can't say that there's a clear consensus here to enact that. The previous status for "science" and "pre-2020 politics" as being "no consensus" (yellow rating) has been retained, as this discussion only really considered post-2020 politics. Again, additional discussions may handle those matters. --Jayron32 18:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Close reverted per request at bottom. --Jayron32 10:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Moving the closing statement to the "discussion of closure" section for clarity/simplicity. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the nowiki formatting and added a note to clarify, as I think this is much clearer (and doesn't involve reading through the wikitext of an archive box). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I indented the quote Carpimaps (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Jayron32, this has only been open for 3 days, is that really enough time for an RFC on a topic this impactful? nableezy - 02:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I've boldly reopened this RfC. Sorry Jayron32 but a project-wide RfC that will have as large an impact as this one should remain open for much longer than 3 days. ElKevbo (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

In those three days it got 46 !votes, of which only 4 were opposed. Loki (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

All the same, if you dont want something to be questioned later you let the process play out. And I dare say 50 people is a rather small contingent of the community. nableezy - 04:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: It's particularly problematic for you to have now participated in the close of an RfC in which you participated, especially when the close that you reinstated supports the position you took in the RfC. I strongly urge you to revert your edit and let uninvolved editors close the discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, that was not intentional. Loki (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Well first things first, the thing to do if ask Jayron32 to reconsider their close, and if that is declined to ask AN to do so. Reverting the close to begin with isnt the first step to disputing it. But Jayron32, would you reconsider closing this, despite the apparent snow? RSN RFCs have a huge impact across the project, this was on WP:CENT, and I think people should be given the normal amount of time (30 days) to come to such a discussion to offer their views. nableezy - 05:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

+1 _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As one of the few who argued against the change I'm going to say I think Jayron32's close seemed reasonable. This is SNOW territory. The only thing I think would change it is if editors see the firing of Tucker Carlson as evidence that Fox is taking reform seriously. Springee (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The "normal" amount of time a conversation is to be open is, according to WP:RFC until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Correct, so, please reinstate Jayron's close Andre🚐 14:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the undoing of the close. It was proper. An early close is standard practice and fully justified when it's a SNOW matter, as this clearly was. It should be reinstated with mention of SNOW. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The result of this discussion will determine sourcing in a huge range of articles. We have seen any number of discussions turn over the course of a week much less a thirty days, RfA being one of the obvious regular examples of that happening, and on this board I myself have seen how an influx of votes at the beginning can result in an early closure that would later prove to be unfounded (eg the WP:COUNTERPUNCH RFCs). For as wide as the impact of a project wide consensus on the use of a source I really think we need to have a minimum duration for a discussion. And whats the rush really? You have editors that go through the entire encyclopedia expunging sources and content due to RFCs here. That should only be allowed to happen when we are sure that there is actually a project wide consensus, and not just that the people most invested in an issue, and the most likely to vote at the start, holding sway over the entire project. nableezy - 18:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no rush. Nor should there be any desire to spend editor time after consensus is clear just because a bot is assuming that no consensus has been found. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 10:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Jayron32, I think it's important to note in your close that this was a SNOW outcome. -- Valjean (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I never said that it was a SNOW outcome. That word never was used in my analysis. Other people may have used it. I never have. --Jayron32 17:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I'm suggesting that you mention it, IOW tweak your close by adding SNOW. -- Valjean (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

My closure statement was an assessment of an actual consensus. WP:SNOW is only invoked if I'm bypassing consensus. Still, I undid my close, per the several good faith requests here to let it run longer. No harm it letting more people express their own viewpoints. --Jayron32 18:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

??? SNOW closures never bypass consensus. They are always consensus closures, they just state the extent of the consensus (near 100%), as this was. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Bypass was a bad word there. It is used when there is not enough data to assess consensus (maybe even no comments). In this case, we had something like 50 comments, which, in my good-faith assessment, was more than enough to assess consensus; I can't remember a single discussion on this noticeboard that had more comments at the time of closing. So I closed it, not as a "SNOW" vote, which means "everyone expects the consensus to be this, so we're not going to let it play out", I closed it as a "There's more than enough commentary here to establish the consensus clearly exists". So no, it was NOT a SNOW close, SNOW closes are not overwhelming closes, there closes you make when you make assumptions about how the discussion would play out even though you had incomplete data. I had around 50 people commenting, more comments than nearly any other such discussion on this board, which is not a SNOW close, it's a normal, every day, assessment of consensus. --Jayron32 18:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

So then why did you close in the first place?

A WP:SNOW close is when you close a discussion early because there's not a snowball's chance in hell the apparent result will change. If you don't think it was a WP:SNOW close, and the discussion has only run for three days, then why'd you close it?

That would mean it's only run for three days and you still think there's a snowball's chance in hell of a different result. Loki (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I closed it because there had been sufficient commentary to assess the consensus. --Jayron32 15:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Seriously, why wouldnt you rather have a more locked down justification for "consensus" than a three-day long discussion? I dont get it, why are you agitating for this to be closed so quickly? Like why not be able to point to a process that cant be criticized or faulted in any way? nableezy - 18:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The RSP entries for Fox News are going to be a mess after this:

• Fox news (excluding politics and science) – generally reliable
• Fox news (science) – no consensus
• Fox news (politics, –September 2020) – no consensus
• Fox news (politics, September 2020–) – generally unreliable
• Fox news (talk shows) – generally unreliable

To make a bad analogy, if an editor had this many topic bans they’d be site banned by now. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the now-reverted RSP changes, I think it looks fine. Andre🚐 15:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• You're not wrong; I think that it's a bit baffling for people to say that large swaths of Fox could be generally reliable given the degree of deliberate deception on display here and the indicators that it came straight from the top. If Fox is willing to publish outright falsehoods as news in one area to advance their agenda, the logical conclusion is that anything, on any topic, is something they'd be willing to use as misinformation. We can maybe minimize this by construing "politics" broadly, which in my experience is how it generally has been with the existing MREL - eg. a Fox piece playing up crime in NYC is not usable as a WP:RS even if it doesn't directly mention electoral politics, because such a piece has clear political implications. But if we're in the position of having to do that, it means we ultimately have to recognize that no part of the source is reliable. That said, we can always just wait and see if the new breakdown leads to disputes; and, if it does, see if we can obtain a consensus for a more straightforward and standard WP:GUNREL. I think people are unwilling to do that because they feel that Fox looms so large in America; but the same was broadly true for the Daily Mail in the UK, and its deprecation ultimately didn't cause any problems. The simple reality is that what makes a good source for an encyclopedia and what makes a successful cable news network or tabloid have very little to with each other. --Aquillion (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Even their weather forecasts are unreliable as their agenda is to downplay, ignore, or deny climate change. All other RS weather forecasts mention climate change's influence on weather and the increasing number of disasters, severity of disasters, sea level rise, climate refugees, etc., but on Fox they won't report it that way. Their agenda in so many areas renders them unreliable in toto. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  The problem, I think, is the sheer size of the company. But the closer you get to any battlefield of the culture insurgency - climate science, sexuality, elections, history, race, ethnicity, drug policy, mass incarceration, police brutality etc. - the less reliable they are. In my view, the rating should be "generally unreliable", which has always allowed for local consensus where something is verifiably accurate. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• OK. One could argue that this is not technically WP:SNOW; it is WP:AVALANCHE, which is the same essay. Apart from that, when I brought up SNOW, I was not arguing for a close. I still thought there is value in continuing the discussion to see the opinions on expanding the width of exclusion. There are many above that have called for far stricter exclusions, without even calling in folks interested in science, medicine, LGBTQ, or race for which FN is an embarrassing anachronism. (Putin just slammed Carlson’s dismissal). So, let this continue for a time and then, possibly, have an RfC result that is stronger, and then begin another RfC while bringing in more areas, with the realization that this source has been invalid from its inception as a source and requires deprecation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• Responding to nobody in particular: it's not improper to indicate one is opposing any edit by reverting it, but the prescribed way is to contact the closer on their talk, especially a veteran admin; as such I think the close could have properly been reinstated, but, given that the closer has vacated the close, even though it was tending toward SNOW/AVALANCHE (meaning, the overwhelming support or opposition such that we shortcut the outcome), the closer closed it finding a consensus, which there certainly is and continues to be; I understand and am sympathetic to the argument that we should not rush close a 3 day RFC on an impactful and sensitive political topic, and I don't want to suggest that there is a problem with keeping it open longer. Though, again, the right way to challenge a close is to ask on talk, then raise in the appropriate venue, not to simply revert a well-considered close like a totally unconsidered action. At any rate, since we now are keeping it open longer, we may as well keep it open a bit longer at the risk of inviting a stale discussion to fester. Andre🚐 01:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• It seems obvious to me that such a major decision should run longer than 3 days, so that proper notifications can be made to WikiProjects[26][27] and interested people have the ability to catch wind of this going on. I agree it does look like this is going to be approved, but we have no idea what biases may be reflected in the people who happen to have already responded to this point.—DIYeditor (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
• One thing I'm concerned about is we might run into a TRAINWRECK when it comes to pre-2020 politics coverage, which plenty of people want to see downgraded too but not everyone in the post-2020 coverage RfC has opined upon. If everyone's okay with it, I'll be happy to open a sub-RFC specifically for pre-2020 coverage. Sceptre (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Sceptre: Well, I think we'd need to ping everyone who already !voted. Maybe the closer can look at what people have said and try to draw a consensus view from it all. I don't think we would need a majority of people to have explicitly said extend this to pre-2020, since many people have said this or have not specified the timeframe they support (they've used vague terms). If I were closing it, I'd probably say at this point (without carefully going over it all right now) that there is rough consensus that this be extended back indefinitely. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Is there a limit on the number of pings that one edit can make? I've got a txt file full of everyone who's !voted (up to 2pm UK time), so the pinging isn't a problem. Sceptre (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  My advice would be not to modify the RFC in flight or try pinging everyone, but wait until this one is closed to start the next one. Andre🚐 17:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  There is a limit. I don't know off hand how it works. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sceptre, I agree with Andre. Wait until this one is finished. Creating ANY other Fox News RfCs too soon would sabotage this one and create a clusterfuck of confusion. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  I definitely agree that, if the closer does not find a rough consensus for extending the timeline in this RFC, a separate one should be opened for extending the timeline. I also think that RFC should include an option to just declare Fox generally unreliable outside of politics.

  We shouldn't do that until this RFC closes, though. Loki (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Probably we should wait a little bit to see what impact this RFC has (if it passes, as it seems likely to.) Plus, there will probably be more academic sources referencing the Dominion stuff in a few months (I was surprised I could find anything on these lawsuits at all today), which will better contextualize them and give us a better sense of whether they represent a sharp change or merely a continuation of issues that plagued Fox since the beginning - as well as whether the issues are limited to politics or whether it effectively influences everything they publish. --Aquillion (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure if I am right to ask, but I'll do it anyway. After this RFC is closed, should we open start another one on whether Fox News is unreliable as a whole? A lot of people from the 2020 RFC (myself included) have changed their opinion on Fox News. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Probably. Here comes another lawsuit with more demonstrable disinformation examples, including the claim that the head of the Disinformation Governance Board intended to monitor and censor free speech when that body "had no powers to censor or surveil anyone, it was merely designed to co-ordinate the efforts of other government entities." Fox News lies as naturally as breathing. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

We have a new example of Fox News lying today. They've been pushing a story about a NY hotel kicking out homeless veterans in favor of migrants. Turns out it's BS. Fox News should be deprecated. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest that we get this one closed first and allow a sufficient time, perhaps several weeks, to elapse. However, I certainly think that it is notable that a great many people who were previously not convinced to downgrade Fox News have changed their view given the revelations that have unfolded due to the lawsuits and the ongoing information about how management mixed propaganda into their operation liberally. Andre🚐 01:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This blatant and extensively engineered lie was also pumped heavily by the New York Post, even as we have others on this page currently trying to make carveouts for these knowing liars - David Gerard (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2023 (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.

Date options

From the above, it seems likely that Fox will be downgraded. There is a lot of good faith discussion of the operative date. While it is clear that the facts at issue date back to mid-to-late 2020, there are in fact a couple of options that spring to mind. I think it might be worth a clarification discussion - leaving aside all considerations of whether and by how much to downgrade - of when the inflexion point could be considered to have happened.

I have read, as I have mentioned several times, the excellent and meticulously researched Network Propaganda. This shows a very clear shift away from a fact-checking dynamic, with cross-links to non-partisan and left-leaning sources, which starts in 2015, as Breitbart and others began leaning into the Trump campaign. In my view, that is the point at which the change began, and it was substantially complete by November 2016. That's my personal view, but I think we should look at scholarly sources to see if the Big Lie is early enough, or just right. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Like I said above, I think the reasonable options are "November 2020" or "all time". I don't think there's any reasonable specific cutoff date before that. Loki (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand, but I believe that the turning point was when they decided they could not afford to lose audience to OANN and NewsMax, which is the rationale cited in the court case for continuing to push the big lie. The point where that becomes visible in actual content is early in the campaigning for the 2016 election. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Why November 2020? Is this for all of Fox or on specific topics? Even the best sources make mistakes on occasion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, we are not talking about "mistakes", but deliberate pushing of falsehoods, things they knew to be false. When they tried to tell the truth (which was a mistake), they immediately lost viewers to Newsmax and OANN, so they immediately sought to remedy their "mistake" (which was to tell the truth) by doubling down on lying. This is a "feature" not a "bug" type of thing. Lying is their normal modus operandi, and telling the truth is an exception to the rule.

Don't think this is limited to the current lawsuit by Dominion, for which Fox paid dearly. When Fox News' own fact checkers sought to correct the outright lies told by guests and news hosts, they were threatened and the NEWS division hosts were blocked from touching the matter. This has been going on for years, but the Dominion lawsuit just brought our attention to it. All those private communications revealed that every single person at Fox News, top to bottom, knew Trump's election lies were lies and that Biden won, yet they repeated those lies to audiences to keep them at Fox. That's not an "error" or "bug", that's a malicious "feature" that no "stronger safeguards" can prevent. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m surprised science was not included. Here is a list of links to what MediaMatters says are steady lies about climate change going back to 2009. Some by opinion shows, some by news shows.[28]. This is a research paper at Cambridge University Press talking about the effects on the pandemic caused by misinformation which mentions Fox[29]. Misinformation like this undoubtedly led to deaths. The problem is that they treat science, weather, gender issues as politics. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Let's assume the RFC will be closed soon and I won't prejudge the outcome although it is fairly overwhelming but it's bad wikijuju to presume. The closer will close it and then whenever they close it, we should then determine what area or additional RFC would downgrade and/or deprecate Fox News for other areas. At worst, generating NOCON results for corollary downgrades and/or deprecations. Andre🚐 01:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible exception to Wikipedia:NYPOST for the transit and real estate newsdesks

For most content, the NYPost is clearly unreliable, as the community decided in Wikipedia:NYPOST. However, for transit (coverage by Nolan Hicks) and real estate, it is generally reliable, and covers stories that the Daily News, New York Times, and other local media do not cover, such as a series on waste at the LIRR that warranted a response by the MTA, which operates the LIRR. While multiple stories from other outlets cover the proposed service increases on the subway, only the Post story mentions what makes the service increase possible, A person familiar with the plan added that the MTA is also seeking to increase the speed at which trains can travel through work zones — which commonly disrupt weekend service — by 5 mph in order to fit the new schedule. Trains currently crawl underground at speeds of fewer than 10 mph.. I had heard talk of this for months before. I realize that this likely will not happen, but I would recommend that we create a possible exception to Wikipedia:NYPOST for the transit and real estate newsdesks. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)f

Also, Fox News is green/yellow/pink depending on the topic, and has carveouts. Also, the Daily News also has reliability issues, and is green, though the Post is pink. It is also insane that post-2013 Newsweek and Washington Times are more reliable-being yellow, when they are completely unreliable. Tons of things here need reworking. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

For context, this arose from a conversation on my talk page. Kew Gardens 613 noted that the New York Post publishes articles about the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in the NYC area (such as news about the Long Island Rail Road or New York City Subway) that are neglected by other NYC-area newspapers. My response was that the community decided the Post was generally unreliable. However, I do think transit-related stories like "Crazy train: MTA, LIRR let $385M fly off the rails, beg Hochul bailout" and "MTA chief Janno Lieber admits LIRR needs staffing, contract change after Post probe" may be marginally reliable, given that the info in these articles can be readily verified (but only by looking through primary sources). Unlike the Post's political coverage, these do not appear to be fabrications.

In regards to real estate, I was referring to stories by a few reporters, specifically Steve Cuozzo and Lois Weiss, who tend to give largely factual analyses. For instance, I was thinking that the story "$465M Deal Done at 140 B'way" could be used on the Seagram Building page to support the fact that its then-owner couldn't actually advertise the structure as the Seagram Building. I removed this reference while preparing the article for FAC, but, as with the example Kew Gardens 613 points out above, I was wondering if the Post could be used as a reference in situations like this. I'm acknowledging that the Post is still generally unreliable, particularly with regards to political topics, but was wondering if an exception could be made for transit and real-estate topics. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The New York Post is weird -- it does a lot of tabloid crap but also some legitimate investigative journalism, and while this is generally driven by a somewhat conservative agenda (highlighting government waste to support spending cuts, coverage related to real estate developer concerns) they are not fabrications. It's like, there's definitely a reason why they decided to pursue and break these particular stories, but that doesn't mean the stories are false. You really have to use discernment here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, and the story that I was referencing was not an investigation, but just a news scoop on a transit service increase. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Support as per the statement by KG613. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I am willing to concour on this subject. The Post is generally acceptable in 2 fields, NY Sports and NY Transit. Their other articles have issues but they tend to have a good transit desk and are a reliable source.Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I supported a carve-out for sports above, but I'm wary here. When I saw the headlines of the first two stories linked above, along with a "NY Post investigation" it was easy to predict they were going to blame unions or one of the democratic politicians. When the Post reports on basic real estate information (the third link), I don't see an issue, but when it's original instigative reporting about city processes, I do think there's still reason to be wary of the influence of its politics. Maybe unions are to blame, along with those pesky democrats always giving in to union demands, but if all that is true I'd expect someone else to at least report on the Post's findings. That a good general rule for unreliable sources: wait for someone else to pick it up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• I too am very skeptical of such carve outs. Do we really want to cite NYPost on transit news such as, say, Death of Jordan Neely? Also, if NYP publishes original investigations and those investigations win awards or are even cited positively by other New York or national media, then the current RSP designation of "generally unreliable" would still permit citing NYP in those particular instances. If on the other hand, enterprise reporting by NYP is not backed/cited by other more reliable media, then it should make us question whether that material is worth including in a tertiary source like wikipedia rather than push us to carve out an exception to allow that material in. Abecedare (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  The Neely story is more a crime story, for which they are more unreliable, that happens to be on transit. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  My prediction - from the past behaviour of problematic editors - is that a carveout for the topic will be taken as being blanket permission for anything even remotely tangential - e.g. in one case, controversial BLP material on a sportsman that was sourced to The Sun, on the excuse that the RSP summary mentioned that some editors liked their sports coverage in limited circumstances - 14:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The investigative reporting onto the LIRR follows a plethora of investigations by the State Comptroller (https://www.newsday.com/long-island/transportation/lirr-audit-mta-missing-r5dthvh8) and others. Yes, the Post has a thing against labor, but much of it on transit is well-founded, and thoroughly researched. Regarding other sources picking up the story, the MTA itself acknowledged there was merit to that Post series on the LIRR. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• It is important to remember that RSP speaks in broad generalities. Being listed as generally unreliable does NOT mean that a source is always unreliable. Discussion and consensus can determine that a specific report IS reliable for a specific statement, even when the source is deemed generally unreliable. It also works the other way… a specific report can be deemed unreliable, even if the source is listed as generally reliable. Blueboar (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  From my point of view, there needs to be two things 1) the specific information is itself verifiably true outside of the unreliable source and 2) There is no other, better, source available outside of the generally unreliable one. How do we know we can trust the NYPost on this story? If it is because another reliable source has reported on it, and we trust that other source? If so, use that other source. If not, how do we know we can trust the Post given their track record? What is the evidence they got this story right when they get everything else wrong? If we have that evidence, cite that instead. If we don't have any evidence, why are we trusting the Post? --Jayron32 12:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Their track record on transit stories has been good. They reported the service increases before other outlets did, and this was confirmed by an MTA press release yesterday. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  "other outlets did" Use those. "confirmed by an MTA press release" Even better, cite that.--Jayron32 12:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  They didn't cite the specific fact that sparked all of this, namely A person familiar with the plan added that the MTA is also seeking to increase the speed at which trains can travel through work zones — which commonly disrupt weekend service — by 5 mph in order to fit the new schedule. Trains currently crawl underground at speeds of fewer than 10 mph.., which is what sparked this. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, allow, generally it's WP:NEWSORG. Good to see objections appearing to a blanket ban. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a news organization generally known for such poor journalistic standards that very little, if anything, of what it prints can be trusted. If it is correct about something it prints, it is purely by accident, and not by design. --Jayron32 14:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I am no fan of the Post, but their transit and real estate coverage has been shown to be accurate, time after time, and they clearly do proofreading here. It is not an accident that this coverage is accurate. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

shown by who? - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Many of their transit stories are also covered by other news outlets, their reporting has been acknowledged as correct by the MTA, and there have been few, if any, examples of notable inaccuracies in their transit coverage. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Then cite those news outlets. Problem solved. --Jayron32 12:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You are in error. WP:NEWSORG indicates a presumed reliable source. The NYPost is specifically considered generally unreliable per the RFC - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

We interpret the guideline differently. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

yes, I interpret it according to what it says - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not convinced - the NYPost is already presumed not an RS, and if there's a story in the NYPost that isn't in a better source then that's a point against it - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  It is more because local journalism has been cut back so much that there are some stories or aspects of them that only the Post covers-not that the work the Post reporters did in these stories is inherently unreliable. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Also, with few organizations even doing investigative journalism, the Post reporter on the transit beat, Nolan Hicks, has filled in the gap, doing research on some subjects. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal per Rhodo, Jayron and David. Andre🚐 15:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose If they are covering material that RS do not cover, then the content fails due weight. It's a sad lonely hole they've dug for themselves. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Topics can be important even if other news outlets do not cover them. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well and good, but that's not how we evaluate article content for WP. Anyway, there are many local TV and radio broadcasts in addition to all the local publications and websites mentioned already in this thread. So, e.g. when Pizza Rat made her debut, she was famous on 6 continents. Anyway "investigative journalism" and the NY Post is an odd couple. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit of an off-topic, but speaking of the NYPost I'm amazed that after being the only newspaper to report on a major story in the run-up to the US presidential elections, whereas all our green sources mostly just ignored it, and everyone is like nothing to see here, we're moving along to the next hot topic.

• Oppose Difficult to believe that something worth reporting in NY is only covered by the NYP. If RS don't report something; it is questionable. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

You are significantly underrating the decline of local news in New York City. The Times barely does local news, and the Daily News misses some things. Relatively new news outlet The City covers stories that the other outlets don't. That only one outlet covers something does not mean it is not "worth reporting". Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't think so -- and I've lived in Manhattan for over 30 years. The Sunday NYT devotes large amounts of space to the metro area -- multiple sections. I read one of the NYP stories linked to above and really see no reason to take it at face value as the evidentiary links went to stories by the same reporter. 18:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC) O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The Times news coverage to the metro area pales into the comparison to what it did decades ago-even if you have lived there for over 30 years, and tons of news-for the outer boroughs especially does not get picked up. Again, the story about the service increase got picked up by other news outlets with the details on the increase spot on-a couple days before the MTA confirmed it in a press release. The Post's transit coverage is accurate. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

There are tons of local media in NY. In the E Village alone there is a Village Voice, Village Sun, and The Villager. There's AMNy, Spectrum 1 News, City and State, Gothamist/WNYC, 1010 Wins, WBAI, Pix11, etc. Andre🚐 18:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I am going to be charitable here, but [[30]]? This guy? They went under pre pandemic, in 2017. I have to say I do not think you realize how much NYC local coverage has gone under, just like how much has in NJ Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Um, no, they are still around [31] Looks like they briefly didn't publish between 2018 and 2020. Andre🚐 00:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly, the NYT, Newsday and the New York Daily News do provide a lot of local news coverage (though it seems like the NYT expanded its non-local coverage greatly starting in the late 20th century). And as Andrevan says, there are also many local sources online, such as NY1, AM New York Metro, and Gothamist. In general, I've found these sources do cover NYC-related news quite comprehensively, with one exception: the late 1990s and early 2000s, when many of the online sources didn't yet exist, but when most of the largest print media sources of the mid-20th century had died out. This isn't really related to the NYP, though; it's just something I've noticed over the years. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• To clarify what I wrote above, I'm saying this is an area where I think there's more reason to be alert than with sports. I think it's possible to have an extremely narrow carve-out along the lines of "can be used for basic reporting on transit, but not for the politics of transit, and not where the Post offers novel interpretation or judgments that haven't been reported on elsewhere". The idea is to be able to capture basic goings-on (station closings, construction work, announcements, etc., but not the "the [insert typical enemy of the Post] is to blame/is inept/is spending too much/isn't doing enough"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Major station closings, construction work, announcements would be published elsewhere. Minor or temporary station closings, construction work, announcements don't seem to fit in an encyclopedia. Better source would be here O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Major station closings, construction work, announcements would be published elsewhere - Maybe, and if they're not, I don't see any reason not to cite the Post for those. Minor or temporary station closings, construction work, announcements don't seem to fit in an encyclopedia. Whether it's due weight is a separate consideration. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support The Post is the last of the big guys, as even NYTimes has conceded a lot of that coverage. Its not ideal but they have the reporters. Blanket bans are bad for a general reason, and it shows when people who try to cite local media cite sources that went under in 2017.Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Here's a local Village Voice article from this month. [32] Care to retract your incorrect statement. Andre🚐 00:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose if local coverage has gone to hell, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't justify elevating generally unreliable sources to fill a perceived "gap" (if reliable sources don't cover it, it's not a gap for Wikipedia's purposes). Specific stories can be discussed on a case by case basis. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose If it's important, someone else will also be writing about it. I concur with the point just above: our goal is to summarize what reliable sources say, so if there aren't reliable sources, there's no "gap" in what we can, by the basic nature of the project, write about. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• No thanks. The "Real Estate Newsdesk" is a fact-washing outlet for developers' PR, and the "Transit Newsdesk" is going to be a magent for problems with things like the Jordan Neely case. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I'm sympathetic to this suggestion, because the Daily News is probably being sucked dry by its non-journalistic owners (a recent article in The Atlantic about the Chicago Tribune, owned by the same company, was pretty horrifying [33]), and the Times has never really focused strongly on local news (although it's gotten better), so a paper which deals with local issues like transit (a vital issue to New Yorkers) would be good, but I also understand the distrust of the Post, and agree that whatever their recent track record, they could go all Murdoch at any time. I would say that a formal carve out is not a good idea, instead, decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'd also point out that sources such as Gothamist, The Real Deal, Curbed, Crain's New York Business etc. can fill in the gaps left by the coverage in the News and the Times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The example given just isn't significant enough to be worth including based on one low-quality source anyway; it's an anonymous comment about a minor detail. And in fact OP's interpretation of it is speculative; even that source doesn't say it's what makes the service increase possible; likewise, the one other thing you cite from them is manifestly highly controversial. RSP isn't absolute and you can always make an argument for an individual exception on the pages of specific articles, especially for something that is unexceptional and uncontroversial, but this would make a terrible argument for an exception and is a terrible argument for a carve-out. Beyond that, you haven't actually presented any argument for why you think this source is unusually reliable for transit- or real-estate related news; you've just indicated that you really really want to cite them because you can't find other sources for the things you want to add. The lack of other sources makes it more important to be careful, not less, because it means that glorified press releases or tabloid flack posted on those topics could come to define our entire coverage of those topics unopposed. Wikipedia can't cover everything; sometimes there's just not enough WP:RS coverage available. In that case the safe thing to do is to say nothing. --Aquillion (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Is native-languages.org a reliable source?

Do people think http://www.native-languages.org/ (run by a charitable organisation called Native Languages of the Americas) is a reliable source suitable for using for citations? It seems like, it has an extensive archive of material on various subjects that it's difficult to get references for (e.g. mythology, and of course languages, and things like the fact that a large number of Americans believe that one of their ancestors was a "Cherokee princess" when there never even was such a thing), they seem a bit one-horse but make an effort to run the site in a scholarly way and get things checked by native speakers of the languages involved if they can find any, and they got a good review from this site https://worldhistorycommons.org/native-languages-americas . Wombat140 (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems very much like a WP:SPS/WP:USERG source, and possibly abandoned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume abandoned, certainly -- they last updated their updates page a year and a half ago, but had gone years between updates at times in the past. They do, however, indicate that they accept all submitted materials on languages ("We also occasionally publish original articles about Native American culture, history, and experiences. Unlike the language materials, though, we do not accept all articles which are submitted to us.") So, not the strongest editorial policy in those regards. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The same page Nat Gertler links to also says that We publish original writing by both native and non-native authors, but if the author is not native the article will be checked by a tribal member before being accepted for publication. There's no evidence I can see that original writing by native American authors is checked in any way before publication – even if it's written about a culture with which they have no particular connection. I would want to see more evidence of reliability before using this site. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if this is relevant, but in my personal research, I have discovered that a lot of its information is faulty or wrong in some way. I have come to completely avoid it as a source. I wouldn't cite it anywhere, for this reason and those already mentioned. PersusjCP (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have found that their language data varies widely in how good it is: for some languages it matches what more reliable sources have, but for other languages their data differs (missing important diacritics, etc) or is unverifiable. I find it useful for getting "leads" and search terms to use when looking for more reliable information. -sche (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info all of you. Wombat140 (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Academic paper finds flaws in the practice of evaluating reliability at the source level

News story about the paper here.[34] The underlying paper appears to be this one, though I haven't yet found the full text.[35] This was in the context of AI evaluations of reliability, but it is still likely relevant to us. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia has no automated/algorithmic assessment of source quality. Bon courage (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• They're right about the problem, and they're right about the solution (algorithms).

But note their methodology: they blinded articles, and assessed their factual accuracy based on Snopes, PolitiFact, WaPo, WSJ, etc. In other words, by design, all the accurate claims they found in sources we classify WP:GUNREL or deprecated, were claims already made by sources we classify WP:GENREL. We're doing fine, by their metrics.

I'm very hopeful about algorithms, to identify contradictions between sources, factual inaccuracies in sources, text-citation mismatches, and do comprehensive source surveys instantly with no effort. That's the future, and I hope we'll get there within a few years. But first, we need these algorithms to exist. All their blinded evaluations were done manually. DFlhb (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be the full article, freely accessible. Shells-shells (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. I do think the concerns raised are legit and apply here. I think the RSP mindset is inherently problematic and moves away from the RS idea that we should be evaluating based on the claims being made and the way the source supports the claims. Currently we take a relatively blind approach that any claim in a green source is good and any claim in a red source must be bad. That doesn't seem really in line with the spirit of RS nor does it seem like a good way to present a comprehensive picture of a topic. Springee (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

But RSP is just a Dummies Guide, useful for newbies in a Lies to children kind of way, but of no use to the clueful editor. Which is why it's not part of the WP:PAGs. Bon courage (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that is how it's used at all. In practice, a red line on WP:RSP means a publication is going to be systemically purged from all articles, and a yellow line is a go to jail, do not pass go, card in any content dispute. – Joe (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Joe's take is generally what I've seen. Editors have been hauled to ANI for suggesting a yellow or red source might actually be reliable for a non-controversial claim. Certainly when sources disagree editors use the RSP color rather than quality of the arguments provided by the source to decide content disputes. I understand the original intent but it's evolved into a monster where editors try to get a source banned as good or bad rather than evaluating on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed… the fact that we keep having to explain that RSP is supposed to be limited to perennially discussed sources (and isn’t supposed to be a definitive list of “good/bad” sources) should tell us a lot about how the page has suffered from mission creep. We seem to have lost the nuanced idea of evaluating whether source A is reliable for verifying statement B in the context of article C. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: I'd delete WP:RSP in a heartbeat for myself (or just limit it to an index of RSN discussions and lose the silly colours, icons, etc.). But I suspect Project-wide it might save more explanation than it generates? Not sure .... Bon courage (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This is likely an accurate assessment, I can't tell you how many times someone has tried to add fringe content sourced to the Daily Mail, infowars, or something like that and instead of having to spend half an hour discussing with a new editor on the talk page about how Alex Jones probably isn't the best source to use I can just link WP:RSPDM or WP:INFOWARS and if they're a competent good faith editor they can do all the work themselves. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Most often because user A thinks source B's claim is obviously factually true, despite the fact only that produce claims it. RSP (and indeed RSN and even RS) exits to stop us from claiming our profered source is obviously correct based upon our wp:or. So yes, it saves a lot of time and effort. And I suspect the real issue is that "truth" (rather than facts) are what motivates this. The false balance argument that "all opinions are valid". Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't follow the inference from "we keep having to explain this" to "the page has suffered from mission creep". We keep having to explain lots of things, from basic policies on down. (How many times have we had to say that the "N" in "NPOV" doesn't mean saying one good thing for every bad thing? How many times have we reverted the addition of redlinked names to List of people by Erdős number despite the page itself saying, quite prominently, that it includes "only those who have existing Wikipedia articles"? About 1 in 5 edits in that page's history are cleaning up after people who just can't read the directions.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Would not an algorithm only be as biased as the person who wrote it? Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yep, there's dozens of papers on to show that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly. An algorithm is at least as biased as the person who wrote it. Sometimes an algorithm may introduce a bias that its coder did not have, for any of various reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Not just explicit coding, biases are also introduced in training data and for systems which are active learning systems (i.e. gathering training data all the time) they will reflect the biases inherent in their data; and yes, AI systems are well known to not just reflect such biases, but amplify them (i.e. make them worse). This overview, and especially to the documents it references and links to, is quite relevant. As just one example I can think of, there's been proposals to use AI to direct police efforts to cut down on crime, as it supposedly "removes" the human element in that potentially racist cops maybe won't be making the decisions that lead to poor outcomes. However, insofar as "crime data" largely reflects what police are already doing, it will tend to overemphasize, for example, neighborhoods that are "overpoliced" as being "high crime areas" and will direct police to further overpolice the area, leading to more crime reporting. AI is highly susceptible to such positive feedback loops. --Jayron32 13:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

A book that gives many examples of similar biases is Cathy O'Neil's "Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy". NightHeron (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The rs policy does not depend entirely on source reputation. Analysis and opinions in rs news media are not usually considered rs. Extraordinary claims cannot be added to articles without strong support. Medical claims cannot be included without peer reviewed sources. Also, editors can challenge sourced material if other rs say something else. In particular, if Snopes or other fact-checkers rate a news article as false, we can use that to remove it.

Also, the paper says that the algorithm is no better at finding false information in rs and non-rs. But the fact is that non-rs is more likely to contain false information, which is why it isn't considered rs.

RS, particularly news media, will always contain false information due to both error and malice, which will end up in articles until corrected in rs. I don't see any problem with this since all readers can expect is that articles summarize rs, not that they fact check them.

TFD (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• That article is about completely automated algorithms, which has no relation to what we do. In particular the obvious problem is that they don't have any automated way to tell whether a statement cited to a source actually reflects what the source says. It's hardly surprising that that would be ineffective. --Aquillion (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Groong.com

This source is cited at the WP:BLP Garnik Asatrian page. The source is supposed to support some pretty strong claims and assertions supposedly said by him in a 1998 interview [36]. I think we should be careful with interviews. What is said could mean something to one person and something else to another. Also, would it qualify as WP:RS, especially in a WP:BLP article such as this one? Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Their intro page suggests that this is just a group blog ran by couple of students. Defo shouldn't be cited in a BLP or any article in general. Carpimaps (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Is Vande Bharat reliable and/or major?

In a discussion in Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries#Revisiting Perry Johnson as a Major Declared Candidate Again, there is a debate as to if a specific candidate should be included as a major candidate. The consensus there is that the candidate needs 5 major and reliable news sources with national reach to talk about them explicitly for them to be included in the major candidate list. Two articles by Vande Bharat, a news source with no Wikipedia article which seems to focus on reporting about the news of Indian trains, was brought up talking about a specific candidate. These two articles are here and here. Every bone in my body wants to say this doesn't count as a major reliable source, but I would like to confirm this for good measure. Scu ba (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a blog to me. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal opinions

Presently our RSP entry for WSJ says it is generally reliable for news and to refer to WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces. I've read the WSJ for many years (long-time subscriber) and have found its news reporting consistently excellent. Its opinion pages? Not so much. Contrasted with, say, the NYT, which rigorously factchecks their opinion pages, the WSJ editorial board has an apparent free speech absolutism ethos that opinions don't need to be factual. They're just opinions, after all. Notably, many WSJ journalists share my concern.[37][38][39]. Like its sister publication, The New York Post, WSJ editorials (in particular) and op-eds have a long history of publishing outright falsehoods. Shameless lies, in fact. I commonly LOL reading them.

Consequently, to preclude editors from using WSJ editorials and op-eds as sources, I propose the RSP entry for WSJ should explicitly prohibit their use. soibangla (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Think Newscorp, Fox News, New York Post, and all owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Not a single letter in any of them exists in the same universe as a true RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Opinion pieces should not be used to source facts at all, regardless of the outlet. If we're talking about sourcing a fact to an opinion piece, then something has already gone wrong. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Outside of relatively rare situations we already preclude editors from using WSJ editorials and op-eds as sources. IMO thats the point of pointing to WP:RSOPINION. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't defend the essay-class WP:RSP page, but it is a fact that opinions are WP:NOTCENSORED. Occasionally I see arguments about whether some WP:NEWSORG's editorial or regular column or op-ed is WP:DUE, but that's not a WP:RSN concern, and can be argued on the talk page of the article where the item is cited. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be mistaken, WP:RSP is information class not essay class. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The page which you link to is WP:ESSAYPAGES, I didn't say essay page, I said "essay-class". See WP:INFOPAGES: "... information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status ..." The top of the WP:RSP page was changed in January without discussion that I noticed, but I don't care since it doesn't change status. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

WSJ opinion articles should have weight equal to those of NYT or WashPo etc. They should be allowed in the same instances when opinion articles from those other sources would be allowed. As that is very rarely what problem are we trying to solve here? Is there an example article where this issue has come up? Else this doesn't need to be litigated. Springee (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable sources can only be used for ABOUTSELF, especially if BLP is involved. They have zero due weight. Like all content in unreliable sources, if a RS mentions it, we can then use the RS to document the WSJ opinion.

The WSJ opinions, like all things touched by Murdoch, should be downgraded or deprecated to ensure their use is limited to ABOUTSELF situations. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• No need - Opinion and editorials are already severely limited by WP:RSOPINION. It does not matter which outlet they appear in. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Not totally true. It still allows attributed use of opinions for non-BLP matters. All Murdoch-related sources are so unreliable, especially for politics, science, and medicine, that they should be limited to only ABOUTSELF situations. Treat all of them like we treat the National Enquirer. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Depends on the author, as with all opinion pieces. If it is by an expert we accept it if it is on their blog, why would we not because it's in the opinion section of the WSJ? If it is an editorial by the board then potentially attributable to the WSJ board, if it is by an individual contributor without academic expertise then it is out anyway. Do we trust the WSJ to honestly and faithfully reproduce the words of a contributor? Yes. In that case it is the contributor's qualifications that matter. So, in sum, this is a waste of time and no change is needed. nableezy - 02:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Like WP:RSOPINION already basically says, it's reliable only for quotes and paraphrases attributed to the writer themselves and WP:DUE is taken on a case-by-case basis, to be discussed on article talk pages in matters under dispute. Plain facts in Wikipedia's voice should basically never be based on newspaper's opinion sections. regardless of which newspaper. Beyond that, however, you're going to need to be specific. Show us what Wikipedia text is being cited to which opinion piece so we can see if it is being used appropriately. --Jayron32 18:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Is volcano.si.edu a reliable source

The site lists most of the world's volcanoes, including their type, location and when they last erupted. For example, the details of Mount Pavlof in Alaska.[40] But it's not clear to me if it belongs to a reliable source? --ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 06:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

So I did double check, just to make sure, but this is very clearly the Smithsonian Institute. The Global Volcano Program is maintained by active volcanism researchers, and appears to be the primary global repository for volcanic activity. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I would consider almost anything published by the Smithsonian Institute to be scrupulously reliable, without reservation (with the standard caveats that everyone gets something wrong occasionally, etc.) I would have no problem using the source for any information it publishes. --Jayron32 17:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Reliablity of Sources on Timeline of events in Cyprus, 1974

I'd like to ask about the verifiability and applicability of these sources as pertains to the article in question.

For the purpose of context I'm providing them as they would be used in the article.

• 2 July 1974 – Makarios writes an open letter to the figurehead president of Greece, General Phaidon Gizikis, complaining bluntly that "cadres of the Greek military regime support and direct the activities of the EOKA terrorist organisation". He also releases to the press a harsh and provocative letter accusing the junta of masterminding the campaign of terror in Cyprus.

• 13 July 1974 – A conference under the presidency of General Gizikis is held in Athens. It is attended by the Greek Chief of Staff of the armed forces, the Ambassador of Greece to Cyprus, the Commander of the National Guard and other officials, for the purpose of discussing and planning the coup.

• 14 July 1974 – More than 100 Greek Army officers, dressed in civilian clothes, boarded an Olympic Airlines 727 for an unscheduled flight to Lefkoşa. They were seen off by Colonel Michael Pylikhos, a top aide of Ioannidis.

• 15 July 1974 – Operation President: At roughly 08:30am numerous soldiers, armoured cars, tanks, mortars and other sections of the Greek Cypriot National Guard, EOKA B and forces under the command of the Greek Junta surround the Presidential Palace. They launch a coup and overthrow the democratically elected President, Archbishop Makarios III, with the goal of Enosis (annexation of Cyprus into Greece). Roughly 190 presidential security forces resist the attack. The defenders knock out the lead tank in the main frontal assault with bazooka fire. All tanks open fire on the Presidential Palace. Commandos attacking from the rear are accidentally shelled. Some of the tanks malfunction, causing confusion among the attackers. Makarios discards his clerical garb and sneaks out of the presidential palace from its back door with two aides, passing an unguarded position through the National Guard lines and escaping the battlezone. The presidential security fight on for nearly three hours. The Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation is occupied and exultantly proclaims: "Makarios is dead. Long live the National Guard! Hellenism lives in Cyprus!"

• 15 July 1974 – At roughly 14:50pm Nikos Sampson, also known as the Conqueror and Butcher of Küçük Kaymaklı (Omorphita), is appointed president by the leaders of the coup, Kombokis and Georgitsis. His appointment is greeted with alarm and dismay by the Turkish Cypriots, who note it is "as unaceceptable as Adolf Hitler would be as President of Israel". The Greek Cypriots show their approval for the coup through roughly 15,000 telegrams of support over the course of the week.

• 15 July 1974 – The Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation continues to air martial music exulting the demise of Makarios. The National Guard occupies Kykko Monastery and the Greek quarter of Limasol after stiff resistance. The supporters of Makarios in Baf attack the naval station, forcing the National Guard to flee. Makarios addresses the people from a local radio station in Baf, informing them that he is alive and asking them to oppose the new regime. A Civil War erupts between pro-Samson and pro-Makarios factions on the island. Bodies litter the streets. There are mass burials. People told by Makarios to lay down their arms are shot by the National Guard. The US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sends Joseph Sisco to try to mediate the conflict between Makarios, Sampson and Greece. Greece sends a further 100 soldiers to the island. Not only were the 650 Greek officers from the Cypriot National Guard involved, but also the 950 officers and men of the Greek army contingent on the island. Moreover, as Newsweek reported on 29 July 1974: "On the night before the coup... more than 100 Greek army officers, dressed in civilian clothes, boarded an Olympic Airlines 727 for an unscheduled flight to Lefkoşa. The men were seen off by Colonel Michael Pylikhos, a top aide of Ioannidis. Another flight carrying an additional 100 men followed them 24 hours later."

• 15 July 1974 – Rauf Denktaş, the Turkish Cypriot leader, issues a plea for calm and calls for UN intervention. He also tells his Bayrak radio audience that "Our duty in this situation, which we believe is a matter between Greek Cypriots, is to protect our international security, to take defensive measures and not to interfere in any way in inter-Greek Cypriot events".

• 16 July 1974 – The Prime Minister of Turkey, Bülent Ecevit, sends a letter to the British government urging it to cooperate with Turkey in enforcing the Treaty of Guarantee. A procession of armoured cars and tanks move towards Baf (Paphos) while a small warship begins shelling the Bishopric where Makarios is taking shelter. The British manage to retrieve Makarios by Westland Whirlwind helicopter and fly him from Akrotiri to Malta in a Royal Air Force Armstrong Whitworth Argosy transport aircraft.

• 17 July 1974 – Makarios is flown from Malta to London in a de Havilland Comet. He holds talks with the British leaders, counseling them against the use of force. The Prime Minister of Turkey, Bülent Ecevit, also flies to London for talks with the UK Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, and the UK Foreign Secretary, James Callaghan and colleagues. He tries to persuade them to join Turkey in a military operation to preserve the independence and neutrality of Cyprus. The UK says it favours a cautious approach. The US government shows signs that it is going to recognise the Sampson regime, convincing the Turkish government to act with haste.

• 18 July 1974 – There are tortures and executions at the central prison. An old man who asks for the body of his son is shot on the spot. Lefkoşa (Nicosia) International Airport is temporarily allowed to reopen to civilian traffic. It becomes the site of chaotic scenes as holidaymakers and other foreign nationals try to flee the ongoing chaos and civil war. The Prime Minister of Turkey, Bülent Ecevit, sends the Greek government an ultimatum through Joseph Sisco, the Deputy of the US Undersecretary of State, demanding: "1) the immediate removal of Nikos Sampson, 2) the withdrawal of 650 Greek officers from the Cypriot National Guard, 3) the admission of Turkish troops to protect their population, 4) equal rights for both populations, and 5) access to the sea from the northern coast for Turkish Cypriots."

• 20 July 1974 – After lack of international support against the Greek-led coup d'état and the Greek-installed puppet president Nikos Sampson, Turkey invades the island of Cyprus. Turkish jets bomb and strafe Greek strong points in and around the port of Girne (Kyrenia) on the island's northern shore. Two Greek Cypriot Navy motor torpedo boats, the T1 and the T3, are sent out from Girne to engage the Turkish naval flotilla approaching the shore. Both ships are sunk by combined Turkish air and naval attack. The Kekmak Special Strike Force Landing Brigade, consisting of one battalion of the 6th Amphibious Infantry Regiment, the 50th Infantry Regiment, and one company of the 39th divisional tank battalion, the 39th infantry division, combining for a total of 3,000 troops and 12 M47 tanks, lands unopposed in Pentemilli, a few miles west of Girne. Greek and Greek Cypriot forces launch an organised counter-attack against the Turkish beachhead at Girne, supported by T-34 tanks, but this ultimately fails to dislodge the Turkish landing force. Four Greek-Cypriot T-34 tanks and two armoured vehicles are destroyed by Turkish infantry and air attacks. The Greek Armed Forces and Greek Cypriot National Guard, supported by all available T-34 tanks, as well as Greek ELDYK forces, launch a massive attack against the Turkish Cypriot enclave at Gönyeli (Kioneli), attempting to prevent Turkish forces from forming a bridgehead to Lefkoşa (Nicosia). The Turkish Cypriots, who were able to fortify the area with defensive and anti-tank structures, repel the attack. The attack fails and two Greek Cypriot T-34 tanks are destroyed. Turkish paratroopers land in the area for additional support. More than 90 of 120 paratroopers are killed by Greek and Greek Cypriot forces still in the area. The Turkish 399th battalion counterattacks inflicting significant damage to the Greeks. 4 Greek tanks are destroyed...

• 20 July 1974 – Limasol is overrun by the Greek Cypriot National Guard. Turkish homes and businesses are rushed, broken into, their inhabitants are captured, women are raped and then shot, the buildings are looted and then burnt to the ground. Greek soldiers fire indiscriminately in the streets. Women and children are shot down, children's bodies are left draped dead in the streets, and other atrocities occur.

• 20 July 1974 – The United Nations Security Council passes Resolution 353, demanding the immediate withdrawal of "foreign military personnel present otherwise than under the authority of international agreements" and urged negotiations between Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom to take place.

...

Thanks in advance. Nargothronde (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be in relation to an ongoing content dispute. So I'll start by pointing you to WP:ONUS, the short version of which is that just because something is verifiable doesn't mean that it should be included. If you're additions have been reverted you should try to get consensus for the changes on the articles talk page, and if there are problems look into the other options described at WP:Dispute resolution.

Getting that out of the way and having a general look over the refences BBC, The Times, Newsweek, UN speeches, New York Times, Time magazine, and works published by established and academic publishers are all very likely reliable. However your language in using them is very emotional and not of an encyclopedic tone. I suggest working with other editors on the articles talk page to come to a compromise version of the text. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I will certainly try these suggestions. Nargothronde (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Javad Nazari

Hello friends, I will name some of the sources in Javad Nazari's article below. Please, are they valid or not? While in the same article, which is related to Mr. Goldie, the English actor and composer, make a comparison so that at least the fairness option is observed. Such databases were documented in Javad Nazari's article imdb Google knowledge panel Amazon cinematographer Web movie set list Myanmar TV channel TV channel 21 Indian Movie Database Iranian film database Provincial news base Local newspaper Base of Iranian theater actors Radio Times etc... are these valid and reliable?! ThanksMiladtanhai (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

IMDb, Google knowledge panel, Amazon, are definitely not reliable sources. After that is difficult to understand exactly what you mean, the names need to be separated with commas so it's possible to know where one name ends and another starts. The last one, Radio Times should be reliable but it would be helpful to know the exact details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hank Williams paid ghost-writing claims

According to WP:EXCEPTIONAL, “Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources,” with red flag examples of “Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources,” and “Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions.”

Claims of alternative authorship by Paul Gilley of songs traditionally attributed to others have been inserted in multiple pages, Cold, Cold Heart, I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry, Crazy Arms, I Overlooked an Orchid, and They'll Never Take Her Love from Me.

These claims have not been covered in mainstream sources, and what coverage they have garnered are scant in both number and details. The two main sources for the claims are a book by Chet Flippo, Your Cheatin’ Heart (1981), a fictionalized biography of Hank Williams, and a self-published book by an athletic-coach-turned-local-historian, W. Lynn Nickell, Paul Gilley: The Ghost Writer in the Sky (2012) (good luck finding a copy). All other coverage, including a 2013 piece by a Kentucky public television station, derive from those two sources. The few critics who have weighed in express skepticism about the claims. 1 2 3

My question is this: are these sources sufficient to warrant a mention in the above mainstream articles? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Following the relevant discussion on Hank William's talk page by Tom Reedy and Binksternet, I see the issue in the same vein as the claims regarding Williams' ancestry (also previously discussed). While I think in both cases Tom Reedy has a good point, I see also why a mention of the mere existence of the claims may relevant to the readers. Looking forward to reach a consensus.--GDuwenHoller! 17:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Your header misrepresents the situation by promoting your definition of the issue as "fringe". The situation at Wikipedia is that you call it fringe, and I call it a minor but still important issue which has been discussed in multiple sources, including Hank Williams historian Bill Koon who was open rather than dismissive. Koon offered praise to Chet Flippo for discovering this aspect in his research. The Paul Gilley songwriter controversy has been in the literature since 1981, and it has been revisited by media observers several times since, with a big boost in 2012 with the Kentucky historian Nickell writing a book about Paul Gilley.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Binksternet (talk • contribs)

What are the good sources for this claim? Nickell is self-published; we can't use that except for Nickell's opinion, unless it can be established that Nickell is an expert in this field. The linked Kirkus review of Flippo is scorching and makes me disinclined to trust it. @Binksternet: what work(s) has Bill Koon written, what did he say about Flippo, and what did he say about this specific issue? Mackensen (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Bill Koon first wrote about this issue in 1981, part of a collective book review of three new Hank Williams biographies, including Chet Flippo's work. The 1981 review appeared in The Journal of Country Music, volume 9, page 96. Koon said "Flippo's book is the most interesting of the three" and he praised Flippo's research: "He has ransacked the usual sources, additionally, he has researched Toby Marshall, 'the quack doctor whose prescriptions led to Hank's death,' and Paul Gilley, 'who sold Hanks some of his best-loved songs.' He studied Hank's medical record and autopsy report and gained access to a private collection of papers of Audrey Williams." Note that Flippo's Toby Marshall discovery is currently in the Wikipedia biography, showing that Flippo is not considered an unreliable source in terms of his hard research about Hank Williams. Koon even praised Flippo's decision to fictionalize the prose, giving the narrative "immediacy and fire", contrary to other reviewers of Flippo.

Koon wrote again about Hank Williams in 1983 in a Greenwood Press book titled Hank Williams: A Bio-Bibiliography that surveyed all of the prominent Hank Williams literature. In this work, Koon reworked his earlier Flippo review, writing "Flippo uncovered a wealth of previously unused sources, some of which contained startling information", specifically calling out Flippo's discovery of "Oklahoma state legislature files that detailed the criminal activities of Toby Marshall, the quack doctor whose prescriptions led to Hank's death, and Paul Gilley, who sold Hank some of his best-loved songs". This material was published in a newly reworked form by University Press of Mississippi in 2001 under the title Hank Williams, So Lonesome. Koon sets the scene on page 131:

"Another issue that Flippo takes up is the amount of collaborations involved in Hank's songwriting. We may like the image of Hank as spontaneous composer, as one whose sensitivity overflowed into fine songs. Evidently, Hank had as much of that gift as anyone; but at the same time, many writers, among them Ed Linn and Roger Williams, have discussed the help he got from Fred Rose and Vic McAlpin. Without giving us too much evidence, Flippo dwells on this issue, implying that Hank may have received more help than we thought and arguing that Paul Gilley, a Morehead State College basketball player, wrote versions of 'I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry' and 'Cold, Cold Heart'. This view shows the easy commerce between young songwriters and established stars. But I wish that Flippo provided more hard facts and less the air of exposé."

Koon is cited many times in Wikipedia's biography of Hank Williams. In the cited source, Koon says he got several facts straight from Flippo, such as Hank checking into sanitariums to try and kick his alcoholism. In essence, we are citing the parts of Flippo that Koon has endorsed. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, so Koons is primarily a bibliographer. How about biographers? Do biographers accept the claims? Koons is not exactly endorsing Flippo. Also, I would say Note that Flippo's Toby Marshall discovery is currently in the Wikipedia biography, showing that Flippo is not considered an unreliable source in terms of his hard research about Hank Williams. is a non-sequitur; articles often incorporate unreliable sources until someone thinks to challenge them. Mackensen (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't accept your implication that a bibliographer is somehow less reliable than a biographer. Certainly it's true that we cite Koon in the article as a reliable source. In any case, Koon's 2001 book was reworked so much that it presented as a biography, not a bibliography. Through the book Koon offers his own view of Hank's life, supported by many references to other authors and their viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

He's certainly reliable as a biographer, and as a bibliographer also. Which is why it's telling that Koon doesn't endorse Flippo's claim in his own biography of Hank (the first section of both editions). Tom Reedy (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's the first paragraph from Wikipedia's content guideline about fringe theories: In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. How exactly does the Paul Gilley claims differ from that? Reading the Paul Gilley page itself, which is written in a factual manner and mostly based on press releases published in obscure newspapers and a piece from a regional human interest show, makes one wonder how it's not categorized as a fringe theory.

The Hank Williams page is a biographical page based on reliable sources; it's not a bulletin board to post every comment that's ever been made about him. No biographers besides Flippo mentions the Gilley claims, and even he treats it shallowly and neglects to furnish any evidence. Had he offered any kind of evidence, the news would have reverberated throughout the country/western industry. He didn't and it didn't, and all of the "multiple sources" claimed to discuss the topic merely comment on the original claim, they all provide the information about Gilley's putative authorship only in passing ... that is not related to the principal topics of the publication, so citing them as independent sources is merely circular reporting. Since there's absolutely zero evidence for the claims, they have not met with any kind of acceptance and have been largely ignored, and I daresay the only thing keeping them alive is the earnest manner it's treated on the Paul Gilley Wikipedia page. Wikipedia's stated purpose is to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Including it in the Hank Williams biography page would give it undue weight.

But we're getting away from my original question: are these sources sufficient to warrant a mention in the above mainstream articles? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, I think it is important to see the context from which the quotations from Koon have been taken. You can read the original 1983 review here. The two subsequent Koon essays mentioned above are virtually identical. As you can see, Koon is far from complimentary, and in fact he writes "...Flippo's kind of writing does not admit a means of separating fact from interpretation" (94), and goes on to say "It cannot be counted as traditional biography" (95). It is also interesting to note that in Koon's own biographical treatment of Williams's life, the chapter "The Singer: A Biography," pp. 1-90 of his Hank Williams, So Lonesome (2001) (first published as Hank Williams : A Bio - Bibliography, Greenwood, 1993, so once more we're not looking at three separate commentaries by Koon, but one reprinted three times), Koon doesn't mention Gilley. The discussion of Flippo and Gilley comes up in the bibliography section, the last third of the book. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, no. Koon greatly reworked his 1983 material for the 2001 book, which is given a completely new title. His views stay consistent but in 2001 he forms his own story about Hank Williams. Tellingly, he said in 2001 that there is a Grand Ole Opry mythology about Hank Williams which many try to protect against well-supported contradictory reports. On page 128 of So Lonesome, Koon says that "the Opry inner circle of the day did not know just what to say because Hank's behavior usually clashed with the wholesome image they had workd hard to cultivate. Unravelling it all has become the work of those of us eager to establish the real biography, and we are many." Koon is saying that biographies of Hank have emphasized too much of the myth of Hank as a "plain country boy" with unquestioned authenticity. Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, yes. The copyright page of Hank Williams: So Lonesome clearly states "Hank Williams: A Bio-Bibliography by George W. Koon, was originally published in hard cover by Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, 1983. Copyright © 1983 by George W. Koon. This edition by arrangement with Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2001 by University Press of Mississippi." The Smithsonian also lists it as a second edition, as indeed WorldCat does.

The biographical section (which I have no objection using as an RS) and the song criticism section are virtually identical in the two editions. The interviews section from the 1983 edition is deleted (which is a loss IMO), and the bibliographical section contains some added sources. But the most important fact for this discussion is that Koon's treatment of Flippo is virtually identical in both editions; he does not expand on the Gilley claim at all. Nowhere does he say that he accepts or endorses the claim, he merely (mockingly) reports that Flippo makes it "without giving us too much evidence." And as I pointed out, he does not include the claim in his biography of Williams at the first part of the book. You want to know what Koon thought about the claim? "I wish that Flippo provided more hard facts and less the air of exposé." Koon does not discuss Gilley's claim, he discusses Flippo's claim, so Koon's bibliographical commentary cannot be used as support for biographical facts. Unless you can come up with a credible, reliable source for the claim, it has no business in the articles I linked to in my initial post, nor should it be added to the Hank Williams page, and the Paul Gilley page should be rewritten to reflect its real-world status. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You are setting the bar too high, as if we must prove that Paul Gilley wrote songs and sold them to Hank. All we have to do is tell the reader about the claim, which is treated in multiple reliable sources talking about Hank Williams. The claim by itself is notable; it meets WP:GNG, the basic Wikipedia requirement for notability. Despite this notability, you want to erase it from existence. Your blockade attempt cannot stand. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm asking for the "multiple reliable sources talking about Hank Williams" in which you say the claim is treated. So far you have one, Koon, who reports that Flippo wrote it. Koon doesn't discuss it other that to wish for some evidence, and he obviously doesn't think it significant or credible enough to include it in his own biographical treatment. No other biographer of Williams even mentions it, and with good reason. You haven't answered any of the questions anyone else has asked you, and you fail to iterate exactly how WP:GNG lends notability to the claim. Newspaper articles giving publicity by quoting press releases are not independent sources; using them is like using a newspaper notice about a Pearl Harbor Day memorial to source the date of the Attack on Pearl Harbor. So far your only argument is assertion. I suggest you read WP:GNG to learn what "significant coverage" entails. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment Seems to me that we lack the number of reliable sources to promote this kind of claim in multiple articles. Anyone can "claim" anything, but it seems like the amount of coverage to warrant including these kinds of claims throughout an encyclopedia needs to be higher than this. Regardless of the language, just reporting the claim serves to legitimize it somewhat, which is why the bar needs to be high. I could write a book, get it published, and claim that my dad wrote several Hank Williams songs, too, but that wouldn't make it so. And it also wouldn't warrant coverage. Rray (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Use of one student's conference presentation to verify sweeping generalization

• Article: History of science
• Parties involved: Lingzhi (me) & Headbomb
• Link to discussion on article's Talk page
• Content with disputed verification (not disputed veracity): "Medical historians believe that ancient Egyptian pharmacology, for example, was largely ineffective."
• Disputed source: Microsoft Word – Proceedings-2001.doc (see page 11, though no page# is given in the article's citation).
• Content added 04:18, 9 March 2010 by Jagged 85, who has since been permanently banned for "abuse of sources...using references which did not support the claims made".
• Summary of dispute: Actually, the arguments are summed up clearly and relatively briefly on the talk page: Wikipedia cannot use a generalization made in one conference paper by one medical student (not a bona fide medical historian or scholar of any kind yet at that time) to support a sweeping generalization about "Many medical historians...". This is even doubly or triply true, if we needed any further evidence, by the fact that that medical student himself hedges on his or anyone's ability to make sweeping generalizations.
• Desired outcomes:

1. Sure, someone can verify that statement with a better source, if one can be found. But the statement must be deleted until is it correctly verified.
2. Furthermore, someone on Wikipedia should spend some time undoing the damage Jagged 85 has done.
3. I'm also asking Headbomb to have the courtesy to go to Talk before reverting. Thank you for your time & trouble. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 03:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The source is more than fine for the statement, per WP:PARITY. The entire proceedings were edited by WA Whitelaw, now professor emeritus of the faculty of Medicine of U Calgary, and that specific paper written under the supervision of Julius Szekrenyes, also of U Calgary, who specializes in both pharmacology and ancient egypt. Removal of the st atement makes it look like Ancient Egyptian pharmacology is valid and sane, when the bulk of it is not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Not commenting on the reliability itself, but such a statement should not be removed. If you believe the source isn't good enough you can add {{better source needed}} or if you believe the source to be unquestionably unreliable you can remove it and add {{citation needed}}. As Headbomb had given an argument for the source I would suggest the former not the latter. I would note that the work (functional link) is a book published by the University of Calgary, and that it would also help if correct page number was added to allow verification. A general FYI I've updated the cite with a working link and other missing details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I changed it to {{citation needed}}, which satisfies me as well. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 11:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The former is often better than the latter. Far easier to use find a good source based on a possibly bad one than starting from scratch. And I agree with Headbomb that the source is fine under WP:PARITY. It's a bit odd to me that we treat thesis papers as if they were all deprecated (worse than Fox News!), when many of them are actually pretty excellent; their only problem is inconsistent quality depending on uni, supervisor, and field. Some thesis papers are complete nonsense or fringe, but it's unfortunate that we often treat all of them as borderline radioactive. DFlhb (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, my advise seems to have been taken back to front. Having looked into this a bit further I don't see why it shouldn't be considered reliable. If it was a BA thesis it wouldn't be reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, unless it could be shown to used by other reliable sources. However this is a conference paper, that appears in a book published editted by a respected scholar in the appropriate field, and published by a reputable university. I do have some worries about the wording it's used to support, it would be good if Headbomb could supply a page number. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I concur that the source looks fine for this purpose. The phrasing could be tweaked, but that's not a problem for this thread per se. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Caution required for Voice of America and related Radio Free stations from June 2020 to January 2021?

NPR released a piece yesterday about an independent report that found, among other things that former U.S. Agency for Global Media CEO Michael Pack [v]iolated the independence of journalists working for newsrooms at the Voice of America and other international broadcasting networks funded by the government. Pack was appointed June 2020 and resigned January 20, 2021. As an extremely informal discussion: should extra caution be used for these sources during that time period? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It's now considered generally reliable with a caveat that "some editors express concerns regarding its neutrality and editorial independence from the U.S. government." I think that this confirms that there is some influence of the US government on VoA et al. As far as I can see, in this case the influence did not lead to any falsehoods being published, so I don't think there are grounds for reclassifying it. Alaexis_¿question? 07:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! To clarify, I was asking more from an operations standpoint (what to do if I encounter a VoA source from that time period) than from a classification one. And I have my answer: the caveat to consider concerns regarding its neutrality and editorial independence from the U.S. government covers incidents such as the one I mentioned. Thanks again, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Voice of America is U.S. propaganda news. Why is it reliable? Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Because it doesn't publish falsehoods. It's issue, if any, is that it picks (true) stories that highlights/put American interests in a favourable light. A source can be biased without being unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb says it well. State-funded or state-supported media may be putting the US, or in particular the U.S. federal govt which it is financially dependent on, in a favourable light, but if it evident that its staff are confident in criticising that govt or society for whatever reason (which VoA does do, AFAIK quite regularly), it cannot simply be labelled 'propaganda'. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Can all books by a publisher be classified as reliable or unreliable?

I have asked the question above on this talk page. Clarification on this issue will be appreciated. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure about that. Unreliable publishers can (on occasion) publish reliable content and reliable sources can (and often frequently do) publish unreliable content. The analysis at a publisher-level is too sweeping in my opinion. Augend (drop a line) 06:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Augend. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

No. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Bon courage (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No, in a wonderful turn of phrase from User: Nableezy, I would direct you to what I call Masalha's Law: "If Masalha wrote this on a soiled piece of toilet paper it would remain a reliable source based solely on his qualifications." Boynamedsue (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This is far to broad a question to get a real answer. Certainly a publishers reputation could be so bad that anything it publishes could be met with skepticism, but that doesn't mean everything it publishes would always be unreliable. However on the flip side a reputable publisher could publish something that could be considered unreliable.

The article history doesn't make it very clear what is being questioned, nor does the talk page help much. Could you briefly describe the the issue, and the source being questioned? That would allow a more definitive answer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps more context shoud be included. The subject of the article was a disabled author who lived most of her life in a specific house in Viareggio Italy. The question pertains to what non-extraordinary and someahat routie statements about her life can be included about her from the publisher who published her book. An example statement is the fact that she was evacuated during WWII to another town, others pertain to when she met certain people, etc. She arrived in Viareggio in 1924 when she was 27 and lived there for 37 more years. She died in 1961. She wrote an autobiography that concluded in 1942 when she was about 47 years old.

The key sources for her life are all publshed by the publisher of her main book. The sources are:

1. Her autobiography

2. "Ricordi di donne che conobbero Maria Valtorta" (memories of women who knew Valtorta) by Albo Centoni ISBN ‎ 8879870408. This includes interviews with her friends and neighbors from the street she lived on. Much of the information is routine, but has facts about the WWII evacuation, the bombing of Viareggio, etc. as well as how she wrote her book (handwritten) etc. This book covers the period 1924 to 1961.

3. Her assistant Marta Diciotti entered her household in 1935 and remained there even after her death. The events of those years are in her book "Una vita con Maria Valtorta" (A life with Maria Valtorta) ISBN 8879870440.

One question is: Can the very existence of these books be mentioned in the article? There has been the suggestion that they can not even be mentioned, because they have the same publisher has her main book. These and her autobiography were not self published books because there in no evidence that the authors paid for the publication. They have a distinct publisher.

The petty little issue that has given rise to the question here is the statement: "Most of Maria Valtorta's life is known only by the autobiograpy". The existence of books that cover the last 37 years of her life indicates that this is not the case. The length of these books exceeds her autobiography by 3-4 times. Would it be correct to say:

"The first 27 years of her life are only known from her autobiography. Additional, more extensive sources exist for the next 37 years of her life".

I am sorry to be taking time here with this question, but this seems like the appropriare venue for the question. Thank you. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

They may not have been self published but they were published by a group that has "the specific and priority aim of developing, documenting and spreading the knowledge of Maria Valtorta..", so they are hardly independent. Given they are published by want appears to be an advocacy group the works should at least be handled with a lot of care. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to check through. And of course, we will handle them with a lot of care, in a strong sense of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. In general no "extraordinary claims" from these types of sources should be used, but routine claims such as evacuation during WWII etc. or the people the author knew are not controversial and not promotional. In addition, the people she knew are backed up by a book of photographs (same publisher, ISBN 8879870343) which shows the people existed. So we will handle them with extra care, not use exceptional claims or wonder off to unnecessary details. But we will also not deny the fact that the books exist. Thank you. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Use of Global Times

I originally asked this in Wikipedia:Teahouse:

I wish to use a Global Times article for an article on a trolleybus route in Shanghai. I'm well aware that this is a depreciated source, but this is one of the very few sources I can find in English (most others are Chinese), and if I were being honest I don't think this particular article can be harmful even if this is used, considering this is on a general topic of trolleybuses in Shanghai and not some controversial topic like politics. Also, Wikipedia:CONTEXTMATTERS, and in this case the context is pretty much alright. In this case, is it okay if I were to use this particular GT article inside my Wikipedia article?

User:Hoary replied:

WP:GLOBALTIMES points not only to a discussion deprecating GT but also responses to subsequent questions akin to "I know that GT is deprecated, but could it be used as a source for xyz?" Their responses can be summarized as "no". Are none of the sources in Chinese usable? If not, then it is indeed rather hard to imagine how a trolleybus route could be misrepresented for propaganda purposes, but the place to ask isn't here but instead WP:RSN.

Bringing this over to clear things up a bit, per his argument in the last sentence. SBS6577P (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The policy on deprecated sources does allow exceptions. However, if there are sources in Chinese about this topic, why can't you use them instead of the Global Times? Alaexis_¿question? 07:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Most of the Chinese sources I found are from Baidu Baijiahao (百家好), which is also mentioned as a depreciated source in the Chinese version of WP:RSP. While some of these articles can be considered as a reliable source due to them being created by locally reputable authors (news agencies etc), I'm not really sure for some of the others, so I'd much rather go with GT than being unsure. Not much of the sources directly discussed the trolleybus route in question also. SBS6577P (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I understand Baidu Baijiahao is kind of a blog platform. If a news agency or a local municipality publishes something on such a platform, we can use it, just as we allow links to youtube videos posted in the official channels of reliable sources. But if you are not sure about their reliability, I think that an exception can be made for the GT. Alaexis_¿question? 08:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I'll take it as problem solved. Appreciate the response. SBS6577P (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It really should be avoided at all costs, if there are reliable sources in Chinese use those and if not you might need to accept that the topic isn't WP:DUE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing questions for El Mansouria, Lebanon

In February I removed a section from this on families as it had an unreferenced template and as well as having no references I believe it included trivia and at least one BLP issue about two brothers who were said to be alive. I also felt the tone wasn't encyclopedic. Recently a new editor, User:Naxh who clearly knows a lot about the town reverted me twice. They've now added some sources although they say that only the physical books accurately reflect the text. We had a big of a dingdong but I hope that's sorted. However, I'm still concerned about the sources and would like some uninvolved editors to comment - I'm notifying the editor so they can respond. The original text was added by three separate accounts in 2009 and I'm guessing they were probably locals. Here's my comments about the sources. I used Google translate.

2 https://www.annahar.com/arabic/section/83-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1/02022021064848965 - not sure what it is.

3 is a political article https://www.ssnp.info/?article=98047 "The Syrian National Social Information Network is not responsible for the text and its content, and it only expresses the point of view of its author" clearly not an RS

10 is a personal website "The data presented, throughout the site, is derived from hard disk files that I purchased from the Lebanese Ministry of Interior, relating to the 2014 voter lists for the parliamentary elections, which I converted into databases that can be queried to obtain the desired data report" he didn't add

4 is Wikipmapia

5 is https://web.archive.org/web/20110707205933/http://www.baldati.com/networks/community.php?networkid=1004 - community sourced, shut down in 2017

6 https://www.asswak-alarab.com/archives/17854 by a poet, writer and journalist, dubious source

10 is a personal website "The data presented, throughout the site, is derived from hard disk files that I purchased from the Lebanese Ministry of Interior, relating to the 2014 voter lists for the parliamentary elections, which I converted into databases that can be queried to obtain the desired data report" https://lub-anan.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%B8%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%84-%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AA%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA/ is a personal website - scroll down to bottom

11 I think is self-published. https://www.yelleb.com/company/291863/edito-creps-international

12 is https://archive.org/details/olomnasb_ymail_20180116 "A glossary of family and person names and glimpses of family history

Muʻjam asmāʾ al-usar wa-al-ashkhāṣ wa-lamaḥāt min tārīkh al-ʻāʾilātThe author, Mr. Ahmed Abu SaadGenealogy LibraryO Allah, bless Muhammad and his" 13 is "Michel, Abi Fadel (2002). Lebanese Cities, Villages and Families A Bibliographic Dictionary (in Arabic) (1 ed.). Beirut: National Archives Foundation." - not sure whether the author is an rs

14 is the same and I find https://librarycatalog-bau-edu-lb.translate.goog/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=52136&_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc Publisher is https://ar-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%85_%D9%84%D9%84%D9%85%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86?_x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc which looks more like an ad than a wikipedia article IMHO. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback!

Regarding 2, the article in question is sourced from An-Nahar, a reputable daily newspaper in Lebanon, known for its reliable reporting. The article discusses the Roman aqueduct in Mansourieh and even acknowledges the existence of another aqueduct sharing the same name in the Nahr Adonis region. I understand that it is important to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information, so rest assured that the article's source adds credibility to the content presented. I think you won't find anything published in a Western language about Mansourieh, Western historians and journalists are just busy working on more important stuff.

3 is a political article but it cites to two historians, one of them a local, and the other being Elia Sadek a nationally renown historian for expertise on Lebanese and Levantine genealogy. Additionally he is a published author and poet but all his books are in Arabic.

10 Not all the data from the Lebanese Ministry of the Interior is accessible online. Lebanese researchers usually go to these websites for readily available English information otherwise they'll have to submit formal requests to access the archives of the Ministry. The government of Lebanon initiated a digitalization process that has now been completely impeded by the ongoing economic crisis in the country. The economic crisis in Lebanon has been described as being the world's worst since the 1850s by the World Bank in a 2021 report. It is not an exaggeration when I say that it is not a priority for the MOI to publish digital info on Lebanese families at the moment.

6 It is understandable to have reservations about the credibility of an author who identifies as a poet, writer, and journalist. While it may be unlikely for a well-known Western poet, writer, and journalist to write about a lost city in the second smallest country on continental Asia, it doesn't necessarily imply that the information provided is inaccurate or untrustworthy? The author just doesn't, to my knowledge, enjoy an international reputation but the newspaper is well known in all Lebanese circles.

12 If the author had not been deemed reliable, the book would never have been published by a highly esteemed publishing company in Lebanon, nor would it have been made available in the renowned libraries and universities of Beirut. Furthermore, I noticed an error in your translation of both the title and the author's name. Furthermore, conducting a simple Google search can assist you in finding and verifying the author's credentials?

I appreciate your understanding and the feedback you provided regarding the rules on citations. However, if you're specifically searching for scholarly works by American, European, or other Western authors on the topic of a small lost village in Lebanon, it is indeed challenging to find extensive coverage. Even Lebanon as a whole may have limited scholarly literature available at the moment. Naxh (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

is antifascist-europe.org reliable

I've seen this website be used as a source but am wondering if it should be included seeing as how overtly partisan it is. Scu ba (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Their work looks honorable, but I can't find much on their staff or their editorial policy, [41] and [42] are the best I can find, but nothing there shows much of use. I also can't find much in terms of other reliable sources citing it, except for the various partners listed on their "About Us" page. What you'd really need is some evidence that other sources cite their work to show its reliability. --Jayron32 17:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not Reliable pending better information on the organization. Concur with Jayron32. I have also not found anything that clues me on their editorial practices, and I can't find any reliable sources citing their work. Their editorial slant looks firmly left, which is not in and of itself a disqualifier. But the lack of any data would make me reluctant to use them, especially for any claims that might be controversial, unless it is corroborated elsewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  There is a Reuters article that cites it which I came across.[43] Not sure how widely cited it is, though. Mellk (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's a start but I'd need a bit more. They are almost a blank slate as far as any kind of "about" coverage beyond their own website. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

From the About Us page it's apparent that they are a collaboration between the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation and Khalifa Ihler Institute, the Imprint page itself is simply a copy of the same page at Rosalux.de. The articles are by a collective of authors "coordinated by Bjørn Ihler", and the site is funded by the German Federal Foreign Office. I'd say this is reliable, but should be attributed. Articles could also be more or less reliable depending on the particular author. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Weakly reliable: I think its reliability would follow that of its parent agencies, the RLS and Khalifa Ihler Institute, which I assume would be ranked with other partisan but research-heavy thinktanks such as the Institute of Race Relations (IRR), Community Security Trust or Southern Poverty Law Centre. I.e. reliable for facts but best used with attribution to acknowledge partisanship. I note that it is given as the author for articles on various RLS websites,[44] that its launch (covered by this Irish news website, which might not be reliable) featured reputable speakers such as the director of the IRR,[45][46] that it has been cited with attribution by Reuters on the Russian far right[47] and by Stanford Uni's Mapping Militants Project on the Ukrainian far right,[48] and more recently by French news website TF1 on right-wing Russian volunteers on Ukraine's side.[49]that most of its news articles give the names of authors (e.g. PhD student Sophie Schmalenberger,[50] political scientist Gerd Wiegel[51]) and covered by Spanish news site El Salto.[52] In addition, to give a sense of noteworthiness rather than as evidence of reliability, it has been the subject of an article by left-wing Brazilian news website Brasil de Fato and Opera Mundi,[53][54] and other news sites,[55] and used as a source by the (less reliable) news agency TeleSur.[56] Its German Federal funding has also been attacked by an Irish fascist/conspiracist website which helpfully points out that its contributors include Hope Not Hate and Dieter Reinisch, "an Austrian academic and was a visiting fellow in NUI Galway and lectures variously between Salzburg and Vienna".[57] BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Out of interest, what facts are being sourced from it? Boynamedsue (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Massive disregard of wp:RS (and wp:NOTNEWS) on Russo-Ukrainian war topics

I hate to be essentially dragging up a dead horse here, but once again, there's a serious disregard for reliable sourcing on russo-ukrainian war topics. For example, as of today, we have this: [58], where while the sources themselves seem reasonably reliable, the unclear content they report is repeated uncritically, without any editorial discretion on not including unconfirmed or rapidly changing facts. Frankly, phrases like If reports are true should never be found on an encyclopedia. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 19:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@BrxBrx The phrase in question seems a paraphrase from Ref 2: The alleged incursion would be the largest attack of its kind since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. On the surface, I don't see an issue with it. Could you explain why you think we shouldn't write something like that? Is there a policy or guideline against this? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Healthline

Is the Healthline website a reliable source? I couldn’t find it on the RSP. Thanks Wolfquack (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Almost certainly not for anything of medical significance, no. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). As for anything else, you'll have to be more specific. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump No I was only wondering if Healthline in general is considered reliable by WP standards. Though I will admit I was vague about it. Wolfquack (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean, Healthline is almost entirely medical content and he said that it can't be used for "anything of medical significance". — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 22:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It should also be noted that not finding it "on the RSP" means nothing. Reliability is always and only assessed by WP:RS and WP:MEDRS and other WP:PAGs, and it is expected that every person editing Wikipedia is competent enough to assess reliability, and permission is never needed to do the right thing. RSP is not a list of all sources in the world, only those that have been controversial enough for us to have discussed them frequently. Don't look to it for any permission or denial. Just assess the quality of the source based on what you know to be the standards, and if it meets those standards, you can use it. If it doesn't meet those standards, don't use it. --Jayron32 11:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32 Ok, thank you for explaining (: Wolfquack (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Healthline is definitely not WP:RS and could never be used to support any health, nutrition or medical content on Wikipedia. Their model of writing articles is to present one person - who may be a dietitian, nutritionist or blogger with a MS degree - as the author of articles that have been "medically reviewed", as if such people were medically qualified (they are not).

Among numerous examples is this article on blueberries, proclaiming such nonsense that blueberries are a "superfood" or are "mighty", are "loaded with nutrients" (they have meager nutrient content, as shown here), have diverse and extensive anti-disease effects, and on and on with abundant misinformation, as shown in that deplorable article. Zefr (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Is Head Topics a reliable/major source

Head Topics is a tabloid-esque celebrity media site that, for some reason, is used rather extensively throughout Wikipedia. Ground News lists their factual record as "mixed" and compares them to Fox News or the NYP, both are Deprecated sources. They don't have an about us section on their website, and I searched around and can't find anything about their staff or editorial process. Could anyone give me more insight into them and if they are a reliable/major source? Scu ba (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea

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.

---

Jacobin is approved on the Wikipedia list of sources. Why are people saying I cannot use it to edit Russo-Ukrainian War when it is reliable? [59] Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Becasue you want to use it to Change "the Euromaidan protests" to "the far-right U.S.-backed Euromaidan protests", we are not saying its not reliable for its claim, we are saying the claim violates wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

For context, the discussion being referred to is here. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

You said it was "commentary" and not "news reporting", but [60] says that it "meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

[61] says this too. "the far right Svoboda party was the most active collective agent in conventional and confrontational Maidan protest events, while the Right Sector was the most active collective agent in violent protest events". Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Although all content must be reliably sourced, but just because something is reliably sourced doesn't mean it has to be included (see WP:ONUS). You will need to find consensus on the articles talk page for your changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Is Jacobin generally reliable?

Many people are saying that Jacobin is not reliable when I try to use it, but it is on the approved list of sources. Fellow editors: is Jacobin generally reliable? Chances last a finite time (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion: Is Jacobin generally reliable?

• Absolutely reliable. There was a conversation [62] where an arbitrator ruled that Jacobin "meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". It is one of the best news sources in the English language: it has incredible integrity, and it publishes important facts-first journalism, and it holds power and capital accountable. Jacobin is fiercely independent and does not share the biases of western mainstream media. We need to use it so our articles can be comprehensive and factual because it is reliable. Chances last a finite time (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  I removed the pointy RFC tag. Above it appears that people are trying to explain WP:DUEWEIGHT, not saying the source isn't reliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  The tag is there because I want to request comments from the community of Wikipedia editors about this. Chances last a finite time (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  There is already a consensus on this source editor time is the most valuable commodity, and you're wasting it because you're unwilling to listen to what other editors are saying. As a new editor editing a contentious topic you should be listening to the other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to take a step back and look again, what people are telling you appears to be much more nuanced than that (for example the title being treated differently from the body). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds says that Jacobin does not fit RS with regards to September 11 attacks. I do not like that this generally reliable source is excluded in so many places. Chances last a finite time (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that's just a blatant, naked lie. What I said was that this particular Jacobin article did not constitute a RS for the 9/11 article, as it was entirely about a conspiracy theory. I specifically pointed out that we were not claiming Jacobin itself was inherently unreliable. I'll thank you to strike the above accusation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Unreliable for this at minimum and this article series is so dreadful that I'd question whether we can consider the Jacobin to be generally reliable. Generally reliable publications don't publish crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theories. Toa Nidhiki05 22:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Depreciate. This is very bad source, full of lies and propaganda. Editor is propagandist. The CIA did not do 9/11 This is opinion and hyperbole source. Euromaidan was a popular revolution of dignity, not a nazi plot Euromaidan: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia. This is not reliable and it is not news. The decision was bad. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not like quick ending [63]. I want to depreciate Jacobin. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oh great, a Russia-Ukraine bunfight at RSN, just what we've all been waiting for! Jacobin was discussed and found to be reliable. It's not getting relitigated now. Of course, being mentioned in a reliable source does not guarantee inclusion. If you want to argue about what goes into the article, please do it at the talk page. --Boynamedsue (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Discussion was split equally. It was not good decision to be generally reliable. Too much opinion and propaganda, too little news. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note: ScottishFinnishRadish and I have previously closed this RFC but were reverted by Chances last a finite time and Ghost of Kiev, respectively. Both the users have been made aware of WP:CTOP and warned for their disruptive editing. I won't close it again myself but stand by my closing note that had said, Re-closing this disruptive/malformed RFC started based on misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what others are saying. The topic of Jacobin's general reliability has been discussed at length relatively recently and is not central to the dispute here. Editors are free to continue discussing whether the particular article of interest is WP:RS and/or WP:DUE. Abecedare (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This should be speedy closed. The preceding discussion shows it's unwarranted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Over a year ago is not “recent” and the recent publication of crackpot 9/11 conspiracy theories (or, as presented above, actual pro-Russian propaganda) is a substantial enough problem to throw its reliability into doubt. This is worth discussing. Toa Nidhiki05 23:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s more than recent enough. If we rehash everything every year or two nothing would ever be concluded. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The final !vote in that discussion is from August of 2021, so it seems more than ripe for re-discussion. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are not a good sign, but I have to look more deeply before committing a !vote. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

On a separate note, it might be better to add the standard four options at the top, just for convenience sake. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

All of the contentious Jacobin articles added by the OP seem to be coming from the same author: [64], [65], [66], [67] (Branko Marcetic). Are there such articles by other authors on the site? –Vipz (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Whether we continue to consider the publication as a whole as generally reliable source, we should assess Jacobin articles on a case by case basis, taking in the author's credibility. I'd say that articles by Marcetic (a Jacobin staff writer who rarely publishes elsewhere) would almost be filed in the not-reliable category. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I would not object to revisiting Jacobin with a new RfC, especially given the previous one was not terribly conclusive (and that this is apparently a source that dabbles in conspiracy theories?). But this is definitely not the right way to do it. It's either an issue of WP:POINT or WP:CIR on behalf of the user that opened the RfC. And given that several users have already explained this to them and asked them to stop before this RfC was opened, I think the behavioral element needs to be addressed before an RfC is formed under more reasonable circumstances. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This RfC should be closed as unnecessary, since Jacobin's reliability is not at issue in the present instance. OP has demonstrated a WP:CIR / WP:LISTEN problem which is behavioral in nature. The content they are seeking to add is obviously, wildly WP:UNDUE, as has been explained to them by numerous experienced editors. Generalrelative (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd concur with that close. XOR'easter (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I would as well. I do think the 2021 RfC asked the wrong question and mixed up reliability and dueness, and a new RfC should confront that squarely (e.g. should Jacobin only be used as attributed opinion, or some such). Mackensen (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be an issue (so far) with one particular author on board of Jacobin, what's the correct approach? –Vipz (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It should also be careful to distinguish Jacobin magazine from its peer-reviewed offshoot Catalyst, which publishes some decent scholarship and scholarly reviews, albeit of course always from an anti-capitalist perspective. Generalrelative (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly Lukewarmbeer (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: It's not that long since the last RfC. If we are considering it again, (a) was there an issue with the closing? (I note about 15 of 35 participants last time !voted for generally reliable, and I would have closed it as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" but with similar text) or (b) has anything changed, e.g. new revelations of bad editorial practice? (I don't think so, although possibly the war in Ukraine might have brought into focus some of the more fringe positions it publishes on Russia-related geopolitics). In short, I think we should probably keep with the old consensus unless there is some pressing reason to reconsider. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• Flawed RFC No one has challenged its reliably until this thread. As such the original question is meaningless and smacks of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Seconded. Let's get a speedy redo of Abecedare's close here, and throw this mess out. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thirded. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Not reliable While I can understand the opinion that this particular discussion is pointy, I'm surprised anyone could consider an extremist propaganda piece like Jacobin reliable. It is the equivalent of Breitbart, just with a different political point of view. Both Breitbart and Jacobin regularly publish lies and distortions when it suits their respective political agendas, and would never publish anything not in line with those agendas. Jeppiz (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Can you show they have a reputation for knowingly telling lies? Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Can you show anything at all other than your own opinion? Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Jacobin is hardly comparable to Breitbart IMO. If I were to make a comparison to another publication with a political slant, It would be something like National Review or Reason Magazine.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. The magazine publishes fact-based articles and does not promote conspiracy theories, although it is indeed a biased source, so proper attribution should be recommended.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• A good point was made above that all of these problematic articles are by the same author, that to me would indicate that the issue isn't widespread enough to impact our assessment of Jacobin and we should instead rule that the author Branko Marcetic should be ruled unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Broadly agree but need to be a little careful. He occasionally publishes in outlets a little more reliable than Jacobin (e.g. The Nation, In These Times) and those sources might be usable if due. Of course, he also occasionally publishes in less reliable sources, and those we should remove on sight. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  If an author is unreliable they're unreliable in every publication they write for, outlet has no bearing on it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Don't think we are determining here if the author is unreliable, I have no opinion on that atm, but this RFC really needs to be shut down, it's all over the place, so I am going to take off the tag and turn it into a discussion instead if that's OK. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  And please refrain from purging his content from the encyclopedia as you have been doing in the last hour. No consensus has been reached on the reliability of Marcetic's work. I have already reverted one of these instances.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  No thank you, don't forget to open a talk page discussion to get consensus for your desired additions! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Generally UNreliable - once it was (for some info) but it has gone way down hill and these days its content regularly strays into WP:FRINGE territory, with it becoming comparable to garbage like Mint Press News Volunteer Marek 16:18, 24 May 2023 (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.

fmg.ac (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy)

I see that fmg.ac is is currently used about 123 times on English Wikipedia, and is frequently invoked in genealogies and biographies. Although anyone can join this website and submit material (WP:USERGENERATED?), https://fmg.ac/about-us does say All submissions are subject to expert review as a form of quality control. Still, I've got concerns about its reliability, especially the genealogy at https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/RUSSIA,%20Rurik.htm. The most frequent way this particular web page is invoked on English Wikipedia is to support the claim that this or that person was "a member of the Rurik dynasty".

The "Rurik" genealogy is quite impressive, and does have 1190 citations to what sometimes seem to be reliable sources. But the main two sources are Baumgarten 1927 and 1934 (WP:AGEMATTERS), who based himself on WP:PRIMARY sources:

• The outline genealogies in the present document, into which primary source information has been fitted, were compiled mainly from Baumgarten´s works. (...) Although his works date from 1927 and 1934, they have the great advantage of citing the primary sources on which the information is based. Nevertheless, his citations are not as helpful as they could be, firstly because the publications include no key to the abbreviations which the author uses and no full list of works cited, and secondly because the absence of exact quotations means it is impossible to judge the weight of their evidence. This has serious WP:RS and WP:V issues.
• Moreover, 164 out of the 1190 are references to The Russian Primary Chronicle, which is a notoriously unreliable WP:PRIMARY source.
• Many other sources are from the 19th century, or are critical editions of WP:PRIMARY sources, like the Monumenta.
• 7 sources are 'private emails' with certain authors. Obvious WP:V issue.
• On the plus side, it also includes a lot of recent scholarly publications from especially the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s.

Although I must say that their introduction has great caveats, I'm not sure if this either supports or undermines the reliability of the genealogy in general:

• As pointed out by Franklin & Shepard[2], the extant manuscripts of the Primary Chronicle which date from the 12th century should not be taken at face value as they must have been compiled from patchy sources of information. It is likely that the compilers exaggerated the role of Rurik's family in the 9th and 10th centuries, in order to establish a lengthy, credible history for the Russian principalities which were flourishing by the 12th century. In particular, the alleged establishment by "Oleg" in 882 of the principality of Kiev should be treated with caution.
• From the time of Grand Prince Iaroslav I, the genealogy of the dynasty can be considered more reliable. However, there are still many gaps and uncertainties, particularly relating to the female members of the family.
• Bearing in mind the background to the establishment of Scandinavian settlements in Rus as discussed in the Introduction to the present document, any reconstructed genealogy of the Rurikid dynasty during the early years, as well as all dates and even names, must be viewed with caution. The detailed genealogy for this early period set out below may be of little factual significance but is reproduced by way of interest.

Especially that last sentence worries me, because there are serious scholarly disputes about whether Rurik, the supposed "founder"/"progenitor" of the so-called Rurikid family (fmg.ac's own words, not mine), even existed or has been made up, so that the whole term "Rurikids" may be a misnomer (see Ostrowski, Donald (2018). "Was There a Riurikid Dynasty in Early Rus'?". Canadian-American Slavic Studies. 52 (1): 30–49. doi:10.1163/22102396-05201009.). So if especially the early period may be of little factual significance at all, but has just been interest[ing to reproduce] for whatever user(s) made this genealogy (WP:USERGENERATED?!), I think this is pretty damning for its reliability. Especially because in practice this web page is invoked on English Wikipedia to claim that this or that person descended from another person who may never have existed in the first place, which fmg.ac readily admits, but just reproduces anyway because it's interesting (WP:IJUSTLIKEIT?).

I'm not sure if this problem extends to the entire website, but unless I've overlooked something, at least this page is one we should probably 'blacklist' (or something) as an unreliable source. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't say about fmg.ac in general but Medieval Lands has been discussed before and is not a reliable source. The author "is a retired corporate lawyer who now devotes himself full time to historical research". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh that's a good point, I hadn't checked out the subdomain's homepage http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/index.htm. I guess that settles it? I'll try and look it up in the archives. (I had looked in the archives of WikiProject Genealogy, but not here. Guess I should have dome that too). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Not sure about deprecating or blacklisting, but it does appear to be generally unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I now see that Medieval Lands / Cawley / fmg.ac / Foundation for Medieval Genealogy has been discussed time and again at this Noticeboard, especially in 2012 several times, again in 2014 (by which time it was clear that it was unreliable), but in a 2016 discussion (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217#Historical sources in Zeno, señor de Vizcaya) people seemed to be unaware of the previous conclusions and were invoking Cawley again as possibly reliable. It seems quite ineffective to me to be having the same discussion all over again. I could have saved myself the trouble if it had an entry at WP:RSP (the other place where I looked before I submitted thus inquiry). It is still extensively used on Wikipedia despite repeated conclusions that it is unreliable. I think it's time we purged Cawley / Medieval Lands / fmg.ac everywhere instead of letting this unreliable source linger in the corners of English Wikipedia. As long as we allow it to stay up, withno easily findable rule or precedent anywhere that it's unreliable and shouldn't be used, we could be having this discussion for another 11 years while misleading our readers and fellow editors alike that it might be reliable. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLD you can remove the references without needing approval. If anyone objects then it may be time for an RFC and add it to RSP, it has come up often enough that I easily spotted MedLands as part of your link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright then. Is there a way to let a bot do it or do I need to manually remove all 123+ references to fmg.ac and replace them with [citation needed]? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It's likely something AWB could do, but I generally do these things manually so I couldn't help with automation. I would suggest at least verifying the links are to MedLands not another part of fmc.ac, as the older discussions give a suggestion that other parts could be reliable (although even then they could be replaced with the sources used by fmc.ac). If they are removed then {{citation needed}} would be the correct template to mark them with. One thing to look out for is the use of refnames, as each instance will need to be removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I'll just remove the refs to https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/RUSSIA,%20Rurik.htm for now I guess. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested @Horse Eye's Back The Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley is in use (often as the redirect Template:MLCC). It is currently used 576 times on English Wikipedia. This is a much larger problem than I thought. Even though it carries a standard warning [self-published source][better source needed] as a result of discussions at the Template talk:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley#Medieval Lands is not a reliable source, this seems like a really weird compromise-like option to me. WP:SELFPUB states 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. ActivelyDisinterested already indicated that Charles Cawley "is a retired corporate lawyer who now devotes himself full time to historical research". That doesn't seem to be a "relevant field".

Why doesn't Cawley have to abide by WP:SELFPUB? Is there some special pleading going on here? I think we should treat Cawley the same as all other WP:SELFPUB sources. No ifs, no buts. If Cawley cites a reliable source, then cite that source. Don't cite Cawley. Simple as that. I think it's time that we really blacklist this, otherwise this just keeps on being a problem for yet another 15+ years. And I'm sure not gonna manually remove this template from 576+ pages, let alone all other pages that cite Cawley but do not use this template. This is a bot's job, isn't it? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_25 I've nominated Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley for deletion. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

It's truly daft that a comment on the templates talk page was made in September 2012 stating This template allows a breathing space for editors to come up with reliable sources for the same information, and yet over a decade later we are still using the source. That's not breathing space, for a decade the template has {{Self-published inline}} and {{Better source needed}} tags as part of the cite. It's way beyond time these references were removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad I brought it up here, and that I am not the only one thinking this. This has turned out to be a much larger problem than I thought, than many other people seem to have realised for way over a decade. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I have been, rather slowly and intermittently, trying to replace Medland "sources". Also, it would be better to verify the source(s) Cawley uses than simply take Cawley's "word" for it. There have been a number of instances where I checked Cawley's citation(s) and they failed to support what had been written. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear Thanks for doing your part. I initially tried to do the same (06:28, 24 May 2023), but given the sheer number of Cawley citations across English Wikipedia, gradually manually replacing each Cawley is IMO no longer a viable option. Every day Cawley stays up across c. 700 articles (576 through the template, 123 outside the template minus the c. 10 that I manually purged already), we are potentially misleading more readers into a false sense of security that certain claims made by Cawley are somewhat reliable, and giving the impression that only a "better source (is) needed" to what Cawley has already "proven". I'd rather move from unreliably-sourced to unsourced statements; readers will treat the latter with more skepticism, and editors will be more motivated to fix the problem. Let's just Purge Cawley from Wikipedia completely, once and for all. I don't want future readers to be misled, nor future Wikipedians having to deal with the same shit over and over. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

is wildernesstherapy.org a reliable source

This webpage was used a http://www.wildernesstherapy.org/Wilderness/ForceRestraint.htm on the wilderness therapy article. 1keyhole (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Self-published site and the author appears to have published one book which was also self-published. Fails WP:SPS and would only be usable in a WP:ABOUTSELF context. Siawase (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Is warheroes.ru a reliable source?

A previous banned user, user:PlanespotterA320 has imported a lot of photos, descriptions and other information from this site. However, after checking a little bit, this is a user-generated content site.
Related discussion on WP:ANI is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#user:PlanespotterA320 and aftermath. -Lemonaka‎ 01:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

For more information, please read about this site. -Lemonaka‎ 01:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

What makes you think it's user-generated? I didn't find a way to edit or add information there, and they have a team of editors [68]. This is not to say it's necessarily reliable, the best indication of that would be other RS using their data. Alaexis_¿question? 19:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Last two paragraphs of about pages (although translated by machine) indicating that they are based on one hand sources. -Lemonaka‎ 20:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah they do ask people to send them information but my understanding is that they exercise the editorial control over what they publish. They also list the sources for any given page (e.g., [69]). Alaexis_¿question? 06:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

As can be seen from the team page the people running this site are hobbyists, so it shouldn't be considered a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, its an amateur military history group blog of the kind we've addressed many times. This is however I believe the first such foreign language source we've dealt with at RSN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I remember I had a discussion with user:PlanespotterA320 about this source on the talk page of Alexander Prokhorenko. Difool (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

How is this even a question? The very URL and name of this website (unless it was sarcastically intended, which it clearly isn't) is a violation of WP:NPOV. The About Us page confirms the site's purpose as WP:PROMO ("popularisation") of certain people as "war heroes" of the Soviet Union and Russian Federation: ...we pay tribute to the memory of many of those who selflessly built and strengthened our country, and those who heroically defended it. Ye, nah mate. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

We have a ton of articles on Medal of Honor award recipients based mainly on US government promotion of those people as war heroes. The fact that this site is writing these articles because they feel patriotic isn't a reason to ignore them. If we are ignoring the sources, it would because it's a hobbyist website. That being said, Andrey Simonov is (according to an article written by PlanespotterA320) a published author in this field, works on the mentioned blog, and is also a Wikipedia editor. He links his account on the website, [70] and is an active editor over at the Russian Wikipedia as User:Андрей Симонов. Maybe the best solution to this issue would be to just ask him to contribute to User:Lemonaka/Factcheck? He is likely familiar with his own website and would have access to the original sources. If there are articles cited entirely to this website, it may be simpler to just ask the website for sourcing details than it would be for us to try to refactor every article on our own. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Medal of Honor award recipients based mainly on US government promotion of those people as war heroes. That is an official designation, so that is a different case. Indeed, the hobbyist nature of this website (a group of like-minded enthusiasts in order to popularise the history of the peoples of the Soviet Union and its successor, the Russian Federation, using the example of the military exploits of the defenders of the Fatherland, as well as the glorious deeds of the working people.), where regular citizens start unofficially promoting certain people as "war heroes", is the problem. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

We also have a ton of articles on the winners of Russia's highest award for bravery. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

If these are official rewards, reported by a reliable source, that is fine. What is not okay is random sources randomly assigning random praises, heroisations and glorifications to random people according to their own random personal POV. This goes for any country or nationality, of course; such random websites exist across the planet. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: See also the section about #saints.ru below about saints websites, which usually engage in hagiography, the religious equivalent of military heroisation. Certain purported "saints" have been officially canonised as such by certain ecclesiastical authorities or religious organisations. Official ecclesiastical sources confirming such basic details as the date and stated reason(s) for their beatification/canonisation, feast days, and perhaps birth and death dates, birth and death places etc. may be relied upon. Otherwise, such devotional sources typically contain many WP:RS/WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE issues; they are to be avoided in favour of more reliable sources critically treating the subject's life, and any memory culture that may have been developed around their legacy. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

That is an excellent point, with both the Soviet military heroes and the saints we face the problem that the primary contemporary historians (that would be Church and Party) are unreliable because they were regularly passing off fictional events as real for political and social reasons. Panfilov's Twenty-Eight Guardsmen are a good example. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Of course, this doesn't just apply to Soviet or Russian history, but all human history. And what I was trying to say: even if the sentence On 21 July 1942, the Guardsmen were all posthumously awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. is only supported by some Soviet propaganda book from the 1960s, we do not necessarily have to doubt it (except the word posthumously, perhaps, which is part of the refuted claim, so we might add " " to "posthumously"). It is a factual claim about an official designation by a relevant governmental authority. Bestowing the title Hero of Foo on Bar doesn't necessarily make Bar a "hero" in a real sense (that's just something Wikipedia cannot say per WP:NPOV); it just means Bar has been granted the title Hero of Foo by the government of Foo.

Similarly, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to use saints.ru to support the basic claim [Yaropolk Iziaslavich] is venerated as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church, with his feast day falling on the reported day of his death, November 22. But otherwise I wouldn't trust either source on Wikipedia for factual claims of these people's supposed "achievements" in order to assign them some heroic or saintly status. Wikipedia is not in that sort of business. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

That is kind of my point, Some bloke on the internet saying Ivan Scvainsky Scavar was a hero is not the same as the Soviet government awarding him a decoration for bravery. Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Template:HSU lists I'd like to draw attention to the fact that the same now-permanently-globally-banned user:PlanespotterA320 seems to have creates all the "ethnicity"-based lists in this Template:HSU lists. Each of them cites the same general sources without inline citations, and I have different levels of concerns over WP:OR/WP:SYNTH in all of them. I've already nominated List of Heroes of the Soviet Union of repressed ethnicities for deletion and raised serious concerns about List of Jewish Heroes of the Soviet Union, but there may be more. It's unlikely that the sources provided, written in the 1980s so still Soviet times, would group people within the Soviet Union by "ethnicity"; that would very much be counter to Soviet ideology if I'm not mistaken. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Rock in Rio

Rock in Rio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is an article content dispute which comes down to a dispute about what has been reliably reported to be the attendance on 26 January 1991 for the performance of A-ha. I have my own opinions as to which sources are the most reliable, but I am asking for the views of editors who are experienced in reviewing questions of reliability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

https://duyt0k3aayxim.cloudfront.net/PDFs_XMLs_paginas/o_globo/1991/01/28/03-segundo_caderno/ge280191003SEG1-1234_g.jpg (the mention is on the second paragraph of the top article)

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=0qX8s2k1IRwC&dat=19910128&printsec=frontpage&hl=en (the mention is at the very bottom of the page)

• "O trio Pop norueguês teve o maior público não apenas do evento como também de toda a história na época, levando 198 mil pessoas ao Maracanã durante seu show e quebrando recorde do Guinness Book. Ainda assim, os nórdicos acabaram ignorados pela mídia brasileira e mundial mesmo com o sucesso estrondoso de “Take on Me”, que impulsionou toda essa fama."

https://www.tenhomaisdiscosqueamigos.com/2023/05/07/a-ha-rock-in-rio-recorde/

• "Eles alcançaram sucesso planetário nas décadas de 1980 e 1990. No Brasil, chegaram a tocar para quase 200 mil pessoas. Mas nesta quarta-feira, em São Paulo, se exibem para uma plateia menor. Antes de matar a saudade do público brasileiro, os noruegueses da banda A-Ha conversaram com a repórter Marina Araújo."

https://g1.globo.com/jornaldaglobo/0,,MUL1057248-16021,00-AHA+SE+APRESENTAM+EM+SP+E+NO+RIO.html

• From BBC Brazil and Globo: A-ha played for 198.000: https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/geral-62764029 / https://g1.globo.com/pop-arte/musica/rock-in-rio/2022/noticia/2022/09/02/se-a-vida-comecasse-agora-22-curiosidades-sobre-o-rock-in-rio.ghtml

• " In 1991 it set a world record for the largest paying audience for a single band when 198,000 people came to see pop group A-ha."

https://www.britannica.com/place/Maracana-Stadium

• MTV 1991 A-ha show in Maracana the only one to be sold out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rtYwtiejtw

• A-Ha was the big star on January 26, 1991. The fifth artist to perform, in a day with 7 attractions, appeared with some frequency in the country's hit charts and that led many people to Maracanã. The audience record of 198,000 people put the band in the Guinness Book of Records. The Norwegian trio played a show full of hits like “Hunting High and Low” and “You are the One”.

https://rockinrio.com/rio/novidade/retrospectiva-rock-in-rio-26-de-janeiro-de-1991/ Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

BBC Brazil is probably your best bet here. The rest are superfluous. --Jayron32 16:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I've just machine-translated the BBC Brazil link, and the Globo link. They appear to be the same, as in one of them has copied the other. What is more significant is that I don't see where either of them mentions what the audience was for A-ha in 1991. Am I missing something? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The specific mention is under an image in the 9th section (Decoradores), O show do A-ha em 1991 foi visto por 198 mil pessoas no Maracanã. Google translate makes that A-ha's concert in 1991 was seen by 198,000 people at Maracanã. Globo is just reposting the BBC article, and can be ingored..-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Oryx, random twitter accounts, Zvezda

The sources in question are:

• Oryx (website) - the blog version (not the twitter account) here
• Various twitter accounts cited in this talk page section [71]
• Zvezda (TV channel)

The article in question is:

• 2023 Belgorod Oblast attack

The information in question is:

• The tables in section on Losses cited at the moment to Oryx.

Past discussions regarding these sources (Oryx in particular):

• Archive 273
• Archive 322

While Oryx is a great and interesting twitter account/blog, the fact that it is WP:SPS means that it is potentially not reliable for this information. Of course, in cases where the blog is cited by OTHER outlets, like BBC or Reuters, that info would be RS. But that is not the case here.

While Oryx is being used in the article itself, on the talk page users are posting links to videos on twitter to justify the inclusion of the information. Additionally it appears that the photos in question (according to one user) originally originated with the Russian fake news/disinformation TV channel Zvezda, run by the Russian Ministry of Defense (originally posted to their Telegram channel). The argument on talk is that that somehow bolsters the reliability of the information but... personally I think it's actually the opposite. If nothing else, then the info should be attributed as coming from a Russian Ministry of Defense disinformation source.

I did add a "unreliable source" tag to the section but it was removed [72] by User:RadioactiveBoulevardier, with a revert incorrectly marked as "minor edit". RadioactiveBoulevardier has not responded on talk or explained their revert.

On top of all that, WP:NOTNEWS applies. Volunteer Marek 16:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• None of those twitter accounts appear to match the criteria at WP:RS. The twitter videos are at best WP:PRIMARY sources which are at best published by accounts managed by unreliable Russian state media. As primary sources, we need reliable secondary sources to interpret what they show. The "just watch the video" type assertions by the editor at the article talk page is not good enough. I have no way of knowing what I am watching or what it pertains to unless a reliable, secondary source tells me. And we have none of that. Zvezda is the among the worst of Russian state-owned sources, which is really saying something. None of it is reliable, and no content sourced to any of those twitter accounts, TV channels, etc. Oryx is probably good stuff, it appears to be endorsed by numerous other scrupulously reliable sources, so anything which comes from Oryx is probably good, but needs to stick to exactly what Oryx says, and not introduce information that can only be sourced to the twitter videos or to Russian state media. --Jayron32 16:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  You're looking at destroyed Ukrainian equipment abandoned at the border checkpoint in the belgorod region which they previously took control of. This is confirmed by geolocalization of the area. I can list the equipment in question. Andrea e luca (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  furthermore you have the secondary source telling you what you're looking at: Oryx. Andrea e luca (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  You are not a reliable source. So I don't really care what you have to say about what I am looking at. Oryx, as I said, is probably reliable enough for this information, but narrowly only for what it directly says. The rest of it has to go. --Jayron32 18:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  The facts speak. I am simply relaying the facts. Andrea e luca (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you ever were so gracious to at least look at the evidence, which is also republished by Oryx as factual, you would do us all a favour. Andrea e luca (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  If oryx is writing the information, cite Oryx. There is no need to cite videos of unknown provenance and unverifiable content. --Jayron32 15:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Jayron32 Excellent explanation, can only agree. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Zveza and the anon Twitter should go immediately. Oryx it's possible to argue its SPS by subject-matter experts. We should always be careful with breaking news sources, which I believe we consider by definition primary. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we should add a caveat that Zvezda reflects the official position of the Russian MoD which may or may not be due in this case. Alaexis_¿question? 20:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oryx may qualify as an WP:SPS or perhaps WP:PRIMARY. If I were to use it, I would use it with caution, and always say "According to Oryx" or something. It is certainly more reliable when it comes to loss statistics than any other source I've seen, including the Russian and Ukrainian MoDs, because of overclaiming problems. It is likely that the real losses are higher than reported by Oryx (because there isn't always visual evidence collected, submitted, checked and published), but the ones they do report are probably accurate. Many reliable sources refer to Oryx. If they do, I would cite those sources instead of Oryx itself, which should be used with caution. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said on the article talk, it was unintentional and most likely something to do with the visual editor.

You seem to expect that Wikipedians be active, and respond to notifications, 24 hours a day. I was asleep for most of the period since that edit. You’re lucky I checked my phone before eating breakfast, which I’m currently trying to stop doing.

I don’t in the least object to putting that tag back. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hah, I know the feeling. Hope your sleep and breakfast were nice. :) Happy editing! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Oryx is a group blog with two principles: Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans. Both are arguably subject matter experts so usable but this is one of those cases where editorial discretion is key because they publish a lot of different content and we have to keep in mind that for our purposes a feature length report on a years long weapons project and a breaking news blog post about a photo that appeared on twitter carry different weights. Attribute when used. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Well said. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Historyofwar.org website

This website was added as a reference in the Italian War of 1542–1546 article.

Previous comments concerning this site indicate it is not reliable.

Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Good question. Antill and Dugdale-Pointon are qualified in the field of strategic studies and international relations, which are closely related to history, but not quite history itself. Rickard is the historian of the three, but seems to never have completed his studies after having studied medieval military history for nearly a decade, otherwise they would mention his bachelor or master. Having a BA in History myself, I would be concerned if they know enough about source criticism and textual analysis to discern the context, authorship and textual history of sources (which is important if you want to write about history). That doesn't necessarily make the site unreliable, but that it's WP:TERTIARY is probably an apt assessment.

I do not share Miniapolis's POV concern about the quote in question. As far as I know, that is historically accurate, and easily supported by other sources. I'm not even sure what is "POV" about it, it is just factually correct. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

saints.ru

I would think that websites about saints in general are unreliable, because they are often written from a devotional (promotional) perspective about the person who has been canonised as a saint. Typically they don't seem to be scholarly in any way, citing publications or anything, but full of praise about what a great person they were (WP:POV). I'm only asking because I haven't seen "saints.ru" discussed in the archives, and http://www.saints.ru/ya/5-Yaropolk-Izyaslavovich.htmlhas been in use in Yaropolk Iziaslavich, ever since that article received "Good article" status on 31 March 2008. But I'm getting the impression that "Good article" status is not/no longer warranted for various reasons, and this website (which is used in other bios as well) is one of them. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There are many good sources about Russian historical figures and we absolutely don't need to use such a source. The only legitimate use I can see is to confirm his canonisation and maybe briefly describe why he was made a saint. Alaexis_¿question? 20:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps. If saints websites are only invoked for supporting such basics, we don't have to remove / replace them. But I suppose such basic details can probably also be found in a more reliable source, which should be preferred at all times if available. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that the numerous amateur religious sites are a perennial thorn in our side, saints.ru doesn't appear to be a reliable source it looks like an amateur religious site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Is Life.ru reliable?

Life.ru, a pro-Kremlin online newspaper is used to cite the life stories, political affiliations, and military claims of various Russian groups in Ukraine, namely the Russian Volunteer Corps and the Freedom of Russia Legion. According to their own Wikipedia page they have a close relation with the Russian security services, have straight up made up reports, and have been banned off YouTube for being pro-Kremlin propaganda. Should I remove any citations from these guys? or are they actually a reliable source of information. Scu ba (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Just no. Volunteer Marek 15:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Obviously not reliable. Per WP:CANVASS, we can't tell you what to do or not to do. Is the number of citations large enough that a deprecation discussion is needed? Adoring nanny (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: you linked the wrong thing, canvassing is about soliciting participation in a discussion not offering suggestions on edits to articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, I had always thought of WP:CANVASS to include asking someone to do something. But you're right, it doesn't say that. Is it really OK to ask someone to do something such as remove a particular source? Adoring nanny (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

As long as there isn't something wrong with the edit in another way (say you were using it to harass a third party, are in an edit war over the issue already, or you knew it wasn't verifiable) its by my understanding ok. Anyways I take Scu ba's comment as more asking for permission than instruction per say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Scu ba hasn't asked anyone to do anything, they asked if they should remove the references as they suspected the source was unreliable. That's not canvassing, it's the purpose of this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Not reliable, this is a tabloid like Daily Mail. Alaexis_¿question? 16:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Owned by Aram Gabrelyanov, who is a propagandist per his own words "We tell the truth -- of course -- but we tell it the way that will lead the audience to the conclusions we need. That is what our country, our ideology, needs." Should be removed on sight. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm If you always start with "the conclusions you need", there is no way to guarantee you have arrived at, or will ever arrive at, "the truth". This is confirmation bias 101. Completely unreliable by definition. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• This is a professional disinformation website. It should be depreciated or blacklisted. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  It looks like we may have some work to do. Was there a point in time in which this was reliable, or should references to this site be removed indiscriminately? – bradv 14:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  On principle references should never be removed indiscriminately, each one should be briefly evaluated to see whether it is appropriate in context. Emphasis on brief though, the main question being answered is "is this covered by WP:ABOUTSELF?" which can be evaluated in a few brief seconds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

You provided zero examples. So I will. Article Responsibility for the Russo-Georgian War, section Other reports by Russian media, begins On 4 August 2008, Life.ru reported that after the end of the "Kavkaz 2008" exercises, the paratroopers from Pskov remained to occupy the key positions on the Roki and Mamison passes on the border. (Added on 22 September 2014 by UA Victory.) That's attribution along with explanation of the source's nature. Never questioned on the talk page. I oppose this context-free ban-without-question suggestion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Philippine News Agency

The Philippine News Agency (PNA) offers local news sources that can be reliable like Rappler. Other news sources that are copied from Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, TASS, and PR Newswire.

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS also involved by comparing with local news (https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1202018) and (https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1201938) foreign news sources. 112.204.206.165 (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Is NEWSONE a reliable source for Foundational Black Americans?

Here's there "about" page[73], not encouraging. The second source only says "Several Black Americans, like Way, whose ancestors were enslaved, said in public comments to the OMB that they would like to be identified in a category such as American Freedmen, Foundational Black Americans or American Descendants of Slavery to distinguish themselves from Black immigrants, or even white individuals born in Africa, as well as reflecting their ancestors’ history in the U.S." The third source says "Some of the possible terms that have been discussed for Black individuals who are descendants of slavery are “American Descendants of Slavery,” “American Freedmen” and “Foundational Black Americans.” Looks to me as though we only have two reliable sources which mention them once and do not suggest it's at all widely used. Doug Weller talk 08:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The "About Us" page is, indeed, not encouraging for establishing how important they find producing and providing reliable information through editorial review. Their main concern seems to be how many people they reach with their "brand", listing all their affiliated brands. In other words: making money. Perfectly legitimate business, but not what we need in an WP:RS. Otherwise I don't see any NPOV issues with the About page (e.g. "diverse opinions").

I agree that it seems like we don't have WP:SIGCOV for the topic Foundational Black Americans yet. This is not a well-established concept yet, just one of several competing terms that are being suggested in certain circles to identify a certain group of people. (If this were a CfD, this would probably fall under WP:NONDEFINING/WP:COP-HERITAGE: The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable. But articles follow different rules). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The term American Descendants of Slavery is mentioned each time Foundational Black Americans is used, this is probably better handled as a section of that article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Merge to American Descendants of Slavery.

About newsone.com's reliability.... I'll just drop this here: https://newsone.com/742485/the-11-most-compelling-911-conspiracy-theories/ with a nice little See also section: For more NewsOne coverage of conspiracy theories, click here. SEE ALSO: Five Celebrities Allegedly Tied To The Illuminati. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Most of the original reporting on actual news stories, where bylines exist beyond "NewsOne Staff" seems to be to legitimate journalists. However, a lot of the content is fluffy listicles like shown above. I think stories from the site with a credited ByLine to a legitimate journalist with a CV that we can verify is likely OK, but that's only a small amount of content. I would put it in the same category as stuff like Cheddar (TV channel) or Buzzfeed (back when it had news) or the like; individual actual-news-articles from the source are probably fine, but the bulk of the content is just clickbait that has little use at Wikipedia. Individual news articles should carry the reliability of the journalist in the byline, but for content on historical matters, find an actual historian, for articles on scientific matter, find a scientist, etc. --Jayron32 18:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

That may be an apt assessment. Something with "on a case-by-case basis"? I think I've used Cheddar once as a source (it was a video that provided its sources that were very easy to verify), and BuzzFeed... preferably not if a more reliable source says the same thing. On closer inspection, the other items within the "conspiracy theories" category of newsone.com weren't that click-baity, and usually about why a certain conspiracy theory was not true, or harmful towards Black Americans (newsone.com's target audience). I've also seen some Google Books use newsone.com in their footnotes. Still, the quality control does not seem to be very high. A serious journalistic news site would not throw around lists of 11 conspiracy theories that might actually be true, and just embed a bunch of low-quality videos to lead people to believe in these CTs, with a bunch of links below to share it everywhere on social media. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.rebellionresearch.com

Is this source reliable? Specifically, it is used on Battle of Wadi Saluki, I haven't come across this site before, and it seems as if it is just Israeli soldiers view of the matter?

Specifically, it is used to source this sentence in the info-box:

• Result: Israeli Victory , Israeli troops succeeded to cross the river.

That seems to me a bit simplistic to me, seeing that the Israelis 33 soldiers. And this article in Haaretz presents a different view. Comments? Huldra (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)