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

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

RfC: Fox News

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.

---

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of Fox News? (as separate from their cable pundits) foxnews.com   has been cited over 15,000 times on Wikipedia.

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

Additional questions:

• Does FOXNews.com have a separate reliability from their cable news reporting?
• Do local affiliate stations have a separate reliability to the main Fox News operation?
• Is Fox News reliable for US Politics?

The last RfC on Fox News was in 2010, Fox News is currently described at the RS/P as:

FOX News was determined by consensus to be generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG. The network consists of 12 news bureaus worldwide, including their New York headquarters. Several shows in the channel's news lineup include America's Newsroom, The Daily Briefing, Bill Hemmer Reports (replaced Shepard Smith), Special Report with Bret Baier, The Story with Martha MacCallum, and Chris Wallace anchoring Fox News Sunday. Some editors perceive FOX News to be a biased source whereas others do not; neither affects reliability of the source. Editors should always exercise caution when choosing sources, and treat talk show content hosted by political pundits as opinion pieces, avoid stating opinions in Wikivoice and use intext attribution as applicable. The Fox News website maintains a form for requesting corrections.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Responses (Fox News)

• Option 2: In view of recent events, their reporting seems biased towards information discrediting the protests. However, their factual reporting of non politically charged subjects stays adequate. That being said, I noticed that they give a lot of weight to POTUS since it was revealed that he was a regular watcher. Being nearly the only network giving him interviews. Feynstein (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Fox News is a standard WP:NEWSORG, yes it may contain a bias (most RSs do), but does not mean it is not reliable. Fox also issues corrections which further indicates fact-checking. At this point it is beating a dead horse unless some substantive evidence can be presented on the contrary. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 (lean towards 2), the quality of the core network’s reporting has declined over the last decade. Care must be taken though, most network affiliates (such as WTIC-TV) remain generally reliable sources and I want any downgrade to be clear about that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Options 1/2. Option 1 for straight news reporting. Fox News's straight news reporting is very different from their talk shows like Hannity, Ingraham, etc. Their news department's bias appears more in what things they choose to cover than in how they cover it. This bias doesn't make it unreliable - almost all news orgs have some form of bias. However, given the network's close ties with Donald Trump, I think option 2 is warranted for coverage of Trump in particular.
  I don't think any outcome of this RfC should apply to content produced by local bureaus affiliated with Fox. In my experience those bureaus are no more or less reliable than other local news bureaus. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Per User:Spy-cycle. Fox News does appropriate fact checking on their reports. This establishes reliability of their works in general and the fact that it is cited quite a lot means that most in wikipedia understand that it is a standard news organization. Furthermore, the others who say that it is not as reliable are going to argue based on subjective measures of not liking it with no empirical metrics. The fact that Fox News tends to have notable commentators like senators, representatives, etc that are notable right wing and left wing on shows like Tucker Carlson and Hannity's shows means they are not like Daily Mail. Also some heavy members of government like Mike Huckabee (ex governor and ex presidential candidate) and Jason Chaffetz (ex congress member) actually host some of the programs and this gives the network insider access to details on developing news. Furthermore, emotional reporting done by CNN and MSNBC does not demote them either. The point on reliability is not whether their stories end up to be true, it is do they have fact checking. Many news stories are developing so the details get confirmed and then rejected as time goes on and as more information emerges. CNN and MSNBC were wrong about Russian Collision, Muller Report, impeachment proceedings on Trump, and other stuff, but they would not be unreliable in Wikipedia's eyes either.Ramos1990 (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, except for prime time "pundit" reporting about Trump. Speaking generally about, for example, articles posted to the website, Ad Fontes, an organization that analyzes and compares news sources, considers the website reliable. I agree with CactusJack. --Bsherr (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Bsherr:You might want to double check that source... They put Fox News in the “Red Rectangle: Nonesense damaging to public discourse“ [1] which is their lowest category, they rate it below Daily Mail and I see no indication that they endorse Fox New’s reliability (at most they say “Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 24 are generally acceptable; scores above 32 are generally good.” while assigning Fox News a score of 26.75). Can you elaborate? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 for news, 2 for pundit shows ^{fixed 10:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)} didn't we just have an RfC about Fox News a few months ago? Did the OP check to see before calling this RfC?? Fox News is as reliable a source as the other cable news networks that also host pundits. The news is reliable, the pundits are opinion. See the write-up at WP:RS/Perennial sources. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Adding links to demonstrate that Fox political commentary (not it's newscasts) is very much like that of all other mainstream media except with a conservative bias; the latter of which is not a valid reason to demote a RS anymore than it is valid to demote CNN for it's liberal bias. The US has a two-party system so biased opposition is expected. Pew Research demonstrates the stark partisan split of Fox News Channel viewers, noting that it is by far the most watched cable news channel. Pew states: Liberal Democrats are far more likely than conservative or moderate Democrats to say they distrust Fox news (77% vs. 48%). The Game of the Name, A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, The Rise and Fall of the Obama-Media Romance ^{16:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)}

  Sidebar note to closer (for clarity) - I just want to distinguish between the political pundits that headline Fox News Channel's primetime line-up vs actual news reporting by Fox news anchors, such as Special Report w/Bret Baier, Fox News at Night w/Shannon Bream, Bill Hemmer Reports, America's Newsroom w/Ed Henry and Sandra Smith (reporter), Fox News Sunday w/Chris Wallace, etc. This RfC is supposed to be focused only on the newscasting, not the political commentary by political pundits on The Five, Hannity, Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Fox & Friends in the mornings, etc. but several of the iVotes indicate that the two have been conflated. CNN refers to their political pundit Don Lemon as a news journalist despite the fact that his show is not a newscast, rather it is biased political commentary not unlike the political pundits on Fox News Channel, and the same or similar applies to Wolf Blitzer, Chris Cuomo, Anderson Cooper, Jake Tapper, etc. none of whom anchor a newscast; rather they host commentary/opinion. We would not downgrade CNN News because of their political pundits. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  Adding - a substantial number, if not all, of the sources cited by the opposes are questionable sources not suitable for contentious claims about others per WP:V policy which states: Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[9] Footnote 9 further states: ...sources with conflicts of interest include but are not limited to articles by any media group that promotes the holding company of the media group or discredits its competitors; news reports by journalists having financial interests in the companies being reported or in their competitors; material (including but not limited to news reports, books, articles and other publications). ^{12:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)}

Just FYI Ed Henry has been fired [2], its this sort of rapid turnover at Fox that really worries me. None of the voices I considered reliable a decade or two ago are there. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Meh - turnovers aren't a big deal. It happens to all of them, including the big three broadcast networks, not just cable news. Look at Tucker Carlson: he was a CNN commentator (2000—2005), co-hosted Crossfire (2001—2005), did MSNBC (2005—2008) and now hosts one of the highest-rated talking head shows in primetime on FoxNews Channel. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 09:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Carlson is a racist, misinformation spreading, conspiracy theorist... Not a journalist or news presenter. Unless I highly misunderstand the conversation here today we are talking only about the news side and not the commentators like Carlson. If we are talking about the bottom of the barrel scum that are the Fox News commentators then my vote goes from leaning 2 to a rock solid 4. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that he's been allowed on FN for twelve years (along with such standards of journalism as Sean Hannity (24 years) and Bill O'Reilly (21 years)) tells you all you need to know about their integrity as a network. François Robere (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, 1. Those are not the people we are talking about, as the RfC states this is ONLY about Fox News' news programming, not their opinionated talk show hosts. 2. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING. It is not necessary or constructive to respond to each and every opinion that contradicts yours. JOEBRO64 18:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, for the sake of nitpicking: O'Reilly was a respected journalist before moving to Fox. He'd worked at ABC and CBS for several years and hosted Inside Edition, where he became one of the only people to ever interview Joel Steinberg. JOEBRO64 19:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, these are exactly the people we are talking about. Fox news is one network, to which both the "news" and the "opinions" aspects belong. They're both under the same management, part of the same editorial hierarchy and paid by the same people; there's no "Fox Opinions" and "Fox News", just "Fox News". You cannot untwine the two, and no media critic, analyst or academic that I'm aware of does so.

Re: WP:BLUDGEONING - ah... it's you who replied to someone who contradicts your opinion, I replied to Horse Eye Jack... François Robere (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3. You can track how Fox's news output has moved over the last three to four years from a right-leaning mainstream source to part of the conservative media bubble. It's extensively documented in Yochai Benkler's Network Propaganda, and you can track it over successive iterations of the Ad Fontes chart. You can also see it in specific events such as the departure of Shep Smith. It used to be that Fox talk shows were junk, and Fox news broadcasts and websites were OK. Not so any more. Example: "the amount of coverage Fox News devotes to [Antifa] is preposterous. A search for “antifa” on Fox News’ website from November 2016 to the present returns 668 results, while “homelessness” returns 587, and “OxyContin,” 140. “Permafrost” returns 69. A decentralized, leaderless activist group with no record of lethal violence in this country, antifa has been skilfully transmogrified by the conservative media into one of the gravest threats facing Americans in 2019" [3]. The wall of separation between reporting and opinion has long since been blown away, and Fox is now the media arm of the administration. On CO|VID-19 it has published outright misinformation "Tara Setmayer, a spring 2020 Resident Fellow at the Institute of Politics and former Republican Party communications director, said what’s coming from Fox News and other pro-Trump media goes well beyond misinformation. Whether downplaying the views of government experts on COVID-19’s lethality, blaming China or philanthropist Bill Gates for its spread, or cheering shutdown protests funded by Republican political groups, it’s all part of “an active disinformation campaign,” she said, aimed at deflecting the president’s responsibility as he wages a reelection campaign." [4] I could go on. Fox has changed over the last three to four years, in a meaningful way, and we should recognise that. Guy (help!) 20:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  I do not know the reliablity of Yochai Benkler's "Network Propaganda", not listed at RSP so I cannot determine its usefulness in this discussion. The opinion of a Buzzfeed News journalist on how much coverage Fox News should give to Antifa compared to homelessness is irrelavent. We need to know whether these articles produced by Fox are reliable and fact checked (which as I explained above I believe they are) not what topics they do and do not cover. I cannot speak for the latter half of your comment since it is an offhand quote from Tara Setmaye as opposed to a multitude of RSs. It is possible Setmayer is true but was referring to the talk shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight which is more likely to be true as opposed to the website. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Benkler et al.'s Network Propaganda is a peer-reviewed Oxford University Press book.[5] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter for our purposes whether Fox covers various news events proportionally. What matters is whether specific news articles produced by Fox News are reliably accurate. If we were using Fox News coverage as an integrated whole to tell what current events are important based on their coverage, yes, that would be a problem, because they often selectively choose what topics to cover most heavily. But Fox's lack of coverage of the opioid crisis, for example, has no bearing on whether an individual Fox News article on homelessness, for example, is accurate. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 21:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'll just add a bit of clarity per an NPR interview with Benkler: INSKEEP: Benkler was drawing a picture of something we can't really see, how millions of people find and pass on information. He's a Harvard professor. He also works with the Open Society Foundations. Those are the pro-democracy groups funded by George Soros, the financier who has commonly backed Democrats in the United States. Does anyone have a link to the "peer review" so we can see who was on that panel? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with other commenters that the reliability of their cable pundits are separate from their news operation (I would consider the pundits to be generally unreliable considering their recent role in downplaying the Pandemic and for many other misleading and false statements made throughout the years). However their publication of a false story about Seth Rich working with Wikileaks was an egrigious error of judgement, which they (thankfully) subsequently retracted, which makes them much better than some sources (cough, OpIndia, cough). However, their decision to publish the story in the first place makes me question their editorial judgement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2020 UTC)
• Concerns have been raised about other articles in Fox News by Malia Zimmerman, the author of the Seth Rich report, see The New Republic and Quartz

  That was Hannity - a pundit. Maddow does the same stuff only different topics. We've also endured 2 or 3 years of a Russian collusion nothingburger by left leaning sources. Our job is to bypass the speculation, conspiracy theories and biased opinion journalism regardless of who is publishing it - they all do. Stick to WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEWSORG - the latter of which are now conglomerates. Wait for the historians and academics to give their retrospective accountings. There is no argument here that I've read that is not based in political opinion, and that is not a valid reason to declare the most watched cable news show unreliable. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Atsme:, While Hannity also spread the conspiracy theory, it was also reported on at foxnews.com, see this archive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  That archived report was simply a news report - the big 3 also reported the incident. ABC reported it and criticized Fox "commentators", not Fox newscasters. Please state the facts accurately. Fox has criticized the networks as well for their misreporting of events. It goes back and forth. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, MSNBC is not reliable for factual reporting. Even though Maddow, unlike Hannity, does cite her sources. Guy (help!) 23:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Guy, do you frequently watch Hannity or Maddow? If my memory serves, they're on at the same time? From what I understand, Hannity actually interviews the sources on his show (radio talk-show, too). I can quickly recall Maddow's "self-defeating spectacle" per Slate over Trump's tax returns, and there are several such spectacles, not unlike Hannity's but guess who leads in the ratings for whatever reason? And what exactly determines "mainstream" - one's POV, or the ratings? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 I would not trust anything I read on Wikipedia that was cited to Fox News content alone. They purposefully manipulate their content for political attention and have an obvious bias that should disqualify them from any use as a reference for even the most basic facts, especially when it comes to America and/or the rest of the world. GPinkerton (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, Fox News is politically biased to the extent that it affects their supposedly factual reporting. Take this article, front page of their website right now, about the New York Times, which is titled: Liberal paper's editorial page editor steps down amid fury over Cotton op-ed note that the actual article once you click on it is titled differently, meaning that they specifically had this title on their home page in order to drive up rage in place of actually reporting. This is just one example of many, Fox News is a right-wing propaganda outlet that is most certainly not reliable. I would not go so far as to call them unreliable, since as far as I know they have not published downright false information systematically, but I am changing my vote per comments below, any source which publishes climate change denial and Seth Rich conspiracy theories is not reliable. Having that green next to their name is a display in bothsidesism that is not reflected in reality. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Which part of the headline was inaccurate? The NYT itself reported that its editorial page editor had resigned and that his resignation was connected to negative response to the publication of Tom Cotton's op-ed. [6] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The New York Times is a left-wing paper. The headline you're referring to is completely accurate (if real). Many news organizations title their headlines differently on the main page than the actual article and usually it's to condense content or drum up clicks. CNN's front page is doing that right now. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 02:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, or, failing that, 2. No one, I hope, disputes that Fox is extremely WP:BIASED on anything to do with American politics (and I'll note that cites to it are often careless about the requirement for in-text attribution that that generally requires.) While such biased sources can be used provided their bias doesn't interfere with their fact-checking or accuracy, the issue with Fox is that the ideological mission it was founded for takes absolute priority over these things. ([7][8]) It has been covered as a case-study in propaganda ([9][10]) and as a leader in the shift towards market-driven sensationalism at the expense of accuracy. ([11][12]) More importantly for our purposes, these things have led to misleading or outright inaccurate coverage of many disparate topics, especially, though not limited to, climate change. ([13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]) Most recently (and perhaps most dangerously), Fox News' COVID-19 coverage has been notably inaccurate in a way that may have contributed to the severity of the epidemic in the US ([23][24][25]); this, I think, is the main reason to categorize it as a 3. It is true that the network is extremely popular and has high viewership, and it is true that a lot of what they cover is merely biased rather than misleading; additionally, it could be tempting to say that the network is only grossly, constantly misleading and inaccurate in a few specific contexts (eg. climate change), and that it's therefore unusable for those topics but still usable elsewhere. But I feel the recent wave of COVID-19 misinformation from the network provides clear evidence that Fox will freely publish inaccurate or misleading stories without warning, on any topic, the moment the people in charge decide that doing so is important to their core ideological mission and hand it down as part of the daily memo, even in situations where doing so is extremely dangerous. Trying to carve out only a few "unsafe" uses for it as a source is a bad idea because the underlying problem is systematic - while they are not incapable of fact-checking and accuracy, their ability to meet that standard is fatally compromised by a structure that places it completely subordinate to their ideological goals, and by ownership and leadership that have shown themselves to be entirely willing to disregard fact-checking and accuracy, even for extremely important topics, when they find it ideologically convenient to do so. --Aquillion (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Aquillion, please delete specify ^{correction 10:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)} the sources that refer to the political commentary on Fox News Channel and not Fox News newcasts. This RfC is focused on the newscast, not the political commentary talk-shows. I went through several of your sources and they refer to the commentary, not the news. Thanks! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 for most purposes, option 3 for political and racial issues, based largely on the fact that the reputation of the network for bias would taint the reliability of Wikipedia articles citing it for those purposes. Fox just drew controversy for an issue where it posted a graphic of stock market gains tied to prominent murders of African-Americans. Moreover—and this is an aspect I really haven't seen raised before—option 2, at least, because some of their content appears to be undisclosed paid advertising. For example, in one period I saw numerous articles on Fox touting a "Black Rifle Coffee" company, so much so that I even started a draft article on the company. However, I quickly ran into a roadblock in finding that all other news reporting of any substance on the company was in pay-for-play churnalism venues. Upon further examination, it became apparent to me that the Fox pieces were written more like paid advertisements than objective news pieces, and contained objectively false characterizations of the notoriety of the company. There was no disclosure of any payment, so Fox is either in the pay-for-play reporting business, or they are allowing articles to be published that readily appear to be pay-for-play reporting. Either option is problematic for any news coverage that could potentially benefit a party with a pecuniary interest in how an article is presented, from a perspective of either financial or political gain. BD2412 T 22:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  BD2412, do you have a link to that controversy? I'm on island time and pretty much out of the loop in real-time. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, covered here. Of course, Fox is hardly the first network to have to apologize for tone deaf coverage. BD2412 T 01:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. You're right about apologies - back in January, CNN went silent when Andrew McCabe apologized for lying to investigators. Most recently, this apology by Brian Stelter with CNN who lied about ‘no sign of smoke or fire’. Do we downgrade CNN? I can provide numerous errors and ommissions for that network, as well as MSNBC, ABC, CBS & NBC. Did any other network besides Fox News report these things? We've already seen how the left-leaning stations & networks handled Reade-Biden sexual assault allegation vs how they handled Kavanaugh. WP garnered negative media attention over the left-leaning handling of it - don't you find that concerning? Being a biased source is not a valid reason to downgrade the most-watched news source (with right & left viewers) - to do so is strictly POV rather than being based on an equivalent analysis with other networks. WP policy requires NPOV - it's one of our core content policies - downgrading RS because we disagree with their POV is noncompliant with NPOV when choosing sources. Is the plan to downgrade all political news because it's all biased? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  I am actually somewhat more concerned that they may be promoting paid advertising as news. In retrospect, the thing that first struck me as suspicious about the "Black Rifle Coffee" story is that it appeared on the Fox website, then disappeared for a time, and then reappeared at intervals, a pattern more characteristic of an advertising campaign than a news story. BD2412 T 02:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see any paid advertising scheme there, but I do see insensitivity, and they apologized for taking it out of context, as well they should - somebody obviously wasn't thinking straight. There is no mention in that report about "Black Rifle Coffee" that I could find, so it seems to me that mentioning it with the S&P issue would be SYNTH with a splash of OR, wouldn't it? Newsrooms can be hectic, and you can rest assured it's a ripe environment for mistakes. The latter is why I have always stressed "exercise caution" when citing news sources today. The same FCC regulations that apply to broadcast news don't apply in the same manner to cable/internet news - they enjoy much more freedom because they're not using public airwaves, although none of them are totally immune from political pressure. If you haven't read my op-ed in The Signpost this month, please do.<— shameless advertising, not paid advertising. 😉 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  SYNTH and OR are not really applicable, as we are not discussing whether to include such assertions in an article. Whether we are dealing with shameless advertising or paid advertising, the ultimate effect is that they published claims about the subject that led me to believe that it was a notable subject, and those claims turned out to be inaccurate. BD2412 T 18:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

*Option 3 they call Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham news. Shows that they don't separate factual reporting from opinions. They promote conspiracy theories with no basis and call it news. Smith0124 (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet vote and comment. Humanengr (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Smith0124, there's a difference between opinion & talk shows and straight news reporting. Fox's talk shows are as much of a crapshoot, w.r.t. political affairs, as all other mainstream media. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Atsme with a bit of the Option 2 caution suggested by Cactus Jack. I personally think this RfC should be closed since the intent seems to be to ask the same question over and over again until finally someone will close with the answer a group of editors has been hunting for. Springee (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 While Fox News Channel was founded to provide a forum for U.S. conservative opinion, it has always provided a professional news service. I don't see that the fact they provide right wing commentary detracts from that. Many of their talk show hosts came from other cable news networks: Glenn Beck, Geraldo Rivera, Lou Dobbs, while Megyn Kelly moved from Fox to NBC. All news by the way is biased since editorial discretion is required in choosing stories to present. For example, Fox News covered the sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden long before other legacy media did. But that has nothing to do with the accuracy of their reporting, merely that their emphasis is different. TFD (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. The following text is in regards to the news reporting division at Fox News (not its prime talk shows and commentators). Academic sources widely consider Fox News as a propaganda outlet, including in its straight news reporting which is often misleading, hypes up non-stories and gets things egregiously wrong all the time. I'll keep the focus primarily on two issues rather than to just list every egregiously wrong thing that Fox News has done: (i) Fox News' climate change denial propaganda and (ii) the intentional promotion of Seth Rich conspiracy theories to divert attention from a negative news cycle for Trump.

  (I) Climate change. Peer-reviewed research has widely described Fox News as a major platform for climate change denial. According to the fact-checking website Climate Feedback, Fox News is part of "a network of unreliable outlets for climate news."

  • Bill Sammon, the Fox News Washington managing editor, instructed Fox News journalists to dispute the scientific consensus on climate change: "A leaked email from the managing editor of Fox News Washington, Bill Sammon, during the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009 reveals Fox’s sceptical policy towards climate change. Sammon advised Fox journalists to “refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question”." Page 174 of Marisol Sandoval. "From Corporate to Social Media: Critical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in Media and Communication Industries". Routledge.
  • Bret Baier, a straight-news anchor pushing climate denial propaganda -“In February 2010, a paper on sea level rise that had previously been published in Nature Geosciences was formally withdrawn by the authors because of an error they had identified subsequently in their calculations. Fox News announced the development in this vein: “More Questions About Validity of Global Warming Theory.” In fact, the error in the calculations had led the authors to projections of future sea level rise that were too low!" Page 223 of Michael E. Mann. “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines.”
  • Bill Hemmer, a straight-news anchor: Promotion of Climategate falsehoods: "“This particular falsehood had been promoted recently by venues such as Fox News , e.g., Bill Hemmer on Fox’s America’s Newsroom, December 3, 2009: “Recently leaked emails reveal that scientists use, quote, ‘tricks’ to hide evidence of a decline in global temperatures over the past, say, few decades." Page 353 of Michael E. Mann. “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines.”

  (II) Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy (i.e. "Russia didn't hack the DNC"). On May 16, 2017, a day when other news organizations were extensively covering Donald Trump's revelation of classified information to Russia, Fox News ran a lead story about a private investigator's uncorroborated claims about the murder of Seth Rich, a DNC staffer. The Fox News story reported that the private investigator had uncovered evidence that Rich was in contact with Wikileaks and that law enforcement were covering it up. The story was in the context of right-wing conspiracy theories that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party had Seth Rich killed because he was the source of the DNC leaks. U.S. intelligence agencies determined Russia was the source of the leaks. In reporting the investigator's claims, the Fox News report reignited right-wing conspiracy theories about the killing. The Fox News story fell apart within hours because other news organizations did the basic journalistic legwork to confirm aspects of the story that Fox News intentionally opted not to do. Furthermore, other news organizations quickly revealed the investigator was a Donald Trump supporter and had according to NBC News "developed a reputation for making outlandish claims, such as one appearance on Fox News in 2007 in which he warned that underground networks of pink pistol-toting lesbian gangs were raping young women." Later that same day, the private investigator said he had no evidence that Rich had contacted Wikileaks. The investigator claimed he only learned about the possible existence of the evidence from the Fox News reporter herself. Even though other news organizations had quickly found the story to be erroneous and the story had complete fallen apart within hours, Fox News chose merely to alter the contents of its story and its headline, but did not issue corrections.  It took Fox News a week to retract the story. Unlike normal news organizations, Fox News did not bother to publicly explain what went wrong in its reporting. The reporter behind the fabricated story, Malia Zimmermann, may still be working at Fox News (that's at least what her Twitter bio says) despite having egregiously fabricated a story – Fox News can't show the basic transparency of clarifying whether she is still working behind the scenes on Fox News stories.

  Note that as soon as the Fox News story appeared, editors on the Murder of Seth Rich page fought hard to include it in the article. Editors on the talk page argued that Fox News was considered "generally reliable" (this includes one editor who is voting for Option 1 in this very RfC). This is precisely why Option 1 is unacceptable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  • And note that I argued against inclusion on the basis that the story had not been widely reported. Also note that you argued vociferously to include a misleading story about Rep. Tulsi Gabbard that had only been reported in one news source (NBC) and I argued against inclusion for the same reason. But that is the nature of investigative reporting. One news source presents something that a source told them and the rest of the media either pick up the story or they don't. Are we going to ban NBC News too on the basis that they are biased in favor of establishment Democrats? TFD (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    • As soon as one other RS reported "According to Fox News...", you said "Fantastic! Let's include this batshit insane conspiracy theory in the article."[26] I have no idea what your Gabbard commentary is about. On the Murder of Seth Rich article, I had to spend hours re-writing and fixing the article, and preventing editors such as yourself from lending credibility to a deranged conspiracy theory on one of the most read websites in the world and preventing editors such as yourself from imposing more harm on a murder victim's family. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Your climate change points are not any proof against RS. Point 1 doesn't mean anything because that isn't reflected in any actual stories we can point to, nor is it a requirement for WP in reporting on CC stories that the news source has assert climate change is real in every story about climate change. Unless the source is spinning every climate change story in full outright denial mode, that doesn't make them unreliable (At worst, judging the latest CC stories they have run [27], [28], [29] they play just a bit into "skeptic" but they do not let that taint how they report the basic facts of these climate change reports, only just throwing in a para "skeptics say these there may be no climate change" langauge" somewhere. That's not wrong nor touches anything about their RSness. Your point two is using the headline of a story which is never considered reliable so we ignore that. On 3, its clearly misunderstanding the language of the emails as applied to the data per [30] (eg even that book gets the context wrong). So no, none of that proves Fox is not an RS. I wouldn't use them for CC news data only because I don't believe their bias would be helpful and other sources are tons better in terms of the basic science that is involved like NYTimes, but that doesn't rule it out.
  • On the whole thing with Rich, the "news" part of Fox that reported on the conspiracy was simply reporting it existed (that the Fox opinion desk side were going all crazy over it) and gave insight from the other side's denial nothing happened like that. Did they chase it down as well as the NYTimes or others? No. Is that a requirement for an RS? No (like the answer to the CC #1 above). All we are looking for is editorial control and fact-checking, which they did some. Not as extensive, and likely they were rushing to print (again, they have a bias) . And key to all that: They Redacted the story within the week [31] . Editorial control. That's all that matters for the RS factor. Now, that editors rushed to want to add it, that's a problem that we are not enforcing BLP, NOTNEWS, and RECENTISM especially with controversial claims from biased RSes. --Masem (t) 03:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    • It was the news division that was behind the Seth Rich story! It was a Fox News scoop – not commentary by Sean Hannity. There would have been nothing for the opinion desk side of Fox News to get crazy over if not for the fabricated story by the straight news division. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 as long as we are clear we are not talking about their opinion or talk shows, but only their news programs or news portions of their websites which have been repeated shown to follow the expected editorial control we expect of RSes, biases notwithstanding. Bias does not discount a reliable source, though it is fair to raise the question (like this) if a bias has affected the reliability of a source. Their talk shows should be treated only as RSOPINION and used only when DUE is appropriate. I also point out as noted below this has been asked at least 3-4 times in a non-formal RFC (which is NOT required to include on RS/P) and the weight of those discussions be considered in this. --Masem (t) 03:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • How can the news division of Fox News be considered reliable when its reporters are instructed to promote climate change denial and when said straight-news reporters act upon these instructions and tell brazen falsehoods about climate change? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Their reporters don't lie about climate change, but they give too much time to climate change deniers. Similarly, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and the broadsheets gave way too much coverage to misleading pundits falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction, in fact manipulating public opinion in favor of what would be a devastating military adventure. TFD (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Do you have any examples of this that aren't over a decade old? If so, please provide them. Ten years is a long time in the politics and media world. 10 years ago Mitt Romney was the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting; today he's one of the most vocal critics of the Republican president. 10 years ago Breitbart News was a generic conservative commentary site; nowadays it's a hard-right propaganda outlet. The layman's consensus in the US around climate change is much, much stronger than it was a decade ago. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 03:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Fox News, Nov 2018[32]: "NASA warns long cold winter could hit space in months bringing record low temperatures" – A complete misrepresentation of the science in order to promote a global cooling narrative.[33]
      • Fox News, Oct 2019[34]: "Explosion in Antarctic sea ice levels may cause another ice age" – A complete misrepresentation of the science in order to promote a global cooling narrative.[35].
      • Fox News, Feb 2017[36]: "Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges" – Giving credence to the dumb ravings of a climate change denier[37]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
        • The Nov 2018 was a mistake several outlets made per Poynter and per Poyner "Like Metro, Fox and The Sun have also since corrected their stories." Editorial control. So not proof.
        • Oct 2019 story: As per Climate Feedback: "The Fox News article has been corrected..." Editorial control. though the fact they don't check with scientists of the work behind a paper before publishing the results of a paper is not great journalism but that's not a requirement under RS.
        • Feb 2017, this one is a bit different. If you read Fox's article, all claims of it are directly attributed to other sources and none to their own; the slowdown claim is from the whistleblower, and of course Daily Mail and Washington Times are used as other sources of information. Now, red flags go up in that I would not touch this story for use in any CC related article, but I stress that in terms of an RS, its not wrong. It doesn't go out of its way to say "this is bad understanding of a graph" but thats again, not a requirement of an RS, and in terms of discussion if someone said "We need to use this article", I would suspect that UNDUE factors from other less biased sources would be there. But again, nothing about that article says anything against being an RS. Just a biased source for CC claims. --Masem (t) 04:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
          • All the sources that also happened to make Fox News's "mistake" were sources which are considered generally unreliable or which have been deprecated (does the fact that The Sun sometimes runs corrections make it a reliable source with thorough editorial control? No, of course not). That's a clue as to what company Fox News belongs in. And it's entirely consistent with the existing academic literature on the broader network of right-wing disinformation that Fox News sits smack in the middle of. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Just like CNN and MSNBC and all the other cable news channels, they have a news show and a talking head show. Their news is reliable, just as most of the other RS, even if they don't share the same bias as CNN or MSNBC. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Baloney, this is the old false equivalence claim. Fox doesn't even try to be neutral, their biases are displayed on their sleeves for anyone to see. CNN and MSNBC keep their news operations separate from the opinion operations, but at Fox, it's all one bag -- that's precisely and entirely what Roger Ailes intended to create. You could see it in his programming on the pre-Fox "America's Talking" channel (that became MSNBC after they kicked Ailes out). His purpose has always been to create a conservative-leaning "news" channel which would counter the bias he perceived in CNN. He wasn't shy about declaring this, and the result is the biased, unreliable Fox News we have today. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not really commenting in the poll, but it’s worth pointing out that there is a substantial difference between Fox News TV and foxnews.com. The former can have some decent reporting depending on the reporter and anchor (also some real crap as has already been pointed out.) Foxnews.com makes the Daily Mail look like the New York Times, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 for the most part. Fox News is reliable enough for run-of-the-mill news, but not for news regarding politics or anything connected to politics. They do not maintain a Chinese wall between their news operation and their opinion operations, and are blatantly biased in favor of Trump and the Republican Party, and against anything perceived to be liberal or (God forbid!) socialist. I have no opinion about the local stations, but would suggest that the owned-and-operated stations are more likely to hew to the Murdoch/Ailes model, while the affiliates would be independent operations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 for the core news reporting (though there can always be exceptions), and option 4 for the pundits, talk shows, and opinion pieces. I fully agree with GPinkerton's and BD2412's assessments of Fox's lack of editorial diligence, and Aquillion has highlighted only a fraction of their misinformation campaign. Even setting my political bias aside, I do not trust their capability to report statements of fact. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 06:14, 08 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per JzG. Having read Network Propaganda, this is conclusively proven. Because you cannot rely on self-correction of mistakes, every piece from Fox News needs to be independently verified by the user and therefore citing Fox News ends up being an act of original research. There will be still things one can source to Fox News, for instance "Fox News thinks" or "Murdoch told on Fox News that". For right-wing perspectives one can always cite other prolific media like The Hill which, while clearly politically tinted, tends to be more matter-of-fact (for now). Nemo 08:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Standard WP:NEWSORG with oversight. Yes it may have political leanings, but so does The Guardian, CNN and the majority of other media outlets. Yet I don't see them getting the same treatment as this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 I'd normally try to stay away from US politics as toxic but feel obliged to respond to RfC's listed at WP:CENT. I nominated the two most recent stories listed as blurbs at WP:ITN and so am familiar with their details. Looking at the coverage of these on Fox News ([38], [39]), this seems shallow but accurate and generally unexceptional. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 meets WP:NEWSORG with oversight just like CNN and MSNBC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 mostly, Option 2 at best for core news reporting. Fox News has consistently peddled inaccurate/fake news, whether an hierarchical structure of a news organisation exists is irrelevant. Fox News also lacks the journalistic tradition of correcting their mistakes publicly in most cases - to state how widespread it is, I found an example in the last one day alone, WTVQ. For pundits and opinion pieces (Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, et al.) it should strictly be Option 4 due their nature of sensationalizing news reporting and often making biased and inaccurate reporting. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - It either meets RS standards or not. Their core news department does meet WP:NEWSORG from what I can tell. Pundits and opinions should be handled by WP:NEWSBLOG. I think it is important for people to realize the distinction here and I think that is what is being missed by some. PackMecEng (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 One of the only major conservative news outlets, it is a source for reliable news. Just like CNN is considered reliable even though both news sites have a bias and tend to lead towards their political standing. It would be a shame to not count Fox news as reliable. Csar00 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 It meets WP:NEWSORG. Fox News being a WP:BIASED does not severely affect it's reliability; it is not WP:QUESTIONABLE since it's not an "extremist". Now in the COVID-19 pandemic, eh a small difference in its reliability. Taking hydroxychloriquine is not recommended, warned Neil Cavuto to Fox News Viewers. Well then.
  .@FoxNews is no longer the same. We miss the great Roger Ailes. You have more anti-Trump people, by far, than ever before. Looking for a new outlet! Donald J. Trump 4:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC).
  That is enough to show that Fox News doesn't have bias that affects it's reliability. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 16:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for the news programming, Option 2 or 3 for the pundit programming. Nothing has really changed since the last RFC on this. Note- I would have the same opinion if we were discussing CNN or MSNBC. The problem is that too many of our editors have difficulty differentiating between news reporting, news analysis, and news commentary/opinion. Each needs to be handled differently. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2. I think everyone here acknowledges Fox has a conservative bias. That alone is not enough to deem the network unreliable or to deprecate it, unless we also take a hard look at MSNBC. Calidum 18:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment A lot of responses in this thread so far are simply "reliable per NEWSORG" without any justification. I would like to present another story, the false claim that Omar Mateen had been radicalised by Marcus Dwayne Robertson. From The New Republic:

  Since [Malia] Zimmerman joined Fox News in 2015, Fox News has repeatedly picked up her reporting and used it to legitimize the larger counter-narratives that form Fox News’s fevered worldview. These stories touched on alleged issues like voter fraud, gun confiscation, the Benghazi terrorist attack, the unmasking of Trump transition officials in confidential documents, and the murder of Seth Rich. Fox News has repeatedly picked up Zimmerman’s reporting and used it to legitimize the larger counter-narratives that form Fox News’s fevered worldview. In June 2016, shortly after the attack on the gay nightclub Pulse in Orlando that killed 49 people, Zimmerman reported that the shooter, Omar Mateen, had been radicalized by an imam and ex-con named Marcus Dwayne Robertson.

Citing anonymous law enforcement sources, Zimmerman alleged that Robertson had been “rounded up” in the wake of the attack and that Mateen had been radicalized while attending an online seminary run by Robertson. But Robertson and Mateen had never met. Furthermore, Robertson had never been “rounded up” by anyone. That didn’t stop Fox News from running with the story—or other outlets, including The Daily Beast, from picking it up—until it was finally debunked. Robertson was forced to defend himself on Greta Van Susteren’s Fox News show On the Record. As reporter David Gauvey Herbert wrote in Quartz his explanation satisfied Susteren. But the damage was done. Zimmerman’s shadowy unnamed sources—whom Herbert and others have been unable to identify—fingered a man who had nothing to do with the terror attack and upended his life. Robertson lost his job and faced a barrage of death threats, despite having no connection to Mateen.

The story, which is still online has not been corrected or retracted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Why should it be retracted? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe retracted is the wrong word, but there's no update on the story to indicate that the claims are no longer considered true. The only update on the story was adding Omar Mateen to the death count. Hemiauchenia (talk)

What claims? Please provide a link to the source that supports what you're saying because I don't know what you're talking about. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"or other outlets, including The Daily Beast, from picking it up" Would you argue that the other sources should be downgraded as well as Fox? I note that The Daily Beast was this year upgraded to a green source on PERENNIAL, should we reverse that? NPalgan2 (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem with bad news stories is that they are like anecdotes, they don't tell you the hit rate. I don't think having reported a news story that later turns out to be incorrect is necessarily an issue of reliability, I mean look at the whole Covington thing. As the Perennial sources entry indicates, "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons" Which is inline with them covering this story, as it involves BLPs. I would consider the Daily Beast a significantly lower quality source than something like the NYT or WashPo, and if something is being covered in the Daily Beast but not those would have to make a judgement if its use was appropriate. I called this RfC simply to get a new concensus on how reliable Fox News is, not because I have a vendetta against Fox News or conservatives. I would be happy to see Fox News retain its generally reliable rating at the end of this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 There is clear bias in how they report certain things, and which things they report and which they don't. For instance, I believe they're the only news organization anyone would consider legitimate at all that tried to discuss the Michael Flynn "unmasking" issue as anything other than a right-wing conspiracy theory. They are okay on some factual matters, but we should use caution when citing Fox News. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Limited option 2 - Option 2 is very broad, so I'm going to say that Fox News is problematic on a significant amount of US political reporting. Outside of that, their flaw rate certainly is no worse that others that sources we consider generally reliable (which certainly doesn't require perfection by any means). That political reporting (reasonably construed) is not always flawed, but an appreciable amount is. As noted above, this is often on what is notreported (or not covered in depth) - this can make their reporting lack context, but may, or may not, mitigate on accuracy concerns about what is present. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, certainly for anything related to science, politics, or COVID per Snoogans and also concerned about native advertising per BD2412. buidhe 19:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 on news reporting. I note that they use a considerable amount of AP content. Obviously does not apply to commentary.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Somewhere between Option 1 and Option 2 for their straight reporting with the usual sanity checks - newsorgs are only the first draft of history, but is the news side of Fox really so much worse than its peers? Certainly the Seth Rich article (three years ago) was a grotesque lapse of judgment, what of CNN letting Chris Cuomo lob softballs at his brother rather than press him on his atrocious response to the coronavirus? NPalgan2 (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  NPalgan2, please avoid the whataboutism and keep an eye on your own POV. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Muboshgu, the whataboutism link you provided is to a WP article, not WP:PAG. On WP, the closest PAG I could find is the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, which is both useful and useless, depending on context. The essay states: When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. I'm of the mind that this is one of those instances where consistency is important. Some of the comments in this discussion remind me of The Atlantic article. I'm of the mind that when either side of an argument is silenced or intimidated into silence, it leads to a homogenous community that is incompatible with NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  A "whataboutism" is nevertheless an argument that should not be used and should be called out for what it is. I don't think we're using Cuomo on Cuomo interviews as anything other than an occasional source of amusement. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 and Comment. FOX News has had a front-row seat at the White House Press Briefing Room along with NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN for a very long time reporting on the activities of multiple presidencies, both Democrat and Republican. I believe that FOX News should be treated *the same way* as NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN. Also, to the OP User:Hemiauchenia, in the interest of transparency, could you please fill out your User Page with some information about yourself? Thank you. History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 20:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  History DMZ, Please do not ask editors to post personal information. It is not required to post political opinions either. Please respect WP:PRIVACY. buidhe 20:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe, I never asked for *personal* information. I asked for *some* information. That can be userboxes, a short introduction, etc. Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't speak. But to be clear, NO personal information was asked of the OP. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 20:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  History DMZ, I can tell you that I don't really care for Hemiauchenia, despite the fact my account is named after it, having never edited the article. I do think the article (alongside that of Paleolama) are in need of serious work though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hemiauchenia, thank you for your cordial and humorous reply. Perhaps what you just shared is TMI for some lol. But seriously, it wouldn't hurt if you introduced yourself a little to the community through your user page. It's *optional* of course. Cheers, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 20:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  History DMZ, The White House gave press passes to Infowars and OANN. That means literally nothing. Guy (help!) 12:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, The Obama White House (2009-2017), whom I voted into office and hold no bias for or against, gave *front-row* press passes to FOX News and sat them next to NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN. That means a lot. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(talk)+(ping)} 18:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  @History DMZ: that was then. They have totally changed because of Trump. It's a symbiotic relationship made in hell. They have moved from ordinary right-wing RS, to extreme right-wing allies of Russian propaganda defending Trump, no matter what, and we know he lies constantly. -- Valjean (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 Far more reliable than its cable competitors such as the pathetic CNN or MSNBC that are little more than 24/7 coverage of "we hate Trump". Considering all the poorly worded tones of once reliable sources such as the NYTimes, the WaPo, BBC and simliar mostly print based news entities, FoxNews appears as reliable as as them overall. Since we shy away from posting news opinion pieces in most BLPs we also do so with cable based pundit commentary, or at least we should.--MONGO (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, with Option 3 for political content. Speaking as a journalist, Fox News's news coverage, while better than its opinions commentary, still flouts the professional standards of the industry, and this has worsened since the prior RfC. The Seth Rich example (Poynter headline: "Fox News’s retraction is a woefully inadequate response to its colossal mistake") is just one of many. While it does often publish decent enough content, I agree with Nemo that anything we cite to it would have to be confirmed somewhere else more reliable, at which point it is no longer functioning as a source. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Opinion, punditry, and headlines aside, their straight news stuff is fine. Like SJ says, on par with CNN, MSNBC, or any other cable news. (Well, better actually than some cable news, like OANN and Newsmax.) I agree with Masem's comments above that making mistakes and correcting them later is not a sign of unreliability. I think it's quite the opposite in fact. Fox News is not a top-tier source and can usually be replaced by a better source, but it's an RS, when used properly. By the way, we just did this last year. [40] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1- How many more of these discussions do we need to have. Sure I understand that consensus can change, but having the same exact discussion every other month just because there is a group of people who hate Fox News is a massive waste of time. It is at least as reliable as its competitor CNN and we haven't banned that as a source yet.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Reliable. Elizium23 (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Per Atsme. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 As far as actual factual reporting they seem to do about as well as most NewsOrgs. They post their corrections which are easy to call out. Not a huge fan of what they choose to write about but that doesn't make it unreliable. The Punditry is hot garbage but then most punditry isn't reliable anyway.AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Options 1 to 4. The news department will generally get "sky is blue" type facts right. They still get all the way over into reporting debunked information, which is sometimes called out by other members of the team, but not always.

Are they "reliable for US Politics"? Hell no. Ask yourself if their reporting deviates from what all other mainstream news sources report. If someone can't see that there is a huge difference between their reporting and the reporting from the rest of mainstream media, they are blind. If they do see the difference, and still consider Fox News generally reliable for US politics, they don't know what's really happening, are buying the GOP party line without thinking, and don't know how to vet sources for reliability. Note that such people consistently hate fact-checking sources.

Keep in mind that research shows that Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All

Fox News was created by Roger Ailes to be a voice for the GOP, not a real "news" station. It's their propaganda channel. With the arrival of Trump, they have gone from normal right-wing (which can be opinionated, but still reliable) to extreme right-wing (which, like extreme left-wing, are not reliable) and often repeat Russian talking points, the exact same ones being pushed by RT and Sputnik, which are Russian propaganda channels. That is very worrying.-- Valjean (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, for the sake of academic clarity - two FDU professors that were involved in the original New Jersey and later international polling (your link above), Peter J. Woolley and Dan Cassino, explained the misleading results by the news media as follows: "Does Fox News make you dumb? No, but that was the headline generated by news aggregators re-reporting research by Fairleigh Dickinson University‘s PublicMind." They closed with the following statement: We never said, nor meant to say, that Fox viewers are dumb — or MSNBC viewers for that matter. They’re no better or worse than the average respondents. Clearly, anyone who is dumb and watching TV was dumb when he or she sat down in front of the tube. Some news sources just don’t help matters any. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

To ^Atsme - Results from the 2012 Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU) survey that Valjean reported on (above) found that "Fox News viewers were less informed about current events than people who didn't follow the news at all." [41] That's the result of their study. So it's best to avoid getting hung-up on a headline & instead focus on the results of the study. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2. Great to be here. Lots of folks out there are saying Option 1 and many are saying Option 3, but I like Option 2. In my experience, the reliability of the "News Division" of Fox News has gone down over recent years. I don't think enough people here are talking about that. For me, since Shepard Smith left,^[42] their standards have started to lax. According to Brian Stelter, Smith wasn't the only person in the News Division to leave, and he reported that Fox News executives are mainly trying to head the company away from prioritizing actual journalism in their coverage.^[43] Regardless, it is certainly clear that they have changed in some way over time.^[44]
  While writing this comment, I did some digging. I wanted a reliable source to tell me how other reliable sources think things are. It's easy to get caught up in your own perceptions of things, so I wanted something outside my own biases. What I found was this article. It's answer: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  It's not clear, and no one knows for sure. We can debate it all we want, but we're never going to get a satisfactory answer out of this question besides (to me) Option 2. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• It keeps coming up, because it's such a hard case. Ultimately, I land [close enough to] Option 2 for the news, except for politics which is somewhere between 2-3. Certainly the pundits/talk shows can range anywhere from option 2-4, depending, but the news content is ok for a lot of subjects. I think where it's hardest is when it comes to story selection and word choice in matters of US politics, culture wars, crime, etc. Fox doesn't regularly simply get it wrong and doesn't often contradict other sources on the basic facts, but will cover some things that don't get any traction elsewhere and is more likely to use particular kinds of language to cover those stories, exploiting fears and stoking outrage (like one they've gotten some flack for in the past is "thug" -- for which they're certainly not the only one, of course). These kinds of editorial decisions and framing language have a decidedly negative impact on the accuracy of the content. They're not alone in doing this, but have incorporated it as a fundamental approach, executed in consistent ways. For example, the study that showed that people who watch no news can answer questions about current events more accurately than someone who watches Fox. For the record, I don't think local affiliates should be part of this RfC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, generally. Mostly per all of the above. I'd also add that Fox tends to be a good source in terms of determining what the Republican Party's stance on an issue is. This is roughly in line with my opinion on the merits of including Xinhua or CGTN as a barometer of the "official stance" of the CCP. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2: The arguments that Fox News is generally reliable because of WP:NEWSORG aren't convincing. This specific part of the RS content guideline reflects general consensus for the entire class of sources that are news organizations, and the following are not the same:
  • generally considered to be reliable (from WP:NEWSORG, bolding mine)
  • considered to be generally reliable (an apparently common interpretation here)
  When it comes to an RfC to determine the consensus on the individual reliability of a particular news organization, it's a very weak argument to just say that Fox News is a news organization and then point to the massively general group of news organizations. We need to identify whether the particular news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy
  There is problematic journalism by Fox News, which is elaborated by (among others): JzG and Aquillion regarding misinformation and inaccuracies, Snooganssnoogans and Aquillion regarding climate change and conspiracy theories, Aquillion regarding academic studies on the priority given to ideology, and Sdkb and MJL regarding general journalistic standards.
  Fox News does have editorial oversight, yes, but the existence of an editorial team doesn't guarantee reliability. The quality and standards of that editorial process is not at the same level expected of a generally reliable source (bolding mine):

  The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team.

  The historical level of journalism over the past decade requires editors to pay significant attention to individual articles, in many contexts, before they can be used as references. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) (Standard disclaimer of I'mabout their opinion/commentary, which is a solid "4", but just the actual news...) Either 3 or 4 overall, and its questionable assessment of appropriate weight means it absolutely should not be used in assessing WP:DUE; probably 2 for the basic facts themselves. I don't think it's the worst offender in regular use on ENWP; it tends to get basic facts right more than it gets them wrong (admittedly a shamefully low bar to set); it strikes me as only a dull roar of awfulness surrounded by a sea of utter journalistic tripe. I'd rank it substantially below "real" reporting — Reuters, AP, NYT — but a bit above all the tabloid-y rags like Huffington Post, Daily Beast, Washington Examiner, Complex, etc. By all means let's ditch Fox, but let's also take care of the tabloid infestation while we're at it! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 06:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per JzG, Devonian Wombat, Aquillion, Snooganssnoogans, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 1/2 My feelings mirror that of BD2412 for national programming fairly closely. I live in a very small television market, but I would have to say Option 1 for local affiliate news programming. My local station, WEUX contracts with the NBC affiliate for news programming. -- Dolotta (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: Respectable WP:NEWSORG with editorial control no different then NYT --Shrike (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Shrike, oh, I can think of some differences :-) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• I haven't done any investigation of the issue myself, but just looking at this thread, the points put forward by User:Masem are a lot more convincing than any of the points set out by those arguing against (many of which bring up things which aren't relevant to reliability). --Yair rand (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2/3. I think by now it is clear that the pundit shows are not included in this analysis. That said, Fox has shown a top-to-bottom willingness to slant coverage, to use misleading headlines, chyrons, tickers, etc., to give mouthpieces for despicable views a platform, to present conspiracy theories as facts, etc. WP:NEWSORG does not apply when a source has a well-established pattern and editorial direction that allows rumors and untruths (NB:untruths are different from usual journalistic mistruths) to be reported as facts. This is not merely bias. Unfortunately, a blanket statement about which of those options applies is impossible because the reliability varies depending on context, story subject, and even time slot. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Per Aquillion, Snooganssnoogans, and Guy. Everyday non-political/scientific event reporting is fine, but their record in fact-checking and explicit error correction is unacceptable. JoelleJay (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. treat the same as CNN, NYT, etc. As with any source, my first check is whether or not they have a corrections process and/or policy. They do. [45] Sure, they have gotten stories wrong, and corrected themselves, but then again they didn't treat us to 2 years of Russia Hoax, either. Their bias seems to be less of an issue than with, for example, CNN, which has broadcast 10 interviews of Andrew Cuomo by Chris Cuomo [46]. Additionally, the inclusion of Fox as a "gold-standard" source would give Wikipedia some sorely-needed political diversity in its "gold standard" sourcing on US politics, something we lack if we treat it any less than CNN, NYT, etc. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Adoring nanny: "they didn't treat us to 2 years of Russia Hoax, either". Therein lies the rub. Editors who think that Fox News constant pushing of the completely false conspiracy theory that the proven fact that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump win (that is the narrative from all RS) is a "Russia hoax" have swallowed the kool-aid served daily by Fox News. No wonder the votes for Option 1. They actually see that there is a huge difference between the counterfactual narrative pushed by Fox News, RT, Sputnik, Breitbart, Bongino, and all other fringe sources, and the factual narrative documented by all mainstream sources (IOW the ones we consider RS), and seeing that difference, they still believe the false conspiracy theories because they have been deceived into believing Trump's lie that mainstream media are fake news. No wonder we have this problem. They don't know how to vet sources. Fox Fake News is treated by them as equal to CNN, ABC, BBC, etc. No, there is a world of difference. -- Valjean (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    • The hoax is the assertion that Trump colluded with the Russians. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
      • @Adoring nanny: that's not the only part denied by Fox News, but, just to keep the terminology correct, the Mueller Report was not able to collect enough evidence (because of Trump's proven obstruction of the investigation) to prove "conspiracy"/"coordination", but did describe numerous examples of what could be considered collusion/co-operation/invitation/facilitation, which is not a crime, just disloyal to the interests of the United States. Trump and Fox News still attempt to deny/downplay that Russia interfered, and the term "Russia hoax" includes that, not just the part about collusion/no collusion. Trump has still not done anything to prevent the current disruption of the elections and has stated he would accept foreign interference to help him, and that he might not even notify the FBI, which would make him vulnerable to blackmail by foreign bad actors like Russia. -- Valjean (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
        • MR. CLAPPER: Well, no, it's not. I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election [47]. So Fox was right about that all along. A fine example of why we need them as a first-class source. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
          • You seem to be ignoring the difference between "conspiracy" and co-operation/collusion. Mueller describes the Trump campaign's actions quite well as "the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests." The Trump campaign did take myriad proven "actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests", but without evidence of a formal written or spoken agreement, conspiracy could not be proven, even if everything done, and the results of those actions, indicated that such an understanding existed, regardless of whether a formal "agreement" existed. Conspirators usually avoid leaving such evidence.

Starting in 2015, EIGHT foreign allied intelligence agencies reported to the FBI that numerous Trump campaign members and associates were secretly meeting with known Russian intelligence agents (who were being monitored). The campaign lied about all these contacts. Their conversations were so worrying and a threat to American democracy that those intelligence agencies reported their findings to the FBI (and maybe CIA). The Trump campaign was deeply involved with Russian intelligence, and we saw the results. That's collusion (or unproven conspiracy), no matter how it's defined. Fox News will not tell you any of that, but RS do, and our articles here do.

There is a huge difference in the coverage by Fox News and mainstream news. Fox News paints Trump and his campaign as innocent victims of a witch hunt, when all the suspicion was actually justified and a result of the campaign's own actions. Trump's continued refusals to condemn the interference and constant cozying up to Putin doesn't help. Now he's threatening to withdraw American troops from Germany, which is a nice gift to Putin.

The Steele Dossier alleged “a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation". Well guess what. Even though the "conspiracy" was not proven, what actually happened was loads of proven "co-operation". Fox News ignores what actually happened and focuses on what was not proven. How convenient. Trump is still "co-operating" with Putin, and that's very wrong. -- Valjean (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There is zero requirement that a RS tell a complete story. Obviously we give more credibility to the sources that have routinely shown commitment to tell the full story and follow up as needed (NYTimes) but plenty of other high-quality RSes will go to press with 3/4ths of the story and may update as the go along or the like (like CNN). Omission by choice of part of the story is also acceptable but of course this might depends on what's omitted and why. If a story involves a rumor about X and the publication doesn't even attempt to reach X to ask about it, that's iffy, while when a source does try to reach out to X and gets no response, they'll say that. Fox will omit parts of stories, this is not in doubt, and this leads to their bias, but it doesn't change their reliability in a big-picture sense. I would say that if a source is making so many omissions in a story to make it swiss cheese and or to actually make it swing a totally different way by omission of essential details, then we'd have a problem but that's not what Fox does. --Masem (t) 00:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I agree with everything except the last part. Fox News consistently ignores or downplays anything that is negative about Trump. That's classic pseudoscientific "journalism", because it's agenda-driven reporting. It's not real journalism. It's propaganda. They paint a totally different picture than the picture painted by all the mainstream sources, and that is not by accident. It's not a bug that they ignore "essential details" and end up pushing counterfactual narratives. They do it so egregiously that Shep Smith and Wallace were constantly having to call out the others. That's problematic. -- Valjean (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ahem, on their front page as of right now we have Pence criticized after meeting with packed room of trump campaign staff ignoring social distancing guidelines, with a big photo on their main page. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they actually document how Democrats criticize Pence. Nothing new about that. Now find examples of them criticizing Trump and you'll have examples of the exception that proves the rule, IOW proof that they rarely do it themselves. Such examples do exist, and they are remarkable, showing that they exceptionally rise to the standards of proper journalism they routinely violate. -- Valjean (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

From what I've read throughout this RfC, the opposition to FN is not convincing. Journalistic opinion in the media has become the norm as I've already demonstrated in this month's Signpost Op-Ed. Fox News has covered stories that others in MSM have refused to cover...at least until they basically had no choice but to cover it...Tara Reade comes to mind. As editors, we are responsible for encyclopedic content - not political rhetoric and speculation. Going back and forth over a RS not publishing what we expect per our POV vs another RS publishing what aligns with our POV - despite it being pure speculation in many cases (such as the Steele dossier and the Russian collusion conspiracy theory) - is what RECENTISM actually prevents from being included in our encyclopedia, and helps avoid the criticism we've been seeing in the media regarding WP having a leftist slant when our articles should be touted as being neutral. This problem is growing and it needs resolution for the sake of the project. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:Recentism doesn't prevent the inclusion of that content, although I have repeatedly seen it invoked in that context with the meaning that "we will prevent anything negative about Trump from being included until we see RS reporting only positive content about him, and only then will we allow it." That version of "recentism" is not according to policy. No, we use RS as they appear en masse (IOW when multiple RS report something), and we don't wait until our preferred version appears in RS. What we do is document what RS say now (sometimes waiting a few days to avoid violating "recentism"), and we update and revise content if the narrative and details in RS change, and that is what has been happening with that content you mention. The multiple attempts to completely delete the Steele dossier article have always been against multiple existing policies and have revealed a politically-driven agenda, not a policy-based agenda. -- Valjean (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

While we arguably can use the present attitudes of the press en masse and change as time goes along, as you suggest, this is what leads to at least 50% of the problems in the AP2 ArbCom discretionary area because editors are rushing to include the latest commentary about a topic. We'd have a lot smoother editing process overall if NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM were considered to avoid the rush to include media commentary until we have a better idea of how to frame everything about it and the long-term picture. Yes, ultimately we'd get to the same place but one is far less strive-ridden, and deals with things like the issues around Fox's bias, for example. We are writing for the long-term , not the short term (that's Wikinews if you really want that). and that means avoiding certain material that may be readily available in the press "now" until we now how best to write about it "later" from more academic more distant sources. --Masem (t) 22:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Treat the same as The New York Times? This is not a serious !vote and should not be afforded any weight. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Political diversity is not a factor for reliability. Using extreme neo-Nazi and anarchist blogs would also be politically diverse, but that's irrelevant to their (un-)reliability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, but it does show how treating Fox as somehow more biased than (for example) CNN, we harm Wikipedia. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 as a standard American news org. Obviously they have pundits and talkshows, and common sense must be used just like with any source. In his 2014 book Partisan Journalism: A History of Media Bias in the United States, Virginia Tech media professor Jim A. Kuypers wrote that partisan journalism is a very widespread and old phenomenon in the mainstream US news. I would not muddy the waters between reliable and opinionated sources further, and strongly oppose popularity contests of singling out news orgs from a partisan media field for this reason. --Pudeo (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2: This is my first time participating in something like this, so weight it accordingly, but I found more persuasive arguments in favour of anything less than Option 1 which is mainly citing WP:NEWSORG or bothsideism, among other flawed rationales (see the Russia hoax claim or the argument that, along with other news outlets, Fox had the front-row seat at the White House Press Briefing Room; InfoWars and other unreliable news outlets have been invited too). Certainly, I disagree with the current wording of Some editors perceive FOX News to be a biased source whereas others do not; neither affects reliability of the source which should probably reflect the change in recent years to Most editors consider Fox a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons like The Daily Beast (I do not have any opinion yet on whether it should be demoted, I trust the consensus; and I do not think that we should demote it just to compensate for a possible demotion of Fox as a bothsideism). The difference between the two is that, as MarkH21 put it, Fox may now considered to be generally reliable which is different from generally considered to be reliable for the green box and the overcited NEWSORG. I also agree with Goldenshimmer assessment that Fox is closer to the Huffington Post (which is currently yellow) and others mentioned than the AP, The New York Times and Reuters which, if anything and like Wikipedia (for those who claim Wikipedia to have a left bias), have a centrist bias rather than left bias, at best centre-left and mainly on socio-cultural issues. Finally, if we are going to prefer those sources over Fox anyway and we need those sources to confirm whether Fox was reliable or not on a case-by-case analysis, we are already following Option 2.--Davide King (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 as generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG for factual reporting. Talking head punditry stuff is rarely used in articles and where used is attributed as it should be. an important news source which expands into subject areas other NEWSORGs may not. -- Netoholic @ 16:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - the discussion here is convincing me that this is a terrible source even for news. Option 2 as second choice. If a local affiliate has a news story that's worth noting, it'll be in less tainted sources - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Changing this to Option 4, given the deliberate fabrication of news story photos - deliberate fabrication is deprecation material - David Gerard (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 I would be fine with option 1 also, but from the discussion it seems that there are "additional considerations" as to the division between reporting and editorials. I prefer option 2 because it allows us to make that distinction clear since unlike many other news organizations brought up, their editorials are generally not reliable for information. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: better sources are available w/o the risk of running into misinformation or conspiracy theories. If Fox is the only media org covering a certain issue, then it's probably undue anyway. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2: Local affiliate stations are generally reliable, but the Fox News Network has reliability problems when it comes to certain topics such as climate change[48], the George Floyd protests[49], and the Trump Administration[50]. I would favor deprecating it as a reliable source for topics on which it has demonstrated a history of misleading coverage. Kaldari (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 generally reliable as a news org. Yes, they have pundits with a bias that most Wikipedians don't share, but this isn't about that. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 FACT: Ofcom in the UK are unlikely to award a licence to Fox News as they are not impartial: "British media regulator Ofcom has concluded that Fox News programs featuring Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson violated the U.K.’s broadcasting code by breaching impartiality rules...Sky dropped Fox News from its UK lineup in August, but Ofcom has continued to investigate complaints about shows that aired before the channel went dark. The regulator said Monday that both “Tucker Carlson Tonight” and “Hannity” broke the rules on the “due impartiality” expected of news coverage in Britain. SethWhales ^talk 20:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Seth Whales: The RfC specifically mentions "as separate from their cable pundits" to avoid confusion and to solely focus on Fox News general reporting. Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity both fall under the "Cable pundit" classification, and there's no way that anything from their programmes should be cited in wikivoice to begin with, only as attributed opinion under specific circumstances where the comments were found to be independently notable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• The "pundits" and any "news coverage" are inseparable. They may show the same television pictures, but it is the commentary that is all important that goes with it. I remain Option 4 SethWhales ^talk 20:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. We're beating a dead horse at this point, and I think it's time to drop the stick. Yes, Fox is biased. So is almost every other major US news outlet, like NYT, NBC, and CNN. Fox is a standard WP:NEWSORG. JOEBRO64 21:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Fox has its biases, as do all of the networks and the NY Times and WaPo etc. But it is a generally reliable source when reporting factual stories. I realize that Fox's editorial biases are unpopular around here but this never ending attempt to blacklist Fox is getting old. It reminds me of the old expression "the voting shall continue until the correct result is returned." And I for one am concerned about what appears to be an insidious drift towards creating an ideological bubble into which all sources to be considered RS must fall. There is already widespread suspicion among conservatives of a leftwing bias on the project. These endless attacks on Fox News only add fuel to that fire. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per numerous arguments showing that Fox News meets all WP:RS criteria for editorial oversight. All news sources have bias, and as long as we distinguish opinion from reporting, Fox is no different from CNN. — JFG ^talk 22:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 I think that Masem is correct. As far as the news programs go, they are perfectly comparable to CNN, MSNBC, BBC, CBC and other news sources that Wikipedia already uses all the time. Talrolande (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Ad Orientem. This sort of partisanship is disgusting. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 FoxNews definitely meets WP:NEWSORG; and while biased so too are CNN, The Guardian, NYT, MSNBC, etc. but they are allowed. I fear this RfC would be used to get around WP:NPOV. The solution to bias in reporting by a right leaning source is to simply add text sourced to a left leaning source and vice versa. If we go down the slippery slope of banning major right leaning news sources then we will bias our content and gain a reputation of censorship and partisanship and then our article quality will deteriorate and we will be seen to be a biased source that fewer people take seriously. Finally, FoxNews does an enormous amount of reporting on neutral non political matters. Conclusion: right leaning sources are just as welcome as left leaning sources on the NPOV encyclopedia that anyone can edit.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Yes, every other news outlets may have a bias (certainly more centrist bias than the often overused left bias; The Canary and Occupy Democrats are red) but not all biases are the same and they do not affect factual reporting, whether Fox's bias seems to be stronger that it affects its reporting more often that all those news outlets mentioned and this is something to consider. So clearly, if bothsideism is the best rationale one can offer for Option 1 as it is the most cited along with WP:NEWSORG, I am not impressed. There are better more right-leaning sources anyway. A change from Some editors perceive FOX News to be a biased source whereas others do not; neither affects reliability of the source to Most editors consider Fox a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons (even while remaining green) seems to be at least warranted.--Davide King (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Either Option 1 or Option 4 - Every single thing said above in terms of Fox being a WP:NEWSORG is also true of the Daily Mail, the Daily Mail also has an editorial team, it also covers actual news stories, it also has a front-row seat at various events. It also shares all of the DM's vices in terms of tabloidism. The DM ban (let's not try to pretend that it is anything but a ban) was an example of primarily US-based editors finding it easy to deprecate the media of another country, this RFC shows that many of them are not capable of applying the same standards to a source closer to home. Therefore, either Fox is generally reliable as a WP:NEWSORG (but so, within the limits of tabloidism, is the DM) or Fox should be deprecated along with the DM. Personally, I deplore these RFCs on general reliability of WP:NEWSORGs in countries where media can generally operate freely, and think them no better than popularity contests pillorying "bad" media, completely detached from the actual contexts in which editors actually wish to use these sources. FOARP (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, with a little bit of 2 for US politics. Yes, they have editorial bias, so does pretty much every news outlet. I'm aware that elements of the "woke brigade" want to rule them out of existence. That's not Wikipedia's role. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Question: why isn't this decision based on existing academic research instead of opinion Rather than base this decision on opinion it would be helpful to bring in academic studies of media reliability, many professional researchers have spent years collecting evidence on this question. That would give us something to work from and also provide information on if Wikipedia should separate reliability of the website and the TV channel or by subject, e.g Fox News is currently being sued for “knowingly disseminated false, erroneous, and incomplete information”. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, I suggest it makes sense to decide what reliable sources are through in depth analysis which many people have already done. John Cummings (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • FWIW, that lawsuit has been summarily dismissed, and Fox's side was baced by a trade org that includes CNN and MSNBC in supporting First Amendment speech. --Masem (t) 12:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2: I see a lot of good pieces of evidence above, including the Business Insider report, the Ofcom finding and MJL's comment. I would like to add to the discussion the fact that we are a global encyclopedia and America's "left-wing" and "right-wing" are not that of the world. We here in Europe might find some things said on CNN to be right-wing-only talking points. Those afraid that we may have listed too many left-wing sources as reliable and too many right-wing sources as unreliable might do well to remember that this is a nationality-specific claim. I'd like to suggest some general principles: biased for international reporting, where Fox's Overton window may be wildly off; biased for U.S. politics (including reports on protests and human rights movements); generally factually accurate for events that are not capital P political; use only with care for business-related content (per BD2412's very worrying comment); treat pundits as WP:SPS. Some are discussing Fox's climate change denial but no news media is suitable for scientific content in this way anyway; it is, however, something to bear in mind for e.g. climate change protest coverage, or coverage of a person's views on a scientific issue. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 12:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 This is the type of thing that needs to be decided on a case by case basis. If, for example, someone was writing/editing an article about say, a plane crash for example, and a Fox News segment about that crash stated the names of the pilots, there would be no reason to assume that that information is made up. This is true of any news station. Empirical claims about objective facts made by a prominent news station are unlikely to have been fabricated. As far as other kinds of claims are concerned, any news station, not just Fox, should be taken with a grain of salt, and only be used as a source if the individual editor makes a judgement call to include it. A Google Scholar search for 'Fox News bias' brings a number of studies, but so does the same search for CNN. Media outlets in general are designed to appeal to a target audience, and are not designed to be entirely factual. According to mediabiasfactcheck.com, Fox and CNN are equally biased. It's not a question of which station is being used as a source, it's just about whether or not a better source can be found. Peer reviewed journals will always take precedence over news stations, regardless of the station. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 15:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC) + strikethrough in response to following comment ​ --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 02:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  Puzzledvegetable, WP:MBFC is rated generally unreliable and self-published. It's not a good source for the reliability of other sources. buidhe 17:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 The news programs on Fox News are as reliable as the news programs on other cable news channels, such as CNN and MSNBC. I'm going to be very blunt and just state the obvious: Fox News is not much liked around here (on Wikipedia) because of the political slant of the commentary in its opinion shows. That does not render the factual reporting on its news programs any more unreliable than the news reporting on CNN or MSNBC (which, I note, also have a very heavy slant in their opinion programs, albeit a slant that many more Wikipedians feel comfortable with). The commentary programs on Fox News are obviously unreliable for statements of fact, just like the commentary from any opinion column is unreliable for statements of fact. The factual reporting in news articles on foxnews.com is generally reliable. There are political biases in which stories Fox News chooses to cover, just as there are political biases in which stories CNN and MSNBC choose to cover. And for certain categories of information, I would consider all three generally unreliable (e.g., WP:MEDRS content). Why am I comparing Fox News to CNN and MSNBC? Because those two channels are very comparable to Fox News - they're cable news channels with strong political biases and a clear partisan affiliation. Yet I don't think we'll see many calls for them to be considered unreliable, because their political biases better align with the views of most Wikipedians. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Like - ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Like - Urgal (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Like - DoubleCross (‡) 14:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Like - Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4. I'd like everyone to see this article from The Seattle Times that shows Fox News digitally altering images to misrepresent the current situation in Seattle. This is not their first act of news manipulation and far from the last. SounderBruce 05:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • As noted below: photos like headlines and other material around an article should not be taken as the work of the reporters or editorial desk and should not be used to judge the reliability of the content. Bias, absolutely. --Masem (t) 05:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  Interesting. Now before FOX news gets deprecated, Jan 2019, Seattle FOX affiliate KCPQ (Q13 FOX) altered a video of Trump. One of the additional questions to this RfC is Do local affiliate stations have a separate reliability to the main Fox News operation? Possibly not, but most likely not when reporting national news since affiliates use their national news affiliation. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 18:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3: A 2015 fact-check of Fox News pundits by punditfact found that "about 60 percent of the claims checked have been rated Mostly False or worse". In terms of international affairs, Fox News always restates the American government positions uncritically, presenting the administrations' propaganda as facts. An example of this is its coverage of the assassination of Qassem Soleimani in January 2020. [51] [52]. Mottezen (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Comparing Fox News to CNN or MSNBC is not an argument. Only Fox News is being discussed here. Mottezen (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 34 FFS, if they are doing a daily mirror and faking photos that should be a no there and then. That was not "The Colin the Conservative show" that was Fox news (you know the people who fought for lies to be counted as free speech). Sorry that pushes them over into 3 for me, and its borderline 4.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 We can't honestly separate out the propagandistic tactics like digitially faking images just because the reporters might not be involved. Whoever makes the decision, whoever implements the dirty work, that's the content they choose to show the world. By their fruits shall ye know them. XOR'easter (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 at least and preferably Option 4 Reporting rumor as fact and not even bothering to delinieate between the two as well as faking pics and editing other videos to distort what happned is beyond the pale. MarnetteD|Talk 17:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 a news organisation that recieves talking points from a Republican adminstration that pedals in conspiracy theories an obsfucation. Acousmana (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. It's my understanding that the news stories reported by Fox News can normally also be confirmed by reporting in other sources whose reliability is less controversial. For example, the lead story currently on FoxNews.com is "Seattle police chief and mayor at loggerheads over handling of George Floyd protests, autonomous area". For comparison, see the article on KOMO-TV's website (the Seattle ABC network affiliate), "Mayor Durkan, SPD Chief Best put on united front in public, but tensions remain". The Fox News article may emphasize certain aspects of the story more than other news sources might, but that does not make it inaccurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  That's pretty much the opposite of how it goes with a site given to fabrication, like Fox News - the non-fabricated stories also being findable in non-fabricating news sites was part of the justification to deprecate the WP:DAILYMAIL - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  No evidence has been presented of Fox News fabricating the news parts of stories from the news desk. Reporting that has been fixed via errate, yes (but that's eexpect), and tclear evidence of bias due to which angle they take in cover but which does not eliminate a source from being an RS. But intentional fabrication that has never been corrected or addressed , like there was with the DM and Brietbart cases, has yet to be shown. --Masem (t) 21:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Masem: Fox News fabricated quotes of John Kerry in 2004, see these stories in The Guardian and The New York Times Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Which, as your ref points out, Fox apologized and corrected, expected of RSes when mistakes are made. We're talking cases where , in the situation of DM, they falsified quotes and when challenged, said nothing, and didn't change anything. It was obvious DM wanted to keep the fabrication. Now, we can play the hypothetical thought game if Fox "intentionally" used the misattributed quotes with plans to revoke later if they were challenged, but we can't make that presumption without further evidence of this. There's nothing to objectively doubt their rational of "fatique" that lead to the misuse of those quotes. --Masem (t) 22:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

There was also that ridiculous case in which the Daily Mail had two articles prepared for the Amanda Knox verdict before the verdict was even announced and accidentally published the wrong one, complete with fabricated quotes, events, and everything. I don't think Fox can even get close to that. JOEBRO64 22:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. Photos and headlines should not be relied upon regardless of the source. Furthermore Fox's talk shows/opinion pieces are already treated differently than its core news reporting, which is generally reliable.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 generally but Option 3 for all politics and science subjects Fox News pundits/opinion pieces should not be considered reliable and should be deprecated across the board (they don't appear to be used all that much), but given the deterioration of the reliability of Fox News over the last ten years and the linked examples of editorial direction to downplay science and support Trump's lies, all Fox News citations about science or politics should be attributed in-text at a minimum ie "According to Fox News,...". Based on their demonstrated bias, the weight given to Fox News news reports should be significantly reduced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 FOX News's coverage of the Seattle protests has been fake news at best. Their article of armed gunmen in the Autonomous Zone had Photoshopped images, as exposed in a CNN Business expose . While it is photos, the photoshopped headline was significant enough to be outed in another media outlet, and therefore should be taken into consideration for being fully deprecated. BrythonLexi (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC) — BrythonLexi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Option 3: Per Aquillion, Snooganssnoogans, and Guy and others. The is media bias and then the is fake news and clearly unreliable for factual reporting such as the seattle protests, covid-19 and the riduclous reporting that turned the Birmingham, the UKs second largest city into muslim controlled no-go area . The news service needs to clean up its act if we are going to treat with confidence as a reliable source. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 5: If inclusion in WP hinges on whether reporting by a single NEWSORG is reliable then you've already failed. Remove and replace where acadmeic sources are more appropriate, cede AP2 to the POV pushers—readers can't trust that content anyway—and wait until editors start listening to Masem. fiveby(zero) 17:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for news, Option 2/3 for commentary depending on which pundit is involved. The weight/focus given to certain topics is perhaps not agreeable; but looking at articles individually, nothing suggests a lack of editorial control which would jeopardize editorial control, as Masem points out. When readers look at citations to Fox News articles, they are looking at individual news articles, not the network/website as a whole. feminist | freedom isn't free 02:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for news and politics, Option 3 for science-related matters. Ten years ago, I would have selected Option 3 for the entire news organization, but the last decade has witnessed a slow but steady decline in reporting standards across the Western world, so in that sense, Fox is no longer any better or worse than other major networks such as CNN or MSNBC in terms of reliability and impartiality. That being said, I don't think Fox should generally be considered a WP:RS when it comes to science-related matters, given that it has consistently provided a platform to climate change deniers and often runs stories suggesting that climate change is not caused by human activity. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for news and politics. They were the only major media to cover the Tara Reid situation while the others tried to bury it. Fox has a clear conservative bias, but as mentioned above, there is no such thing as bias-free political reporting. It needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis.Jacona (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Odd, as we do not even use Fox news in her bio, so what is this "situation" that is so important we do not mention in?Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Their Tara Reade reporting is actually a reason to NOT use Fox News. They immediately jumped on the situation (a BLP and NOTNEWS violation here), without getting more clarity on the subject, because they will immediately grab and exaggerate anything that smears Biden and helps Trump. That's their reflex and job, to smear, not report news accurately. That's why they were the first to write much about it.

Other RS were more circumspect and cautious, waiting for more clarity and evidence. Fox News was acting like the National Enquirer, and lots of what they originally wrote is now seen to be outdated and wrong. Of all sources, Fox News and the National Enquirer are the types we should wait a long time with before using. Fox News should be deprecated, just like the Enquirer.

In fact, try comparing how Fox News ignored and downplayed Trump's boasting/confession of his habit and methodology of non-consensually sexually assaulting women, and their ignoring and downplaying of all the credible allegations by numerous women who experienced that and did not want it, and then compare their reporting on Tara Reade. That comparison shows they are not "news" but "propaganda". -- Valjean (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Valjean It's concerning that you are printing untruths here, and have refused to strike or support your comments regarding Fox's Reade reporting (below). Fox was not the only media to report on the Reade allegation early on, they were joined by New York Mag, The Intercept, Vox, The Economist, Newsweek, The Guardian, and other outlets. petrarchan47คุก 03:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ohh, Tara Reade Mmmmmm, the story that was being " not ignored" as early as 2019 by "not Fox news".Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, what Tara Reade reporting from Fox is now seen to be outdated and wrong? petrarchan47คุก 22:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Valjean Sorry, Valjean, when you have a chance could you please enlighten us regarding the alleged shoddy reporting from Fox. Given the focus of this RfC, your statement and support for it are highly relevant and will significantly effect my !Vote. Thanks, petrarchan47คุก 19:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 so sorry for this late reply. I get a lot of notifications and yours dropped through the cracks, so to speak, so thanks for the ping. My concern was with their biased coverage of the story as it developed, which is part of their pattern, a feature, not a bug. They were pretty breathless in their support of Reade in the beginning, and unlike mainstream sources, they did not properly cover all the compromising information that later surfaced which destroyed her credibility. That had to come from mainstream media which looks at all sides of a story. This type of extremely biased coverage from Fox News makes sense, as they are Trump's main propaganda station (but OANN is taking over that role) and thus will also push anything which tarnishes Biden, but not do the same with anything that tarnishes Trump.

Their bias is no longer just the type of ordinary bias which most news sources have, but, since their slide to the extreme right-wing in the last eight years (their strong racist reaction to Obama seemed to trigger it), it affects their reliability. The bias of a news source is not a reason to oppose its use, but extreme bias does affect accuracy, and that is of concern. They have become quite extreme, and their web and TV versions are now rated as slightly more and slightly less reliable than Breitbart, which is above InfoWars, but that's still pretty bad. They have slid down from the previous version of the most accurate media bias chart available. -- Valjean (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping for actual sources to support your claim that Foxs reporting is "now seen to be outdated and wrong". Wrong? Citation needed. Oudated? You'll need a source for that too. Opinions carry no weight. Some people have assumed that if she lied elsewhere, and if her ex-landlords don't like her, she and all the corroboration somehow vanish. If she lied to get into law school, then she wasn't assaulted in '93? I've seen no RS assert this. You have claimed Fox engaged in innacurate reporting in the Reade case. This is a serious claim made in a formal request for comment, I request that if you can't show an example of false Reade reporting, please strike your comment (given the venue). I also disagree with your assessment of their coverage, and note you've provided no examples. Many of your claims require a comparison to make sense. I would invite you to compare CNN's coverage of Kavanaugh with Foxs Reade coverage (that's breathless). I would also invite you to compare Fox with NYT. Both sides are partisan and report in ways that serve their interests. Banning or downgrading only one side violates WP:NPOV. petrarchan47คุก 02:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 for news; any punditry should be treated as opinion. There is no evidence of anything problematic about Fox's reporting when compared with Wikipedia's favorite source, the NYT. I echo Blueboar's take, and so many others, especially those who raised concerns:

• I agree with every word from Peter Gulutzan in his Defective question section below. I don't believe the instructions at the top of this page ("Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source") were adequately addressed (00:25, 3 July 2020).
• DGG is right: Readers expect to see information from all sides of an issue at Wikipedia, and if we do not use the best available sources on all sides we are rejecting NPOV, in favor of advocacy DGG (07:27, 23 June 2020)
• S Philbrook is spot on: a handful of errors do not remotely qualify as failing a "reputation for accuracy and fact checking". If that was all it took, we wouldn't have any sources qualifying as RS. S Philbrick (15:12, 6 July 2020)
• Springee makes many good points, especially: Externally calling Fox unreliable will be clearly viewed by some as a partisan action and a case where the wolves outnumbered the sheep while voting on what's for dinner. That will not be good for Wikipedia. If we can't say how treating Fox as reliable has hurt Wikipedia then it seems clear this is more about silencing those who we dislike vs anything else. Springee (14:52, 6 July 2020)

Downgrading Fox News would mean that some topics and stories would not be covered at all by the encyclopedia. Masem asks does Fox provide any unique content that cannot be sourced from other RSes (18:18, 20 June 2020)

Yes. Then and now: How evidence in Kavanaugh case compares with Biden accusation Fox is not the only source to compare the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh and Joe Biden, but all the other sources that do have been disallowed by Wikipedia. Left-of-Fox sources have not looked at all the facts side by side. As a result, everyone believes the exact opposite of the truth, which is that Biden's accuser, Tara Reade, has much more corroborating evidence** than Christine Blasey Ford, who actually has negative corroboration (all the people she said were at the party have denied her claims.****). The two cases are treated very differently by Wikipedia. Downgrading Fox would not help. Larry Sanger has called us out for abandoning NPOV, and suggests Wikipedians "admit that their notion of what is credible does, in fact, bias them against conservatism..." 19:41, 16 June 2020 petrarchan47คุก 07:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• 3.7 -- It is a propaganda outlet which occasionally broadcasts news. EllenCT (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly what I have concluded about the NYT, and I have proof. Many editors have mentioned that really there are no corporate media outlets that aren't partisan nowadays. Should we downgrade them all? Won't eradicating all sources from one side of the equation result in a horribly biased encyclopedia? petrarchan47คุก 19:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3: In 2015, President Reagan's former domestic policy advisor, Bruce Bartlett, published his detailed analysis of Fox News wherein Bartlett concludes Fox News is a "Propaganda Machine." [53]. In his analysis, Barlett reports on several studies that found "Fox viewers are misinformed" and are "more likely to have factually untrue beliefs than those who receive their news from mainstream sources." In my view, even if you look only at their alleged 'news shows," Fox is a propaganda outlet. For example, on their alleged 'news shows:'
  

• Just last week Fox News finally removed their "digitally altered video" of their coverage of the protests in Seattle after they admitted the cities in their video were not of Seattle at all. [54] [55] [56]. Fox News' "deceitful tactic was called out by The Seattle Times. The local newspaper reported that when it asked Fox News about the images, the network removed them. Fox News' depiction of the demonstration mirrors much of right-wing media's attempt to portray it as menacing." [57]
  
• On Fox News Special Report w/Bret Baier: Bret Baier displayed a racist graphic alleging that the Stock Market gets a big boost when black men are murdered or beaten to near death. After criticism, Bret Baier actually had the racist-nerve to justify producing his racist graphic but did apologize for airing his racist graphic “It was used to illustrate market reactions to historic periods of civil unrest and should have never aired." [58] [59]
  
• Fox News' Martha MacCallum: On the rapidly spreading, deadly coronavirus, Martha MacCallum told her Fox viewers that re-opening the U.S. economy is more important than mitigating the spread of coronavirus, [60]  Recently Marth MacCallum told her viewers that the May job's report is vindication for all of Trump supporters who protested with their assault weapons against state's that shut-down to mitigate the spread of coronavirus. [61] In mid-May, Martha MacCallum cut away from coronavirus coverage to pushTrump's Obamagate conspiracy onto her Fox viewers. 
  
• Fox News' Bill Hemmer: On the 2018 midterms, to his Fox viewers, Bill Hemmer equated Democrat voters to Saddam Hussein supporters when Hemmer compared Democratic voter turnout in the midterm elections to “Saddam Hussein numbers.” [62] In a March 25, 2020 interview, Bill Hemmer did not challenge Trump and did not correct Trump's lies for Fox viewers when Trump as on Hemmer's show lying and misrepresenting facts about the coronavirus. [63].
  ***
• Fox News' Ed Henry: When the public learned of the whistleblower report against Trump, Ed Henry told his Fox viewers that the whistleblower was acting with “political bias” against Trump. [64] Ed Henry recently told his Fox viewers that other media were spreading lies about Trump tear-gassing peaceful protesters in DC for a photo-op. Ed Henry said, “We should also point out though that some of the reporting from a couple nights ago was false, which is that there was all of this talk that really spun this up into a controversy, that pepper spray and whatnot was used,” [65]
  
• Fox News' Shannon Bream pushed anti-Transgender propaganda to her Fox viewers and did not challenge two of her guests when they  "made false and dangerous claims that protections for transgender people put other Americans at risk." [66] Other times, Shannon Bream 'misgenders' and stigmatizes transgender athletes to her Fox viewers and described JayCee Cooper as a  “biological male, now identifying as female”  and described NCAA track & field runner CeeCee Telfer as “a biological male who now identifies as a woman.”  
  
• Fox News' Sandra Smith:  During Sandra Smith's interview of K.T. McFarland, McFarland equated Rep. Adam Schiff to Hitler's propagandist, Joseph Goebbles.  Instead of telling her Fox viewers to ignore McFarland for equating a Jewish man to Hitler's propagandist, Sandra Smith simply said, "K.T McFarland, great to have you on this morning, thanks so much." [67] Sandra Smith lied to her Fox viewers and falsely claimed that Trump wants key witnesses like Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton to testify in the Impeachment hearings even though Trump blocked them and all witnesses from testifying during the entire impeachment process. [68]

Based off these examples, and more that I did not put here, Option 3 is my choice BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Your list of critical opinions above that you used as the reason to demote a generally RS needs to be cited to generally reliable sources or better, not biased opinions published in questionable or biased sources like HuffPo, Mediaite, Glaad, Daily Caller, Media Matters, and a few competitor sources. Also, the criticism and commentary you added about the photo illlustration and photoshopped images is noncompliant with WP:RECENTISM and WP:BREAKING, especially considering the images were retracted by Fox which is a sign of credibility. The same applies to the graph that was used without context - apologies were made by two Fox news anchors including Bret Baier. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

More examples here. François Robere (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

These are primarily examples of Fox having incorrect opinions rather than incorrect facts. Having an opinion that it's more important to open the economy than it is to contain the coronavirus doesn't make a source unreliable. Neither is comparing your political opponents to Saddam Hussein or Nazis. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

No, they're not? I explicitly addressed conspiracy theories, false equivalences on scientific consensus, misleading graphics, and ethical problems affecting their news dept, and much of it is backed not by "primary examples", but by expert opinions, analyses and even studies. François Robere (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Recommended reading WP:ASSERT. Erik Wemple which you cited more than once is a media critic for WaPo which is not unlike an opinion editor. As for the scholarly links, they are better sources but they don't magically turn opinions into facts. The author of the research paper you cited, Patrick C. Meirick, is an associate professor, not tenured, and his citations are not impressive. Scholars have biases, too. For example, this article speaks to a study titled The Social and Political Views of American Professors which surveyed 1,417 full-time faculty members. Read the key findings. dding multiple links to sources doesn't magically turn opinions into fact or tell us their view is the correct one, and all others are wrong. That is not our job as editors, and is certainly not NPOV. We still have to consider all relevant views per WP:BALANCE. The obvious result of this RfC is that we should practice closer compliance with WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS as it relates to ALL news sources, especially those that are biased, use anonymous sources that cannot be corroborated, and journalistic opinion to spin a story using clickbait sensationalism and misleading headlines. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Erik Wemple which you cited more than once Yes, he's one out of the fifteen sources that I cited above. I assume you've no objections to the others?

a media critic for WaPo which is not unlike an opinion editor And..? There's nothing inherently wrong about being an analyst versus a reporter. The only reason you'd think he's less he's less of a journalist is because you're so used to what Fox does, that you forgot that others do it differently.[69] PS - Wemple has two degrees in governance, speaks four languages and writes for a paper of record that won 69 Pulitzers, so presumably he's a tad better than Tucker Carlson.[70]

As for the scholarly links, they are better sources but they don't magically turn opinions into facts. The author... is an associate professor, not tenured, and his citations are not impressive Glass houses etc. Do you have any relevant sources of your own? Some random study on American academics that doesn't even mention Fox is hardly pertinent here. François Robere (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Options 2, 3 and 4. At the very least Fox News news needs to be marked as a biased source and all content needs to be carefully considered through this lens, so option 2 should apply across the board. They should be regarded as deprecated for US political content (fairly broadly interpeted) including climate change, race relations in the United States and gun control in the United States, except for WP:ABOUTSELF references. Option 3 should apply for content that is peripherally or indirectly related to US politics, including UK politics. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Fox News is about as reliable as the New York Times or CNN. It is important to distinguish their talk shows and general reporting. The general reporting is much more reliable than the opinion pieces and the talk shows. The talk shows and opinion pieces are about as reliable as the New York Times opinion pieces. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. As the history of Fox News as an organization demonstrates, it was invented, designed, developed, and produced with the sole purpose of undermining the practice of journalism due to its fundamental belief that reality has a liberal bias. You can read this for yourself in any number of historical works about the organization. The idea for Fox News came out of the conservative right-wing’s disgust with how Nixon was treated by the press. Vowing that they would never allow facts and evidence to interfere with reality ever again, Fox was created as a parallel world, where conservative facts replaced “liberal” ones, mostly by engaging in open distortion, fabrication, and wholesale lying. The fact that they sometimes regurgitate Associated Press stories does not save them from their fate or wipe the slate clean. Fox is not a news organization. It has never been fair and balanced. It has never been the slightest bit interested in reporting and letting the audience decide. It is a giant lie, and has operated as a liar, from the day it opened its doors. It exists solely to undermine truth, to impede the rule of law based on the body of observable facts, data, and evidence, and to constrain the democratic impulse of informing the electorate for which journalism as a practice and a discipline takes its role as a function of a responsible citizen. There is no other option than option 4. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, or failing that Option 3. At best, Fox is a highly partisan source which misrepresents through distortion and selectivity. At worst, it publishes outright falsehoods. The problem here is not that Fox is right-leaning, but that is a purveyor of bad journalism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for straight "sky is blue" reporting, Option 3 for most pundits, Option 4 for certain folks including but not limited to Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity. In other words, it's a case by case basis. We can't apply a one-size fits all. Heck, for straight sports reporting without editorial commentary (their horse racing is decent), they are almost to Option 1 (much as I really hate to admit it). And I say all of the above as a known US liberal Democrat. JMO. But the thing I'm seeing here is a lot of people starting to personalize this discussion, and that's inappropriate Montanabw^(talk) 16:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2 - the television news offered by Fox and similar outlets is not reliable for anything but opinion. However Fox News stories online should generally be expected to be reliable for fact, understanding that Fox in general has a pro-Republican bias. This RfC is a great example of Perennial Sources List mission creep: no longer providing commentary or guidance on wholly unreliable sources, and instead serving as an excuse to deprecate news sources with undesirable political opinion. This leads me to think we need to look hard at the perennial sources list and what exactly it’s being used for. -Darouet (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, generally - Their reporting is mostly factual (apart from their punditry), but especially when it comes to international affairs, it is sloppy on the details, and therefore not completely reliable. See this article for an example. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'd say Option 2 - Fox News is a conservative news channel. According to NewsGuard (the browser extension), Fox News struggles in "gather[ing] and present[ing] information responsibly" and "handl[ing] the difference between news and opinion responsibly". So yes, Fox News is generally reliable, but it is important to read the article first for bias before using it. They are not wrong - they just sometimes are misleading. Of course, we have slip-ups every now and then, so we should still be careful when drawing news from just one source and content forks. Aasim 20:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 I would really like to see this rating changed. A source can put a lot of bias into an article simply by the choice of wording. For example, in one article Fox said a politician was having an "extramarital affair" when in truth he had been estranged and not lived with his wife for over ten years. Or perhaps here: [71] where they report on a new Montana oil pipeline and out of the blue they throw in the fact that in a neighboring state the government spent $38 million policing protests over that pipeline (Dakota Access). Fox does this sort of manipulation in environmental articles and they do it in their political articles as well. And BTW, I'm not going to argue with any editor that insists that other outlets are biased as well. I have found Fox to be much worse. Gandydancer (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it would have been helpful to have mentioned that these two examples are only from my previous week of work here, not because they are the most egregious ones I have seen. I also should have noted that the political example was about two Democrats, one black and the other black/Indian. The Montana pipeline is from a search of a few days ago as I was attempting to update the Dakota Access Pipeline and related articles. Gandydancer (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC) I have been closely following this discussion and carefully comparing FOX news articles to the other outlets and it's much worse than I thought. For example, today Trump passed his 200th judge and the major news outlets covered it with some also mentioning none of them have been black but FOX did not even publish a news article but rather published an opinion article titled "Trump's 200th judge confirmed -- federal judiciary has been transformed, promises kept by this guy [72] in which he discussed the horrors we face if Trump is not reelected. True it's an opinion piece, but this is a clear demonstration of extreme bias in reporting. I'm changing my decision to Option 3.

• Mixed, depends on a whole lot of things.
  The TV news doesn't usually lie and on matters that aren't of interest to US conservatives, I'd generally believe what it says. On matters of interest to US conservatives such as climate change or gun control, it still doesn't lie, but it has problems with agenda setting and it misleads by omission. Like all the US news media I've ever seen, its foreign coverage is dismal, but I don't think that's bias; US journalists rarely understand the rest of the world.
  The website is significantly less reliable than the news. Again this is not usually untruth so much as topic choice, omission and framing, but unlike the TV news, editors on this page have been able to cite clear examples of faked photos on the website.
  The pundits and talking heads are a disgrace. They should never be used as sources for anything other than Fox News' opinion.—S Marshall T/C 15:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I would take it a step further... I don’t think the views of the pundits and other talking heads should be used for anything other than for their own opinions. Sean Hannity’s views are different from Tucker Carlsons, which are both different from Greg Gutfeld’s. So we can not say which represents the views of “Fox News”. We should attribute to Hannity, Carlson, or Gutfeld. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Fox News decides who its pundits are, so Fox News needs to accept responsibility for what they say. I feel that it's right to blame the speaker and absolve the platform if, and only if, the platform doesn't choose the speaker.—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• But WHICH speaker represents the views of the platform? The various pundits and talking heads often hold wildly different (and sometimes diametrically opposing) views. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4, a view mandated by consideration of a high-quality academic study: Benkler Y, Faris R and Roberts H (2018) Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sustained deliberate distortion is the Fox business model. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Much of the opinion-related stuff is absolutely gross, but this is only discussing the news-collecting portion, not commentary. We can judge whether something is straight-up reporting or incendiary blathering just like we do with any other source. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. The previous arguments for Option 3 are cogent and persuasive, noting especially the climate denial nonsense, the assessments by Politifact and Media Bias Fact Check, the emotionally loaded headlines, their propensity for commentary from biased pundits, their recent coronavirus misinformation, and all the other Fox News controversies. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 It is true that it's a conservative news agency, but we cannot deny the fact that it has several reporters and is a well-established organization that can be trusted when it comes to straight coverage of the news and events. If we were to rule it out because it's too conservative, then CNN's credibility can also be questioned because it might be considered too liberal. I wouldn't necessarily trust other info presented by Fox though, such as their talk shows or political analysis programs but that's separate from news reporting. Keivan.f^Talk 03:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Fox certainly has its partisan leaning, but the same can be said of other major news agencies. The media in general has shown a lack of impartiality since 2016, taking one side or the other instead of remaining neutral. If anything, the conservative bias of Fox is a counterweight to the majority of the media, which is left-leaning. Much of the "disinformation" cited above is about current, controversial topics in which there's a notable dissenting minority opinion. Strong disagreement with their views does not disqualify them as RS. Xcalibur (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 No 100% unbiased human being has ever lived on this planet. The grounds on which the credibility of this outlet has been criticized could also be applied on others. MS 会話 07:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Yeah, sure, op-eds about american politics and the partisan lean of the network are to be taken with a grain of salt, with the considerations of WP:BIASEDSOURCES when appropriate, but Fox is still far from the level of shittiness at Breitbart or the like, and this doesn't seem to affect factual reporting that much. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. That doesn't mean that Fox is unreliable for everything, but only that it's hard to know when they're reliable unless it's corroborated by a better source, and in that case we should be using the better source rather than Fox. NightHeron (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 is correct here. We need to make a distinction between opinion and fact; and most of the responses here that are anti-Fox News are trying to classify it as unreliable because they have the wrong opinions, not because of a belief that Fox News reports incorrect facts. Emotionally loaded headlines and biased pundits don't make a source unreliable. Neither does sometimes having the facts wrong about the coronavirus pandemic, a rapidly developing situation. CNN reported that "Masks can't stop the coronavirus in the US, but hysteria has led to bulk-buying, price-gouging and serious fear for the future" [73]. Remember when Chris Cuomo explicitly said that it's illegal to possess the DNC emails leaked by wikileaks? [74] Or when CNN promoted strange rumours about Melania Trump's whereabouts? [75] Here's a recent article where CNN promotes unsubstantiated rumours about Donald Trump's health. [76] Let's not forget that they falsely declared Kim Jong-Un dead. Heck we have a whole article about CNN controversies, but nobody is trying to deprecate it. The vast majority of the people voting (because we all know this is a vote no matter how much we try to pretend it's not) here are complaining because Fox News doesn't share their opinions on contentious matters. This proposal is pretty clear evidence of Wikipedia's strong left-wing bias and deprecating Fox News while allowing left-wing media sources like CNN or MSNBC will further entrench this bias in articles. And no, this isn't a false equivalency. CNN's and MSNBC's news coverage is incredibly biased much like Fox News. The fact they claim not to be biased while Fox News doesn't (as much) is meaningless. If this proposal does go through (and it's pretty obvious it'll end up as Option 2 as the closing admins will interpret a lack of consensus as that instead of doing the proper thing and keeping the previous consensus) I'll likely start another for CNN despite it being obvious what the outcome of that will be. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3: I don't have a lot of patience with a news source that constantly spreads propaganda for (at least it looks suspiciously like) whoever pays them the most. Case in point they've been caught fabricating photos of the BLM protests to make them seem more violent and dangerous just a few weeks ago. If it's anything even remotely politics related, I wouldn't trust them as far as I can kick them --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: Just recently they fabricated pictures from BLM protests to suggest violence and vandalism,[77] which joins on dozens of other incidents of them publishing misleading or downright false information. It's true that they also have some strictly factual reporting, but you can't disentwine that from the rest of the site (or the network, for that matter); the meaning of "generally reliable" is "generally trustworthy". If you have to sift to find the parts that you can trust, then it's not "generally reliable". François Robere (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Just to stress with regards to reasoning that this isn't just "someone's opinion" - it's the consensus among experts and scholars in the fields of mass media and political science. I've collected +80 sources on this (including a whole bunch of scholarly ones), and I can't name a single one that vindicates Fox News on factuality. At best they're seen as something that used to be a legitimate - if partisan - news organization; at worst, they're viewed as an imminent danger to the American democracy. What's more, experts explicitly debunk the false equivalence between eg. MSNBC and FN, which is seen as being in a category all of its own. Recognizing that we're a fact-based enterprise means that we cannot go against RS and accept FN as factual, when no one else will. François Robere (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 > 3 > 2 > 1: I think it's reasonably clear that Fox News is not as reliable as other major news networks. Besides all the strong arguments given before, I would vote against considering Fox reliable based on the shenanigans they do with graphs alone. I mean, look at this! That didn't even air on a pundit show, that aired on Fox Business! Loki (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Originally had 3 ahead of 4; however, the CHAZ photo manipulation below has convinced me that Fox does not merely present technically true information in a misleading manner; it at least some of the time actively falsifies information. Loki (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3: Per the rather abysmal record on climate change and other contentious topics. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: they arent any more biased than any other major news outlet Urgal (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, though I wish all the news shows would draw a brighter line between news and opinion (perhaps by always saying it’s one or the other at the bottom of the screen). Hemmer, Baier, Roberts, Breem, McCallum, et al. clearly try very hard to be objective, and largely succeed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hasn't this^ editor been topic-banned from post-1932 American politics (broadly construed)? I'd also like to add that this is the editor who most forcefully sought to include deranged Fox News "news reporting" on the Murder of Seth Rich page. If o.ther editors hadn't disputed the reliability of Fox News, the Wikipedia page for Murder of Seth Rich would have promoted deranged conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyone closing this RFC should feel free to disregard my !vote if they think it's political. My whole point is that Fox News is not political. (Incidentally, I was not banned from post-1932 politics because of anything related to Seth Rich. I was banned from post-1932 politics because of a hysterical response to an accurate comment at my user talk page that I kindly deleted before the ban was imposed. It will probably be a lifetime ban, because I have no interest in futilely grovelling for forgiveness to ArbCom for not doing anything wrong. Nor any desire to be slandered by the usual crowd of lying vipers who censor content at Wikipedia by getting rid of content-creators. Sincerely,) Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 to 4 per Valjean, and per all the people !voting option 1 we may as well depreciate all other sources while we're at it. I'll go start the other RfCs, shall I? Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 with Option 3 being a close second choice. There is substantial evidence that Fox News often bends the truth to fit their pervasive bias, but to be fair, so does CNN, although to a lesser extent. This seems to be a growing problem that mirrors (or causes) polarization within U.S. society. I think both of these sources (and many others) are best avoided if we want to write good encyclopedic content from a neutral perspective. WP:RSP should reflect that Fox News is a sketchy source that should be avoided in favor of better sources, but it should not be deprecated. - MrX 🖋 11:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Defective question It's missing the most plausible answer which is that all of the 4 listed options are invalid over-generalizations.North8000 (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1,2,3,4 depending on the Fox source in question and the topic area. Generally speaking. -- GreenC 14:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 For general, non-pundit reporting. Option 1 for local affiliate stations. Option 3/4 for most opinion/taking head content. KidAd (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 For news reports, they are a reliable source. Facts are true and fact checked. Not liking the facts, tone, or emphasis doesn't make them unreliable or less reliable. They are as reliable for facts as other main sources of news items such as other top-tier broadcast, print or online sources. ConstantPlancks (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 for news reports touching on politics or science, Option 1 for news reports on other subjects, and Option 4 for commentators. The areas where Fox News is shown to avoid fact-checking, alter photos, or print outright lies are all in the areas of politics or science. I haven't seen anyone show that other areas (e.g. celebrity news, sports, etc) are really affected (but this thread is very, very long and I need to go teach Japanese toddlers the word "no" for several hours). Sean Hannity has advocated QAnon claims (ironic given his views on the Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations) and said Covid-19 was a "hoax" possibly perpetrated by the "deep state", while Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham have borrowed rhetoric from the White genocide conspiracy theory -- were they users, they would long since been blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Anything other than Option 1 would then have to also be applied to CNN, NBC, and other mainstream news outlets who peddled (and as far as I'm aware have not corrected) the debunked Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy theory for years on end, despite evidence to the contrary. Yodabyte (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for Foxnews.com prior to 2016–2017. I used their web pieces a lot in articles on political topics – they were geneerally solid and many of their pieces were based on Associated Press filings. Option 3 for Foxnews.com since 2016–2017. It's gotten visibly slanted and sensationalistic. This Politico piece from December 2017 describes the transition Foxnews.com underwent in 2016–2017, which explains the difference. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In the case of re-reporting, I always prefer to cite the original source, especially since AP is more reliable than FN and the articles are available free to read at the AP website. https://apnews.com/ buidhe 11:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Buidhe: At the time that I used Foxnews.com a lot (mid-late 2000s, early 2010s) the AP stories were often not available directly or would disappear in a couple weeks' time. Back then Foxnews.com had the advantages of not being behind a paywall and having stable URLs for their stories. What I'm really saying is that I wouldn't want to see a Daily Mail kind of verdict here. There are plenty of solid Foxnews.com cites from that era in WP articles and there is no reason to have a blanket removal of them, and the material they are supporting, from WP. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Thucydides411 and ConstantPlancks. Their clear bias (coverage, tone, etc.) has no bearing on their reliability. - DoubleCross (‡) 14:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Ad Orientem and Thucydides411. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per above. Shoddy fact checking, long track record of being generally unreliable. -FASTILY 22:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• A distinction must be made between Fox News (news) and Fox News (opinion). I'd say option 1/2 for the news part, and option 3 for the opinion. Concurring with Atsme's comment above which puts it better: we would not downgrade other news networks for having biased 'pundit' reporting on their talk shows. Many responses have not considered the distinction between the two. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @ProcrastinatingReader: keep in mind that "bias" itself is not the reason there is opposition to Fox News. All major networks have some form of bias. No, it's their accuracy that is the problem, IOW their "reliability" per this noticeboard. Their accuracy used to be better, when they had an ordinary slightly right-wing bias and before they deviated from their purely GOP talking points network mission (the reason Roger Ailes created Fox News), and became a vehicle for extreme-right wing views.

Extreme bias, be it right-wing or left-wing, always sacrifices accuracy and reliability. CNN, MSNBC, etc. may have bias, but they still stay close to what is factual. That's because their bias isn't as extreme as that of Fox News. CNN is considered by Europeans to have a slightly right-wing bias and MSNBC to have a slightly left-wing bias, which shows that it is Fox News that has slid very far to the right. See Overton window. Fox News has slid so far to the right that their extreme bias makes them unreliable. How else could they be in league with/accepted by Trump? It can't be any other way. No centrist source would ever be able to support him, and they don't. Only extreme right-wing sources do that. -- Valjean (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, sure, I use 'bias' in that context to mean 'false, exaggerated, unreliable sensationalist reporting'. This is (mostly/entirely?) limited to their pundits and talk shows, though. Many CNN opinion pieces aren't factual at all. Their reporting for the news is good. Their news reporting is probably far better than Fox's, anyway. But this RfC seems to conflate news with talk shows / opinion articles. They're not the same for Fox, and they're not the same for any network. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Why isn't there a RSN on CNN? It's just as left wing biased as Foxnews is right wing biased. Seven Pandas (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 I feel as if we should simply advise editors to just make sure the piece they're referencing is a case of Fox News being Reliable as they once were; or if their reporting is slanted; to take the appropriate actions and precautions we take with Unreliable Sources. Perhaps marking the sources as unreliable would help; perhaps not. As someone who usually ends up WP:BOLD -ly reverting unreliably sourced contributions; I think adding Fox News to the unreliable list might cause more pain than help the encyclopedia. That said we still need editors to be cautioned to use their best judgement when citing Fox News content; either from their video broadcasts or their website proper. Not to mention that stories can be changed or spindoctored on the Fox News Website as the story develops so it might actually be sensible to encourage editors only to cite them from archive.org cached copies of the Fox News website. ♥ Melody ♥ 00:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Fox news is the ying to CNN & MSNBC news' yang. Fox news is pro-Republican & CNN/MSNBC news are pro-Democrat. They're all corporate-controlled & so must manufacture consent, on behalf of their corporate donors/sponsors. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 - Fox has repeteadly published outright fabrications and fake news, such as photoshopping the same armed 'protestor' into images of BLM protests. That isn't just a mistake in reporting based on bad or incomplete information, it's willfull and deliberate manipulation of reality to prejudice their viewship into having a specific viewpoint. Other news stations may have some bias in terms of what they present (and I would consider MSNBC to be in the option 2 category, for example), but Fox outright publishes fake news for political purposes.Shadybabs (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Fox News is a standard American news organization, and their news reporting is on par with CNN, MSNBC, and others. There's no reason to downgrade the entire reporting over the evening opinion shows, which nobody takes as RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Mr Ernie: See quotes below. François Robere (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  That just seems like an indiscriminate, cherrypicked list of quotes of people who to not like Fox News. I am sure could create of list of people who like and praise Fox News (like Donald Trump) but neither lists help in determining Fox's reliablity.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  If you can, then do. If you can't, then what's your point? And BTW, these aren't "people", these are "reliable sources". Trump isn't a reliable anything.[78][79][80][81][82] François Robere (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  No they are just people who may occassionally work or write for reliable sources. Reliable sources have editoral oversight which does not occur when they are not writing for their organisation. Off-hand comments should be given no or little weight as they are essentially opinion pieces as opposed to fact. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Spy-cicle: I don't recall a Wiki policy stating that published subject matter experts are "just people". Also: Christopher Browning at New York Review of Books, Yochai Benkler and Blair Levin at the New Yorker, Carl Cameron at USA Today, Alisyn Camerota at the Guardian, Jennifer Rubin and Margaret Sullivan at the Washington Post, Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic (etc. etc.) aren't "off hand comments". I'm really astounded by the lengths some Fox News fans will go to to criticize every source but Fox. François Robere (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 Bias does not mean unreliability. AIRcorn (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Aircorn: See these[83][84] for examples of persistent false reporting. François Robere (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America per WP:RSP. The Guardian (which is going to be a biased source against Fox News in this situation) attributes it to a Media Matters for America critic. Moreover, the latter source's examples are from talk shows like Fox and Friends which is not what this RfC is for.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Luckily, since every single claim in that 60 page report is sourced, you can check it yourself. Have you found any fallacies?
2. Have you any sources of your own to back that attack against the Guardian?
3. Actually, he addresses bias in the news department more than once, as well as in Fox as a whole: "Ed Henry’s role in the news division is chief national correspondent, but in the opinion division he’s a co-host of the weekend edition of Fox & Friends... while guest-hosting Fox & Friends, Henry discussed how “important” it was that his reporting on Hannity was helping Trump distract people from the impeachment inquiry"; "Henry’s fellow correspondent Griff Jenkins also sometimes co-hosts Fox & Friends, where he gets to divulge exclusive reporting like his allegation that ethnic studies classes aren’t educational"; "legitimate journalist and former chief news anchor Shepard Smith: after he had a dramatic on-air feud with the opinion kingpin Tucker Carlson, both Fox News’ CEO and its president reportedly threatened to take Smith off the air if he criticized Carlson again... A few weeks later, Smith resigned"; "[pastor and Fox contributor Robert Jeffress's] unhinged comment highlighted a debate you may have heard of about so-called “post-birth” abortion, a procedure disproved by its very name. If the abortion happens after a child is born, then it’s not abortion; it’s murder, which is already very illegal everywhere"; "in October 2018, Fox News became a wailing siren on immigration, claiming that the US was under “invasion” by undocumented immigrants... [running] nearly eight hours of content [in one week] on the then distant caravan"; "a Fox News executive reportedly told Vanity Fair that the network’s “power comes from” its viewers, and it must defend them"; "It shows how news and opinion is blurred – but opinion wins – and the lengths the network goes to ensure a devoted audience. Fox is a shameless counterfeit of a news organization". François Robere (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss whether Media Matters for America is reliable as there absolutely no consensus that it is. I never claimed The Guardian was not an RS just that it has a liberal/left leaning bias [85] so naturally it is going to paint Fox News (conservative) in the worst way it can. Most of the examples you show here are of talks shows like Fox & Friends not the actual news casting or website. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 and Option 4 for American Politics broadly construed - Yes, there is much that Fox News reports that is factually correct. Those facts are also reported far and wide by other sources that have a higher reliability and less bias. The problem with Fox News for our purposes is that it is used by editors who either cannot or will not also evaluate other sources to determine NPOV WEIGHT. So we get the worst of Fox cited to support partisan conspiracy theories, talking point spin, and speculation as fact notwithstanding the lack of other corroborating sources. Most of what's published on any internet blog is true. Most of what people say in casual conversation is true. Most of what's on Fox News is true. But that is not the standard we apply, and we only invite cherrypicking and tendentious editing in Politics articles by putting every Fox statement up for debate in endless talk page discussions. If it's good content, there will be numerous alternative RS references. Disclosure: I read a lot of Fox's web content and I watch their cable news coverage nearly every day. SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 or even Option 4. For god's sake, this isn't just a question of bias. Long, long time ago Fox News was a biased but reliable source. But over the past 6 years or so they've moved over into fake news territory. They've published photo shopped images and pretended they were real [86] [87] [88] (and this isn't the Opinion hosts on Fox, this is Fox News itself). This is long overdue. Volunteer Marek 00:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 - Enough is enough is enough. What credence they once may have had has been expended. They won't even admit they purposely faked videos. The website looks like The Onion. O3000 (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Fox News's REPORTING is just as reliable as CNN's or MSNBC's or any other news network that also hosts opinion based shows on the cable networks. The main complaints about Fox news tend to rest in their opinion based cable tv shows, which have little to do with the ability of Fox news to accuratley report the news in articles and non opinion based shows. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 07:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. If you can't find a better source than Fox News then you have to ask yourself: why not? Is it yet another fabrication? No objection to Option 4 either. Strong objection to Option 1 per all the reports of faked images etc. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3, from the Seth Rich fabrications to the continuous climate change denial...if something can only be sourced to Fox News and nowhere else, that is pretty telling. ValarianB (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Fox News operates as a propaganda machine for the Republican Party. It permeates every part of the organization. The supposed division between their "news" and "comment" is a nonsense. None of their output should be considered reliable.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, bordering on option 3. I would say that their print articles (website) are slightly better than the on-air reporting. I definitely think local affiliates should be treated separately.  I would say that both the televised and print versions are generally unreliable for U.S. Politics and generally unreliable for science and medicine and should be used with caution in other areas. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: Fox News is huge, so there are many accurate reports of theirs; but that doesn't change the fact that it cannot be relied on for accuracy in general. Fox is too often misleading if not just wrong on purpose, and the management is very effectively using it for propaganda/disinformation. Notrium (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4: Fox News is a propaganda network, plain and simple. Not only is it the least trusted corporate news source, but those who regularly consume Fox News are literally less informed than people who consumed no news at all. Trying to ascertain which tidbits are true and which are bullshit is a waste of time. Really, corporate-run American media outlets in general have a problem to one extent or another, but Fox News is by far the most egregious in terms blatant misreporting and political party affiliations. The claim that Fox News is on the same level as other prominent sources, in itself, is factually inaccurate and seems like drawing a false equivalency to give the appearance of neutrality. Darkknight2149 23:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Darkknight2149, see this HuffPost article by the researchers who actually did the study. They say that people who claimed the study found "Fox makes you dumb" completely misinterpreted it: "Overall, Fox viewers were not better or worse than the average respondent at answering the questions... We never said, nor meant to say, that Fox viewers are dumb — or MSNBC viewers for that matter. They’re no better or worse than the average respondents. Clearly, anyone who is dumb and watching TV was dumb when he or she sat down in front of the tube. Some news sources just don’t help matters any." JOEBRO64 12:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• My vote still stands. We're talking about a network that was founded after Republicans repealed the Fairness Doctrine specifically to serve as a function of the Republican party and there are countless examples of this bias impacting their reporting. Even CNN and MSNBC (who have their own problems, such as a corporatist establishment bias and Andrew Cuomo being repeatedly interviewed by his own brother on CNN) don't have that bragging right. Darkknight2149 16:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'd take what Rolling Stone says with a grain of salt. They're already not considered reliable when it comes to politics (they've been called "the house organ of the Democratic National Committee"), and from what I can tell there hasn't been a good discussion here about how their editors let a fabricated rape story and a cover that glamorized Dzhokhar Tsarnaev slide. They're definitely questionable. JOEBRO64 19:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hah. So Rolling Stone is unreliable (because some right-wing pundit called them biased, and because they published and later retracted a false story), but you consider Fox News reliable? I'm not defending Rolling Stone—it's a poor source—I'm just bemused by the hypocrisy and evident double standard on display. Thanks for crystallizing it, at least. MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• MastCell, I wasn't saying that Rolling Stone is unreliable in general. They're reliable for interviews and mass media topics like music/film. Certain parts of Rolling Stone, like their news/political coverage, are not. That's a lot like my view on Fox: their news reporting is fine, their talk show pundits are not. So no, it's not "hypocrisy"; I'm applying the same standard. I kindly ask you to please refrain from making childlike personal attacks; I only comment here in good faith, so I ask you to assume good faith in return. JOEBRO64 21:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• OK, so Rolling Stone is unreliable for news/politics because a right-wing pundit said so, and because they published and then retracted a false story. But you find Fox News reliable for news/politics, despite criticism of their bias, and despite the publication (and occasional retraction) of false stories (e.g. Seth Rich conspiracy, Hillary indictment, digitally manipulated fake images, etc) by their news—not opinion—groups. I am assuming good faith: that you simply don't see the double standard at work, not that you are purposely favoring or denigrating sources based on their ideological tilt. MastCell ^Talk 21:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I should probably point out that this information isn't coming from Rolling Stone. I cited them for convenience because they were one of the first sources that came up in a quick Google search. If I'm not mistaken, even the Fox News article goes into detail on this a little bit and it's fairly common knowledge. Fox News was founded specifically as an alternative Republican-centred news network (not even right wing politics in general, but specifically the American Republican party). The founders themselves had ties to the Republican party as well, so it's essentially just a propaganda network with some "sky is blue" reporting baked in. Darkknight2149 03:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• @TheJoebro64: again you are not accurate (see my previous comment to you), and you use an extremely questionable source like Townhall to denigrate Rolling Stone, a "green" source (generally reliable) at Perennial. That tells us all we need to know about your opinions here. You shouldn't even be reading Townhall. When it comes to American politics, Rolling Stone is far more reliable than Fox News, even on the rare occasions that the news anchors at Fox come up to its level of truth telling, which requires that they go against the agenda of their own network. -- Valjean (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• @TheJoebro64, Darkknight2149, MastCell, and Valjean: I think you've gone a bit off-topic here. The question isn't whether Rolling Stone is reliable or not, as Fox News's history is well documented regardless (literally whole books have been written about it); the question is whether and how this historical ideological orientation affects its coverage today. I for one agree with the narrative (again documented in numerous sources) that what began as a unofficial Republican enterprise has gone off the rails in the last decade and a half or so, to the point where it operates more as an "outrage reinforcement machine" than a news dissemination organization (which again is backed by multiple sources). François Robere (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• @TheJoebro64 and Darkknight2149: Let's expand that ellipsis in your quote: "Overall, Fox viewers were not better or worse than the average respondent at answering the questions. That said, and all salient variables being geekily controlled for, there was not merely a zero effect but a negative effect of Fox News on viewers’ ability to answer the questions; meaning that Fox viewers would have done better had they been using almost any other news source, or no news source at all." In other words - "dumb" or not, Fox News is a net negative for its viewers as far knowledge of current affairs goes. François Robere (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Options 1/2. Option 1 Per Cactus Jack. Their news reporting is generally adequate. Fairly removed from their talk shows which are Option 4: Tucker Carlson is Option Crank: Usually display a delicate but perceptible spine. When necessary issue corrections. Coverage bias is tangible but no worse than others - all news orgs have this bias. However, Donald Trump coverage - option 2 due to relationship as others noted.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, although with elements of 3/4. At this point, other editors have exhaustively sourced their concerns with Fox's tendency toward partisan misinformation. Highlights include the promotion and/or fabrication of partisan conspiracy theories around a murder victim (which were rushed into print on Wikipedia by editors with poor judgment, compounding the victim's family's distress in a hopefully small but real way), Fox's active involvement in promoting climate-change denialism, the promotion of various conspiracy theories about Obama, the false news report—several days before the 2016 election—that Hillary Clinton was about to be indicted, and so on.

  Most recently, Fox News has served as a veritable firehose of misinformation on the Covid-19 pandemic, with measurably harmful consequences: recent scholarly work has documented the unique role that Fox played in spreading harmful misinformation & conspiracy theories about the pandemic, resulting in poorer compliance with safety measures and greater viral spread (summarized here). Since Wikipedia aspires to provide accurate information, relying on Fox News seems ill-advised.

  I would stop short of saying that Fox News is "generally unreliable", but at a minimum, material appearing only on Fox News, without independent verification from sources with better track records, should be treated with extreme caution or excluded. Unfortunately, editors with this sort of good judgment tend to be in short supply on the kinds of articles where Fox News is most likely to broadcast misinformation.

  There's a disconcerting amount of false equivalence on display in this thread. Fox News isn't comparable to CBS, or the Times, or the Post. It's closer to state TV in terms of its close identification with the Republican Party and the Trump Presidency. Other outlets have biases, but none are so closely tied to a specific political personality and partisan affiliation. More specifically, think about Memogate. In response to incorrect reporting, CBS News fired its most prominent on-air personality and hired a Republican politician to conduct an outside review of its practices. Can you imagine Fox News doing anything like that in response to its various falsehoods? Of course not, because Fox News operates under a very different set of parameters than CBS, and comparing the two is just silly.

  Finally, there's a really disappointing, albeit cynically effective, tactic on display here whereby concerns about Fox News are attributed to simple partisanship. The problem is not that Fox News has a conservative bias—the problem is that it frequently allows that bias to manifest in false, misleading, or inaccurate material, and we as a fact- and reality-based project have to treat it with caution as a result. The two arguments in favor of Fox's reliability boil down to whataboutism ("all outlets make mistakes!") and insinuation ("you don't like it because you're lib'rul!") I guess a third argument relies on a distinction between Fox's news and opinion reporting—a distinction that Fox News itself makes every effort to blur. MastCell ^Talk 22:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Like--Davide King (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Like -- Valjean (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Like -- TucanHolmes (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3. User MastCell sums up my thoughts eloquently, and far better than I could have, although I tend to give them even less benefit of the doubt because of their track record being so spotty at best, so I would say option 3 at best. oknazevad (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 If Fox is providing non-controversial information that may be unique to it (not available elsewhere) that is fine. If it is echoing what other sources have said but with a conservative tint that is fine. When it comes to highly controversial statements that are factually disputed by other sources, Fox should be attributed. At the least, Fox should be available for attribution. It would be unbalanced to entirely blacklist or deprecate the site - readers need to know what is out there. Common sense applies. If Fox is spouting conspiracy theories that no reliable source is picking up, attribute it, don't censor it. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually such misinformation has so little due weight that we are not supposed to even mention it. We mention it only if RS spend time on the matter, and we cite the RS, not Fox News. When Fox News does mention facts that are covered by other sources, we should use them, not Fox News. -- Valjean (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Defective question As North8000 said, but it's worse. The introductory part violates WP:RFCBRIEF and thanks to Atsme we know it was wrong about the last RfC -- '2010' should have been struck. Option 1 is redundant because it's WP:NEWSORG anyway. Option 2 is redundant because it's WP:RSCONTEXT anyway. Option 3 could have been an excusable question if it had been alone and had been about what to do (see WP:DAILYMAIL for an example), but it wasn't. Option 4 is confused because WP:DAILYMAIL didn't say Daily Mail is deprecated (which merely means "not approved"), and "as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail" would mean opinions are allowed as well as older articles. And I don't believe the instructions at the top of this page ("Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source") were adequately addressed, which unfortunately may have inspired an idea that discussing Fox stories, without showing where in Wikipedia the story was used and disputed, is appropriate. Option 1 = WP:NOTCENSORED but I fear that !voting for it helps legitimize this procedure. I won't reply to heckling. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Thucydides411 et al. This is a pretty blatant attempt to insert politics into editing. We shouldn't. --GRuban (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Fox was a blatant (and successful) attempt of inserting politics into 24/7 news broadcast.[89] François Robere (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    • That article (as many here are) is talking about Fox talk shows. It starts with Sean Hannity, for example. --GRuban (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Actually it discusses Fox News as a network. It's a single network, you know, and everyone there answer to the same people. If Lachlan Murdoch was concerned with journalistic integrity he would've disciplined Hannity long ago, just like NYT's A. G. Sulzberger stepped in after the Tom Cotton op-ed. Can you trust a news organization that exercises so little control over so much of its output? Are you aware of any other organization that does? François Robere (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I couldn't agree more. What's more, Saturday Night Live had a totally ridiculous parody of a political figure last night, so we need to blacklist NBC, since they're the same network. A comic strip syndicated in the New York Times made a completely untrue joke, so we need to blacklist the Gray Lady. An opinion columnist in the Washington Post shot her mouth off, so we need to blacklist the Post. Sure, one is a comedy show, one is a comic strip, one is an opinion column, but in each case the publisher or producer in each case didn't demonstrate integrity! THey should have disciplined them! I like that word, disciplined - ideally with spikes and leather. They all answer to the same publisher or producer ... how dare those publishers or producers claim to have any kind of news organizations worthy of any kind of respect! How dare they insist we be able to easily tell the difference between news and opinion? That's asking too much of us readers, like a high school education or something. You get the tar, I've got the feathers right here. --GRuban (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Are you suggesting that Fox News's "talking heads" are as reliable as an explicitly comedic show? If so, then surely FN should be deprecated as a WP:NEWSORG.
            If SNL was aired under the banner of NBC News or MSNBC rather than NBC, and as a news show rather than satire; and if the network had dedicated half its broadcast time to such shows, while blurring the distinction between them and "real" news (eg. by sharing newscasters and segments); and if the news shows themselves were sub-par; then yes, I would agree it should be deprecated as well.
            Also, my DMs are open. François Robere (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3Get's my vote. Dutchy45 (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 "Reliable" means "you can rely on it". You need to be pretty gullible to rely on Fox. Unfortunately, there is a lot of gullible people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, No matter the criticisms that may apply to any other channel, Fox news has provided accurate news and useful talk shows. Alex-h (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 or Option 3 (second choice) for anything related to politics or history. I rarely express a political opinion on Wikipedia and I don't intend to do so today. I intend to opine on the quality of Fox journalism. My normal editing field is 19th century US biography, though I stray occasionally into more modern subjects. Primarily I read history. I am a voracious news reader and watcher. I'm also a frequent reader of sources like CJR and Poynter which watch journalists at work. As a lay historian I've developed a healthy disrespect for newspapers as sources; there's often insuffient time for accuracy when the day's deadline draws near. IMHO today's television news shows and websites serve as the modern advertising-driven analogue. I've come to the conclusion over a number of years that cable news networks hold themselves up as reliable sources, but rarely pass the test. There's a focus on intensity over objectivity. But Murdock-owned media properties in general and Fox News in specific seem to operate much like the Hearst properties of old -- begin with a desired outcome and build articles and columns which cherrypick sources in order to convince the audience of the correctness of the desired outcome. Over time I have seen large a number of apparently manufactured artifacts (of which today's Epstein pic "gaffe" has coincidentally arrived on the last day of this RFC). All the hair-splitting related to news side and entertainment side misses the nugget: it is apparent to my eyes the news day at Fox begins with a subjective set of talking points management wants in viewers' brains and everything which is broadcast or uploaded during the day is designed to insert and support those talking points in the viewers' minds. I have stopped relying on them and I have seen sufficient evidence to believe Fox deliberately misleads and distorts the material they present. I have little doubt how human history will judge this era in US History. Fox News will, IMHO, be regarded as a prime representative of what went wrong in the news media of the early 21st century. BusterD (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • You're spot-on with the most important thing that people calling for Option 1 are missing: how can we separate their straight reporting from their talk shows when Fox makes no such distinction themselves? They may say they do, or at least said they did once, but it's obvious is practice that they're just paying lip service when the hosts are appearing throughout the day, and their "commentary" is unchecked by other hosts. When the same people are spouting the same errors with no challenge to the erroneous claims any time of the day, there's no meaningful distinction that can be made between the two. Top it off with the whole "talking points" slant to their news coverage, which has been known about since the George W Bush administration, and it's obvious that they are a propaganda outfit. oknazevad (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @BusterD: you write: "begin with a desired outcome and build articles and columns which cherrypick sources in order to convince the audience of the correctness of the desired outcome." Bingo! That's a description of pseudo-journalism, which is basically journalistic pseudo-science. Fox News is not, and never was intended to be, a real "news" channel. It's a pseudo-journalistic propaganda machine. That's why the few real journalists, who occasionally report the facts that are uncomfortable to the network's agenda, get critcized by their own colleagues. Shep Smith finally gave up. No other channel has this situation, because their agenda is to report the facts. -- Valjean (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for news. Their opinion pieces are no different than any other network's opinion pieces and should be quoted properly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 It is generally reliable. ‍‍Telluride (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Having gone through the discussion and the evidence presented, I'd make my assessment taking them as the basis. While there's a fair lot of "Option 1" !votes, I can't help but notice that a considerable number of the points raised by those who are endorsing "Option 3" or "Option 4" have gone unaddressed.

Firstly, the major argument the former group does present is that of distinction between ententes of the FOX network; which would in effect present the need for segregated assessments for the distinct ententes if merited. One primary distinction being presented is that of network affiliates and the national news service. Another form of distinction being made is that of between parts of the national news service such as cable pundits, cable news and their online reproduction. However, relying on the academic sources presented one can ascertain that academia itself is not making a whole lot of distinction within parts of the national news service (through fox cable channel, pundits or otherwise and foxnews.com), the entirety of which also seems to be under the same editorial leadership. In line with that one should be able to make singular assessment of Fox News cable channel's broadcast and online derivative. Though there does seem to be validity for local affiliates to be considered as distinct as they do have separate editorial structures, are principally subjected to FCC regulations which are in variation and have not been generally subjected to an inspection in the said academic sources. Therefore they might require separate assessments, although it should still probably be noted that they are still not entirely independent of the former.

Secondly, the points raised in terms of climate change denial and Covid-19 misinformation have gone almost entirely unaddressed and almost certainly makes it deprecation worthy for any science related subject at the least. The news service also seems to endorse other conspiracy theories besides those mentioned and has frequent instances of misreporting; this might have been given less consideration if it weren't to be systemic as noted by the numerous academic sources which have been presented. The fact that this is also the most unaddressed point is the reason why in my opinion the news service should be considered generally unreliable. Since the Daily Mail comparison has been brought up it would completely fit in as a direct parallel in this regard. In addition there has been presented considerable evidence where FOX has indulged in deliberate fabrication especially in the case of major current events reporting. This points towards the exact opposite of a "reputation for fact-checking, accuracy and error-correction" which is a major requirement for a source to be generally considered reliable. The only argument against it is that it qualifies as a news organisation with an editorial team which honestly is not persuasive considering that it completely ignores the aforementioned detail.

Lastly, there actually seems to be a consensus that FOX is a biased source in favor of the conservatives in the United States. Partisanship or ideological bias would not be issue in of itself if it had not been brought to the effect of a lack of independence; there is ample evidence to the effect from academic sources which points towards a close identification with the Republican Party, at times described as the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. That makes it tricky as it lies in the grey area of being somewhere in between independent news and state sponsored propaganda. In the current scenario, I'd rather say that its in fact closer to the latter than the former taking into consideration that a lot of the evidence points to a close association with President Donald Trump.

All in a case for Option 4 on par with the Daily Mail might be made as well especially with regards to news from the post-2016 period due the last point while a case for Option 1 or Option 2 can still be made with regards to its local affiliates though ideally they should be left out of any assessment in this RfC, imv. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Like Very good analysis. -- Valjean (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 - stick with the status quo. WP:VERIFY, which says we should aim for verifiabilty, not truth, is the relevant policy here. Many respondents here have claiming FOX isn't reliable seem to be basing their assertions on their personal conclusions Fox isn't truthful.

Even The New York Times, and other RS considered the very most reliable, have had scandals when they learned their reporters had engaged in plagiarism, or had invented quotes, invented whole stories.

I think the real problem is that we have new or lazy contributors, who lapse from the NPOV, by not attributing opinions to their sources. These non-complying contributors will read an article, that makes assertion XYZ, and will leave out the attribution, when they add XYZ to article space, putting it in the wikipedia's voice, as if it were an established fact.

The appropriate solution for wikipedia contributors who put possibly untrue assertions from Fox in the wikipedia's own voice is not to bar using Fox as a source. The appropriate solution is for the rest of us to work to educate those non-complying contributors in how to attribute and neutrally cover assertions, form Fox, or the NYTimes. If we all more fully comply with NPOV then those occasions when Fox reporting, or the NYTimes reporting, includes assertions that weren't true, our coverage, nevertheless, measured up to policy, and doesn't have to be altered, when the untruth of our sources is revealed. Geo Swan (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Fox News)

• US media landscape has changed a lot since 2010, and not to the better. That being said, I am interested to see what concrete examples of inaccuracies on Fox's part that can be found. Talk shows on any network should never be cited for facts imo. buidhe 20:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think lack of factual falsehoods makes a source reliable. Remember that the coverage of something in RS is also used for determining WP:WEIGHT in Wikipedia so if a fact collection is sufficiently biased or omits relevant info due to agenda pushing, it can end up tilting what we call the NPOV if we treat the fact selection as neutral. Facts themselves can also be distorted without being stated falsely outright, and the nature of agenda pushing is to do that. This is goes beyond Fox News. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

If factual accuracy is not the metric, then what is? If WP:RS is not about reliability, there's a danger that the policy will end up being used to remove sources simply because they cover issues that editors don't want to be included on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• The local affiliates will make this a really tricky one - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Buidhe, my opinion is that the RfC from 2010 was outdated, as I agree that the US media landscape has changed greatly since 2010. Fox News tends to discussed a lot, so I thought it was worth opening a proper RfC to settle the issue. One of the main controversies about the factual accuracy of Fox News since 2010 revolves around the now retracted false claims that Seth Rich was in contact with Wikileaks back in 2017, see this archive of the original Fox News article and these Politifact and Snopes articles, there are allergations that some of the quotes for the story were fabricated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Newslinger, please remind me again - wasn't the purpose of WP:RS/Perennial sources to avoid multiple time-sink RfCs? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  The purpose of the perennial sources list is to index past discussions on this noticeboard. The previous uninterrupted RfC on Fox News is from 2010, a decade ago. As noted in the "Controversially classified sources" notice at the top of WT:RSP, Fox News and the Southern Poverty Law Center (RSP entry) are the only sources whose entries were subjected to edit warring since the list was created, and based on that, I had been expecting RfCs on these sources for some time. — Newslinger talk 22:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well, if this is a "real" RfC, the projects and wider community need to be informed. Who is in charge of doing that? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  adding - Newslinger - this RfC is malformed because it doesn't separate the pundit shows from the actual news, and it doesn't say anything about it being Fox cable or Fox broadcast. 01:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  This RfC is not malformed. The RfC statement includes the text "(as separate from their cable pundits)", which clarifies that it refers to the Fox News (news and website) entry. (If the statement didn't include the text, the RfC would cover both the Fox News (news and website) and the Fox News (talk shows) entries.) In my experience, notifying WikiProjects of discussions on this noticeboard about mainstream American news sources tends not to make a difference in participation, but you or anyone else can notify related projects if you wish to do so. — Newslinger talk 01:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Newslinger - it doesn't specifically state FoxNews (cable/satellite) vs FoxNews network affiliate broadcast stations. The latter are subject to FCC regulations that are different from networks and satellite transmitted news. I see David Gerard also mentioned it above. Oh, and thank you for adding this RfC to WP:CENT. My concern is the continuous partisan push (for years now) to downgrade this RS because of its conservative bias while keeping only center-left and left leaning biased sources. It appears the arguments are based primarily on POV opposition rather than factual news reporting. A network like Fox News doesn't become a most watched political news station whose viewership is bipartisan by being unreliably biased. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  No problem. It looks like Hemiauchenia has inserted an additional question into the RfC statement that specifically asks about affiliate stations. As a general rule of thumb, RSP entries for television channels only refer to the main channel, and not to any affiliate stations of the parent company's television network. For Fox, the Fox News entry is scoped to Fox News, and the stations listed in List of Fox television affiliates (by U.S. state) are out of scope. If an affiliate station becomes controversial enough to meet the inclusion criteria on its own, it would receive a separate entry on RSP. I trust the community and the closers (preferably a panel of closers) to reach the right decision. — Newslinger talk 05:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, the most effective way to publicize this RfC is to list it on the centralized discussion template, which would put this RfC on the same level of vetting as the ones for the Daily Mail (RSP entry) and Quackwatch (RSP entry). I've added this RfC to the template. — Newslinger talk 05:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Atsme: I'm not sure what your point is, the last RfC on Fox News really was in 2010. Fox News is also listed at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as one of the most controversial sources on the list (alongside SPLC, which has never had a RfC) and recommends opening a new one. There have not been any recent-discussion on the general reliability of Fox News, so I thought it was worth having this discussion as a reference for subsequent discussions about Fox News's reliability, a lot has changed since 2010, especially with the election of Donald Trump, so I think it is worth doing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 237#Is Fox News a WP:RS 2018 RfC ^{update per below: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 238#Fox News reliability RfC 15:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)}
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 257#Fox News 2019 Discussion
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 276#Reboot to specifically address Fox News (talk shows) Oct 2019
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#Fox News, 9/11 topic March 2020
  • And there were several other discussions in 2020 that point editors back to eariler discussions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    Atsme, WP:CCC. We're likely to see the Mail off the list at some point if the new editor continues to make progress. In the same way, Fox has changed over time and the March discussion was narrowly focused. Guy (help!) 22:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

    @Atsme: I don’t see an RfC in the 2018 post in Archive 237? — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    I think it might be Archive 238 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 238#Fox News reliability RfC. PackMecEng (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    Thank you for finding that, PackMecEng. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    Ah, thanks! It seems to have been limited in scope and then withdrawn, so there really hasn’t been a full RS RfC since 2010. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    Looks like, though the discussion that spawned that 2018 RFC had quite the participation. PackMecEng (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: Fair enough, the issue is that none of these were actually properly formatted as a RfC, though the 237 and 257 Archive discussions are substantial, I apologise for not checking thoroughly. By formatting this as a proper RfC, hopefully we can end the endless cyclical discussions about Fox News. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Also, even the Daily Mail being depreciated has not stopped endless discussions about it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Apples and oranges. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think we need to keep in mind that the Wikipedia policy of reliable sources is editorial oversight. Fox News does fact checking like any other major news organization, but the end result is always disputable on significance and implications (just like CNNs or MSNBC's reporting). News organisations create narratives that often times are not real or are exaggerated (for example ideas like government collision or broad racism or social justice are not perceived in the same way by these organizations). But keep in mind that "truth" and "facts" on events that come out of any news organization will carry bias since they tend to interpret little facts like a case of police brutality and then extrapolate it to abstractions like racism or harassment and so on. When it comes to these mega interpretations, there is very little truth since there is no such thing as an organization that determines the truth of an interpretation. If Fox News has been discussed multiple times back to back recently then this is a closed debate.Ramos1990 (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• There is always a comment that we are talking about Fox news anchors “as separate from their cable pundits”. Firstly, the latter is what everyone watches and thinks of as Fox News. But there is another point we keep avoiding (at least as far as I’ve seen); and that is Fox broadcast versus the Fox website. The Fox website is cited heavily in WP. But, the site is embarrassing to read. The main stories are nearly always political attacks. If there is no news, they will go back and run stories about Benghazi and Lewinsky. O3000 (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Let's not make this about one topic, and whether a RS believes it 100% or not, or whether or not they choose to publish opposing views. That does not make them unreliable - it makes them opposition to one POV. We need diversity - not a single POV - and attempting to eliminate all opposition to a single scientific belief when there are others is censorship. This isn't a case of the world is round, not yet, anyway, so we give DUE to prevailing science theory and also include what the opposition believes (if it is also based on scientific theory). Science can factually and steadfastly state a lot of things as fact, just not questionable predictions which deserve mention. As long as there is scientific controversy, we include it - we don't have to believe it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• The references here have been moved to #References (Fox News), as the {{reflist-talk}} template captures all references above the template, including ones added in newer comments. Atsme's comment below was made when the references template looked like this: Special:Diff/961474909 § Discussion (Fox News). The {{reflist-talk}} template was originally in the bottom of the Responses section, then moved to the bottom of this Discussion section, and now finally to its own References section. — Newslinger talk 05:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  The references above are either not reliable or not up-to-date (WP:RECENTISM) if they say Fox didn't retract the Seth Rich story - (and that is part of the reason this RfC needs an experienced closer who is not politically biased). See the NYTimes article which states: Fox News on Tuesday retracted a story linking the murder of a Democratic National Committee staff member with the email hacks that aided President Trump’s campaign, effectively quashing a conspiracy theory that had taken hold across the right-wing news media. It goes on to say (most importantly) that: "it also underscored a schism between the network’s news-gathering operation and one of its biggest stars: the conservative commentator Sean Hannity". Again, the news portion of FOX is a reliable source but like other cable news, the pundits are opinion. Oh, and The Washington Times did apologize and retract per this Vox article. I find the allegations that Fox News did something irreversibly wrong to be very disconcerting, and I do hope the closer of this RfC takes those misrepresentations into consideration. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• The elephant in the room is that we always are coming back to Fox NEws because editors on all sides willing ignore NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM, rushing to put in breaking stories and commentary, or what I've seen called "hyperjournalism" (its gotten worse with how we've covered COVID) We can be up to date, but our up to the minute coverage should stick to bare facts and have nearly no coverage of anything controversial until that story has had a chance to go through the news cycle a few times (eg like the Rich story, or as an opposite example, the Covington MAGA hat kid from last year which has ended with egg on the WaPost and others' faces) We shouldn't be including any commentary from journalists or experts unless its actually part of the story (eg Trump's comments on mail-in ballots leading to Twitter's fact check leading to Trumps EO on Section 230 fully qualifies in the article on Section 230). But we have both new and experienced editors going around rushing to fill these in as soon as they happen. Now, I agree that short term, if I was pulling info from NYTimes in the short term compared to Fox News, I'd have less a concern, but if we were properly waiting until the "long term" (a few news cycles out), it is much much easier to realize that we can treat Fox News (the news desk, not the pundits) as an RS, but that with information from the multiple news cycles, we have a way to apply UNDUE appropriate to know if actually need to include them. Most of that time, that is "no", as they are usually repeating the same basic story from other good sources. This is in contrast to Daily Mail or Breitbart that under the same conditions, we'd have NOTHING usable because we simply outright cannot trust their material. This is how we can justify Fox as an RS but still respect that it's probably not going to be used often due to UNDUE, but we need more editors aware that respecting the principles of NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM will avoid having Fox being pushed as hard as a source (since ideally, we won't be seeing as much liberal opinion as quickly as possible either). --Masem (t) 19:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Masem, that's a very good point. Guy (help!) 12:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  With all due respect to Masem, I would have equal concern over the coverage by the NYTimes considering their spin, mistakes and bad judgment calls when publishing material from anonymous sources that turned out to not be accurate throughout the left's Russian collusion conspiracy theory that was promoted by MSM based on the Steele dossier and false information provided to the FISA court. We should have waited per WP:RECENTISM. We cannot put 100% of our trust in online headlines and the instant news that follows those headlines, regardless of who is publishing it. The NYTimes' own executive editor brought to light the "unmistakeable anti-Trump" coverage. Perhaps WP editors who are anti-Trump themselves do not see anything wrong with the NYTimes being anti-Trump, and therein the problem lies. It is unequivocal bias, the same as it was when the right disliked Obama because it is politically motivated partisanship. In my Signpost Op-Ed this month, I added a link to the discussion with Ted Koppel who did an excellent job explaining the problem. It is real, and it does exist in internet, cable, broadcast and print political news media because we are dealing with a different era in journalism. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, I don't disagree that RECENTISM should apply equally to all sources and better to wait to add to judge when we have a better concept of the full picture, have most corrections in place, etc. For example, apparently the NYTimes took the analysis of Bolivia's elections possible fraud at face value that lead to Morales' loss (NYTimes was not the only thing going on). Now obviously, WP wasn't a part of that, but I mean, that situation or the MAGA Hat cases are examples that our most trusted sources can still be wrong in the short term. But were I to bet on which source would be less wrong in the short term, between the NYTimes and Fox? My money is on NYTimes. --Masem (t) 22:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Hemiauchenia: This edit has had this effect because it has taken the RfC statement beyond the bounds of brevity. Please amend the statement (not necessarily that line) to be less verbose, so that it will once again be listed on the RfC boards. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: Sorry about that, is the amended version better below the word limit? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you Yes, it's displaying properly now. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• An additional comment: some of the views expressed in the discussion seem to equate finding Fox unreliable with having a liberal bias. I would point out that there are many much more serious and factually reliable conservative news sources, such as National Review, The Federalist, The Bulwark, The American Conservative, and Reason, to name a few. None of these will exhibit characteristics such as the tabloid tone and shock headline attributes of Fox. BD2412 T 04:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  Please don't call Reason conservative. They favor legalization of all drugs (including crystal meth and heroin) legalization of prostitution, zero restrictions on immigration -- 100% open borders with no border patrol or DEA -- immediate closure of every US military base outside the US, no tariffs or trade restrictions, and equal marriage rights for gays. Those are not positions conservatives support. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  Whether you consider Reason conservative is entirely based on whether you consider American Libertarianism a branch of conservatism. Personally, I would say so. Being within the loosely defined blocs of Liberal and Conservative certainly does not imply universal agreement. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Guy Macon: Reason is unquestionably conservative with respect to fiscal and economic policy, and minimizing government intervention. There is, of course, variation within conservatism that deviates from those principles in the service of empowering government to maintain notions of traditionalism, but the specific positions taken are highly liquid. Incidentally, opposition to gay marriage is no longer really a conservative position. Republicans are now just as likely to support gay marriage as to oppose it (including President Trump, an unwavering gay marriage supporter, for which he has been given little credit). Fox News itself has been called out by activists for becoming too pro-gay marriage. BD2412 T 15:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Slightly off-topic, but the American Tea Party movement is a good example of strong fiscal conservatism with neutrality on social conservatism. There's a bit of detail on this at Social conservatism in the United States#Electoral politics. Here in the United Kingdom, the Conservative Premiership of David Cameron legalised same-sex marriage, amongst other non-socially-conservative things. Capewearer (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• While they overlap in some areas, no reasonable person considers US Libertarianism to be a branch of US conservatism. Again, legalizing heroin, opening up the borders, defunding the police, and solving the problem of prayer in government schools by getting rid of the government schools are not positions that are widely popular among any branch of US conservatism. I could also argue that abolishing the income tax, removing all restrictions on firearms, and closing down the FDA and FCC are not positions that are widely popular among any branch of US liberalism.

Related: World's Smallest Political Quiz.

Please note that I hold US Libertarians in the same low regard as I hold US Democrats, US Republicans, and US Greens. The greens and libertarians just haven't had the opportunity to disappoint us yet. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm...so basically, you don't like US politics. Here on Bonaire, my needs align more with the Blue party. In the US, I'm up and down... and still cling (does that make me a Klingon?) to the values of JFK, as best I can recall. I'm just not that into it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• BD2412, Oops. The Federalist just got banned from Google's ad platform due to publishing disinformation about BLM. [90] Guy (help!) 20:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  • That is actually not what that article says (ZeroHedge was banned, while The Federalist was merely warned, apparently over "comments"), but even so, The Federalist remains some number of levels more reliable than Fox News. BD2412 T 20:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

    BD2412, a low bar indeed... Guy (help!) 21:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

    Guy, Zero Hedge is unreliable, we already know that - they said the protests were fake, and had already demonetized that part of their site (probably a video). The Federalist case was different - they were simply warned about monetizing race-related content which Google deems a violation of their monetization policy. NBC News stated: "The Federalist published an article claiming the media had been lying about looting and violence during the protests. All Google is doing is appeasing a British nonprofit group and preventing Google customers from earning clickbait revenue from Google placed ads. Look at the NBC misleading headline: Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles - so what does it all actually mean? Google told The Federalist to demonitize (probably page ads and video) which means no clickbait ad revenue from Google for that content. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

    Atsme, that's a very idiosyncratic presentation. No, they are not "appeasing" anybody. They have policies, a pressure group noted that the Federalist was violating those policies, and that Zero Hedge was publishing fake news while violating those polices. Google checked, agreed, and took action.

    Early reports conflated the two. Most have now been updated to correctly reflect the different actions taken. Guy (help!) 23:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Exactly - "Early reports conflated..." - that's why we have WP:RECENTISM & NOTNEWS, and why this RfC and the comments that conflate politcal commentary with Fox News are just plain wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 08:32, June 17, 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - It's an example of a massive double-standard on here that the UK-based Daily Mail was effectively banned but primarily US-based editors on here feel unable to apply the same logic to Fox News, which shares all of the DM's vices and virtues. FOARP (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • DM - and to be fair on the US - Breitbart - has been shown to actually falsify information to get the story they want. Fox News (the news side) may bias and swing a story's details to tell a specific angle to a story but we don't have yet anywhere close to the massive scale of falsification. (Misreporting with later redactions do not count because that we expect out of an RS). --Masem (t) 12:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    • And it turns out that Fox has been fabricating too - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• They all do it, David. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, WaPo - left-leaning media are not unlike the right because they are all spewing political commentary right on their front pages. CNN chooses to call their pundits "news journalists". The first sentence in the Don Lemon lead tells our readers that he is "an American television journalist" whereas Sean Hannity is "an American talk show host and conservative political commentator." Now look at Rachel Maddow - "an American television news program host and liberal political commentator." Wolf Blitzer, another inaccurate description of a political commentator vs journalist or newscaster/news anchor. Politico's Jack Shafer was on target when he wrote: "Singling out Blitzer for a thrashing does not exonerate the other cable news anchors—their crimes remain under investigation. The Situation Room and other less-bad CNN prime-time programs—Erin Burnett Outfront, Anderson Cooper 360° and CNN Tonight With Don Lemon—churn through their time slots lighting news fuses that promise fireworks but often deliver duds. Once you start viewing these CNN programs as talk shows about the news in which hosts interview reporters, “specialists” and newsmakers, and not as news programs, per se, your journalistic expectations recede." Fox News Channel defines their political commentators correctly and keep those shows separate from the news, but based on some of the comments above, several editors are still conflating the two, perhaps because they are not well-versed in the operations of television networks. I think PEW nailed it with their June 2018 survey, Between Factual and Opinion Statements in the News. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• As you've been told several times, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument at Wikipedia. We're talking about this thing, not other things - David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• As you've been told several times... - wow, David, that sounds awfully bullyish. I'm not some child who has to be told anything. I welcome reminders - none of us are perfect - and you can certainly disagree with my position, but unless you can quote a policy that forbids such use of comparisons, you're just stating opinion, and I will continue to use comparisons to demonstrate the need for consistency in support of NPOV when making decisions as important as this one, and to overcome political bias in the decision-making process, perceived or otherwise. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is about article notability, content, etc. We're discussing something much more general here - whether a major news source should be excluded. It is very important for decisions on which sources are considered reliable to be consistent. What appears to me to be happening is that people are trying to exclude Fox News for its failings, while ignoring the failings of equivalent news sources (CNN & MSNBC) that have very similar failings. The inconsistency appears to me to be politically motivated. I'm no fan of any of the cable news channels - they are all guilty of the same sorts of sensationalism and partisanship. However, if we're going to declare Fox News unreliable, we really have to declare CNN and MSNBC to also be unreliable. If we aren't consistent, then it looks very much like WP:RS is being applied only when it's politically convenient. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The statement above ignores a fundamental difference: "... trying to exclude Fox News for its failings, while ignoring the failings of equivalent news sources (CNN & MSNBC) that have very similar failings."

For CNN & MSNBC, such "failings" are a "bug", IOW exceptional errors they immediately correct. For Fox News, such "failings" are a "feature" of their modus operandi. Unless called out on a large scale by myriad other major sources, they will not correct the error, and other extreme right-wing media do the same. That is a major difference between left-wing media and right-wing media. The left uses fact-checkers and corrects errors, whereas the right ignores fact-checkers, attacks fact-checkers (Trump told his supporters to not believe fact-checkers), and persistently uses propaganda as a tool, even when it has been proven to be false/fake.

Fox News is no longer just a right-wing RS we can use. It has slid to the far-right (CNN is considered slightly right-wing by the rest of the world) and is focused as a tool of Trump, with a "Trump-Fox News feedback loop" (search that term) that is documented as a phenomenon. Here is just one article. There are many. -- Valjean (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Your argument is similar to others, all of which have been successfully disputed throughout this discussion. The oppose iVotes appear to be very partisan in nature, and have failed to produce any evidence that supports downgrading Fox News as a generally RS. Our own WP article describes our left bias, Ideological bias on Wikipedia#Bias in Wikipedia content in relation to US politics, and that is what we need to fix and what I believe we are doing now to preserve and maintain a NPOV for the benefit of the project overall. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Atsme, no, they do not fabricate stuff. They may spin, and they may make mistakes. Fox News has been literally photoshopping a guy with a gun into images of otherwise peaceful protests. That is fake news. Guy (help!) 20:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• JzG, they actually do, including the New York Times and Pulitzer Prize winning stories. Remember Janet Cooke and The Washington Post who returned their Pulitzer? Do the research, Guy. You once told me I was naive - uhm, no. It's not me. After over 35 years in & out of newsrooms, tv studios, post production, artwork & layouts, typesetting - I am not the least bit hesitant in telling it like it is while backing it up with RS to support my position which I just did. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, this is exactly the problem. A reporter at NYT faked reports (quite common). This was detected by the Times and he was pushed out. With the Fox pictures, they are still defending them and there has been no action, that we know of, against those responsible.

  And then there's the false and misleading stories on COVID-19, and climate change, and the many other instances.

  You can excuse thema ll away one by one if you like, but in the end the pattern is clear and systemic and entirely in line with the academic research that shows Fox News to have joined FNC in using an agenda-driven, not fact-driven, model. Guy (help!) 21:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Guy, my views align more closely with Masem. I'm not making any excuses - I'm simply stating facts. After reading your essay, I'm of the mind that we will probably find ourselves in disagreement more often than not so I'm going to leave it there. I've got plenty of work to do helping to reduce the AfC/NPP backlog which keeps growing. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no evidence yet - and I'd love to be proven wrong - of the news content (not headlines, not photos) coming from the reporters and checked by the editors out of the Fox news side of intentional/malicious fabrication as was clearly shown on the DM/Brietbart cases. That would be a slam dunk in closing this against the use of Fox News. But everything listed above that is claim of Fox fabrication is either being due to Fox's bias (not fabrication but presenting in a specific angle which RS does not judge but cautions about when NPOV comes along), corrected stories (of which we can play mind games of whether these were intentional or not until pointed out), or simply outside of the news-desk editorial content, like the Seattle picture stuff. I'm trying to be the devil's advocate (literally, almost) here - There's a lot of personal and other reasons that people want to see Fox News demoted from reliable, and I would tend to agree that net result, but we need to prove the case out on this, otherwise, any weak rational can come back to bite us in the future ("You demote Fox for fake headlines, CNN has done fake headlines..." type logic). And that's why I'm point out that even with Fox news still considered reliable, UNDUE drives away from its use as a source when other sources covering the same event exist. --Masem (t) 13:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am of the same opinion as Jimmy Wales on this..."You shouldn't really use Wikipedia as the sole source for anything, ever. You shouldn't use anything as the sole source for anything, in my view." Wikipedia is an Anglo-American encyclopedia, and so it values western opinions/references/sources and denounces other news agencies as "government controlled/funded", when it is clear that American and British journalists either toe the line and use government press releases as fact, or they are ostracised. What I am saying is that every editor must be careful, what they are publishing, for instance, Bolivian coup. Every western news organisation shouted out "election fraud", only for MIT to state (months later) "There is not any statistical evidence of fraud that we can find,” wrote John Curiel and Jack R Williams, both from MIT, adding that the conclusions of an audit by the Organization of American States “would appear deeply flawed”.. My message, be very sceptical of western news agents (BBC, CNN, Fox), as much as eastern news agents from China or Russia.SethWhales ^talk 15:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  +1 - I'm on the same page, Seth Whales. As several of us have repeated over and over again, comply with WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS and exercise caution toward all news sources in today's clickbait environment, especially political news which in and of itself is subject to the biases of the authors/journalists/publishers. If we had been adhering to our PAGs, this issue never would have been brought up, much less noticed - it would have disappeared in the anus of internet history. Correction was made/published by the news source - end of story. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate Fox News for AMPol2. We don't save a source because only two out of a dozen+ of its hosts are good. When it's accurate, other sources should be used. Speaking only of Fox News, not its talking heads, with the exception of Shep Smith (consistently good, but no longer at Fox) and Chris Wallace (he occasionally dares to do the right thing), Fox News should be deprecated for politics. Those two hosts are the rare exception that proves the rule. The other hosts in the newsroom are generally unreliable.

Fox employees leaving the company have described the "newsroom" (not just any room) as "an extension of the Trump White House."[91] The situation is worse now, to the point where the influence of Fox News and Fox & Friends on Trump and the GOP cannot be ignored. The tail is wagging the dog:

"Fox News is no longer the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. The Republican Party is the legislative arm of Fox News." -- David Atkins, Washington Monthly

Deprecate it for AMPol2, which is not a total ban. When Wallace and others are accurate, they can still be used for politics, but we only know that by comparing them with other sources, so we should generally use those sources. (The rest of the hosts should be blacklisted for politics.) -- Valjean (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• A lot of people seem to be citing Politifact's ratings on Fox News to prove that they are not reliable. They claim that 60% of Politifact's ratings for Fox News are completely or partially false. This is not a good way of analyzing the reliability of a news source, because it is very clear that Politifact websites doesn't factcheck absolutely everything Fox News reports. Also, I heard an editor say that 44% of Politifact's ratings for NBC are completely or partially false. If Politifact's ratings are the reason that you think Fox News is unreliable, you should also think NBC is unreliable. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I would remind editors we are discussing Fox news, Just Fox news. Whataboutism is not a valid argument.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

All corporate-controlled news media, manufactures consent on behalf of their corporate donors/sponsors. Whether it be pro-Republican (Fox) or pro-Democrat (CNN & MSNBC). GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Picture manipulation by Fox?

Just saw this tweet, claiming blatant photo manipulation by the Fox News site. It's 2am here - is anyone here familiar with the originals? If true, this sort of practice would rule out Option 1 - David Gerard (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard and David Gerard: here's another source:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/

BTW, your comment ended up in the wrong section, so I moved it here. I hope you don't mind. -- Valjean (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, there have been several examples of this in the past, a few of which can be found in the article Fox News controversies, though there are a few others that didn’t get enough coverage to be due there. I sort of agree that this should preclude Option 1 to some extent, as this isn’t a regular occurrence from other outlets, but it happens periodically with some degree of regularity with Fox. I would presume a lot of people are !voting “Option 1“ based on the Fox News of a decade ago, or are simply unaware of these kinds of things. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean, pictures shouldn't be considered as part of the story written by the byline of the author of the article. That's some guy trying to illustrate the paper, and just like headlines and anything else outside the article should not be taken as representative of what passes the editorial desk. It is clear example of the bias that Fox will try to do which, as I've commented below, usually makes their covers just unnecessary to include when other more RSes are covering the same thing if we are taking cautious steps in applying NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM. --Masem (t) 04:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't buy this excuse. Making stuff up is making stuff up. OK, headlines should be disregarded and not cited—for example, I have seen a false headline in a very reliable paper (Times of Israel), albeit it was quickly fixed. Deliberately falsifying images, however, is falsification and my standard for deprecation is "deliberately and consistently reports falsehoods." buidhe 06:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It was a montage - most people familiar with images can see that...but it appears Fox competitors are scraping the barrel to find fault. Life goes on. It's not half as bad as publishing images of children in cages and falsely claiming it was Trump when the photos were from the Obama administration, and worse, promoting a presidential nominee who lied about it. Again, as I've stated above - exercise caution, comply with WP:RECENTISM and wait for the retrospective from historians and academics. We need to stop with the Twitter feed - it's unreliable - and stop breaking news - WP:NOTNEWS. Follow our PAGs and we'll be fine. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Come off it. They're blatantly and intentionally lying. This is beyond the pale. Stop apologizing for liars. oknazevad (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A “montage”? Is any other reliable source characterizing it this way except Fox News itself? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The desk jockies that write headlines for CNN and other sites are just as bad in terms of writing clickbait titles (there's a whole case around Lawrence Lessig and the NYTimes just over a bad headline, despite the article content being legit). [92]. (Whether that suit will develop into anything we don't know, just the point that headlines are written without the care of the body of the articles). This happens across the board, but since we don't use headlines or pictures or picture captures as "reliable" because of the fact they are written outside the editorial process, this type of manipulation should not be counted against the reliability of the reporters and editors above the Fox News desk. Bias of the overall work, heck yes. --Masem (t) 17:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The more respectable and reliable conservative sources that I mentioned in the previous section—e.g., National Review, The The Federalist, The Bulwark, The American Conservative, and you can throw in The Wall Street Journal—wouldn't be caught dead engaging in tabloid practices like this. Considering the fact that Fox's prominent posting of this panic-inducing image coincided with one of the worst stock market drops of the year, I would think that Wikipedia should definitely avoid linking to such content. Perhaps the best solution would be some means of examining potential uses of Fox as a source on a case by case basis, with a consensus-based process to vet individual news articles for propriety before using them. BD2412 T 17:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree those sources would not manipulate photos like that, but again, we're looking to what is usable by WP, the article content, not the photos or headlines. That they do that type of manipulation should put up a big caution that they are biased outside the newsdesk and thus when applying UNDUE for inclusion, that weighs heavily against them. That's how you apply consensus on a case-by-case basis without eliminating the use of Fox for most other topics where there are few issues with their reporting, and without applying "not reliable for X topics" which always get plagued with debate if that's used. I know it seems earlier just to say Fox is not an RS, but the evidence is not there for that... But we have ways to work around the problems of its bias as long as consensus-based processes build on NPOV are used on case-by-case. --Masem (t) 17:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

- Please...see our WP article Photo manipulation##Use_in_journalism. I would think the montage was used to depict different events in one image, such as the protestors in the images published by The Detroit News which shows armed protestors. Armed - with guns. First of all, Tucker Carlson, the subject of the tweet in this particular discussion, is not a newscaster, rather he is a pundit so why are we having this discussion at all, David Gerard? Hannity is also a pundit and he also addressed the gun toting protestors. There are pictures in the article I linked to with the caption Armed men weapons in the Senate gallery on Thursday, April 30. (Photo: Craig Mauger, The Detroit News) but there are also other images with gun toting protestors. Are you saying there were no guns, and the image is a false depiction of the protest? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Please...see our WP article Photo manipulation##Use_in_journalism which is a subsection of the section "Political and ethical issues", and links to Photojournalism#Ethical,_legal,_and_social_considerations. You're providing evidence against your own position here. Photomanipulation in this manner is a deprecation offense - David Gerard (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

What newscast used the image? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found the retraction which states: Editor’s Note: A FoxNews.com home page photo collage which originally accompanied this story included multiple scenes from Seattle’s “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” and of wreckage following recent riots. The collage did not clearly delineate between these images, and has since been replaced. In addition, a recent slideshow depicting scenes from Seattle mistakenly included a picture from St. Paul, Minnesota. Fox News regrets these errors. If you're talking about deprecating based on that, then a whole lot of once considered RS are going down with it, including the AP, [93], and so is LA Times, National Archives, well...here's a short list. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Even their "correction" was false. It was not a collage. It was a photo-shopped image inserting a weapon carrying person into the image to push a false narrative that the POTUS is pushing. O3000 (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The correction was not false - and what "false narrative" is POTUS pushing? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• All of them - of all major networks, despite claims to the contrary by others, FOX is the only one whose main network coverage is specifically regularly factually inaccurate. While MSNBC or CNN may have programs that are informed by a Talking Head, or their news and op-ed can become amalgamated because modern reporting has become that way inclined (with US media in particular), FOX is the only news source that openly leads with journalists that aren't journalists, repeating conspiracy theories from the internet in live bulletin and stories that are not listed as opinion. This isn't a Tucked Carlson issue, this is objectively bad journalism across the board with terrible editorial decisions being made - the kind of decisions that lead to Piers Morgan losing his job in the UK, but lead to very little in the US other than defence of the behaviour because of WHATABOUTISM because of the perception that the largely centrist position of reality is to the left of the general perception of the average conservative American. As Colbert once said, "reality has a well known liberal bias". FOX is the only mainstream network where it is clear that entire topics are handled by partisan groups that are different to the core journalists that they actually have in their employ. It's why they can challenge the president for factual inaccuracies on Monday and appear legitimate, but still be publishing their own factual inaccuracies for days after until surreptitiously changing their articles without indicating what has been later altered. Most reliable networks publish their "corrections" openly. FOX is well documented for failing to do so, and often allowing their affiliates to continue using the incorrect versions of events in their broadcasts even while amending their incorrect news articles. Koncorde (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• This isn't necessarily an issue that's exclusive to Fox. MSNBC, for instance, has been caught deceptively editing recordings to portray figures in an unflattering light. Take this, when they deliberately presented Mitt Romney comments out of context, or this, when they spliced together George Zimmerman's 911 call to make it sound like he was racist. JOEBRO64 12:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Two wrongs do not make a right, and this is a rather more incendiary situation than Zimmerman's.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
    • ...what? Why should we treat Fox differently than other outlets that are guilty of similar manipulation? MSNBC was just caught last month doing it again with William Barr; it's been a recurring issue with that network for years. As some users, like Ad Orientem, Atsme, and Thucydides411, said above, I think some editors are treating Fox differently because it has a political slant they don't agree with. JOEBRO64 14:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I can only speak to my perspective on this, but I think part of the issue here is the frequency with which both this issue arises, and the frequency with which there are multiple factual errors in their reporting, and how skewed the presentation is, including “news” programs such as Bret Baier. As well as the general reluctancy to highlight omissions and errors. It happens more often with Fox than with most other mainstream sources. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Because faking pictures of people carrying guns at a time when there are troops (even if they are Saturday afternoon ones) paroling the streets of some cities and the president calling for the army to intervene is rather more serious in its potential repercussions and thus should have been dealt with with far more care. Also Otherstuffdoesnotesxist is an invalid an argument as wp:otherstuff. As well as (as I already said) just because wee do not prohibit X does not mean we should not prohibit Y (rather its an argument for also prohibiting X). And to add, this is fox news, not commentary or chat shows. One of the argument is has always been "But its not Fox news that does it", guess what...it does. Moreover No its not because they are right wing, its because this had the potential to inflame a very very dangerous situation (and , by the way, the Daily Mirror is not right wing).Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

      TheJoebro64, MSNBC is an opinion broadcaster. We've long recognised the difference between Fox News and FNC; in the same way, we recognise the difference between NBC and MSNBC. The difference here is that there are multiple images, and they were used by Fox News, not FNC, to promote a false narrative around the Seattle protests. If Fox had put their hands up, we might be able to have a conversation aboutt hat, but their apology amounts to "sorry we got caught". They have not acknowledged the underlying problem, still less undertaken to do anything about it. Guy (help!) 09:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  TheJoebro64, If there's a pattern of MSNBC doing this I would also support it being rated generally unreliable at an RFC. buidhe 16:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as a journalist, the manipulation is an egregious violation of photojournalism ethics, and the lack of a proper retraction that acknowledges that the original images were manipulated makes the issue massively worse. This is a perfect example of why option 1 is unacceptable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Apparently not just one image, and not just run in one segment, and so obvious they had to know [[94]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, this is an absolute slam dunk. Literal fake news. Guy (help!) 09:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Here [[95]] is the edited report where they have removed the image, note they do not actually admit it was faked. So no they are not owning up to it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Retraction statement: Fox News in a statement said it "regrets these errors," specifically for not clearly delineating between the images. Can we move on? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not a retraction, they do not say "we used fake imagery" do they?Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

IN fact I would go further, by not admitting the picture was fake they are (in effect) saying it was genuine.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, don't go too far - see my comment above. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I would, the image was a cut and paste job, and they stand by its authenticity by not admitting it was faked.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That "retraction" does not acknowledge that the original imagery was manipulated. This makes the error far worse, not better. So no, we should absolutely not "move on" — this is a clear current example of the kinds of problems Fox News has. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

There is little question that the final image - the armed person in front of the Seattle shot - was designed to manipulate the reader to think that the SAZ was being patrolled by armed militia-like people. But is the image itself "manipulated" ? Adding a clearly second image atop a first ("count the pixels" may seem trite but the cut-off elbow is an obvious sign this wasn't anywhere close to trying to be a pixel-perfect digital manipulation) I will agree with what is said from the NPPA in Seattle Times' report [96] that they needed to have marked that from an ethical standpoint, which is the key problem here when we talk about bias; even if they had that statement, that's still a very biased combination of elements designed to manipulation the average reader's thinking. Other sources have done this before: File:OJ_Simpson_Newsweek_TIME.png the infamous case of Time darkening the photo of OJ for example. This is why we ignore headlines, section titles, photos, and other incidental materials as part of what we consider "reliable" for any reliable source, because that's a whole different editorial team from the people writing and editing the news, all designed to draw the reader's eye, for any work. I will still argue that this bias from Fox can be used in most problematic cases to eliminate it as a source when UNDUE is taken into account, but no need to touch it as an RS source (from its news desk, obviously not from its opinion side) --Masem (t) 19:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WaPo stated: "The misleading material spliced a June 10 photograph of an armed man at the Seattle protests with different photographs — one also from June 10, of a sign reading, “You Are Now Entering Free Cap Hill,” and others from images captured May 30 of a shattered storefront and other unrest downtown." The retraction is self-explanatory but WaPo further stated that Fox News explained there is an "editor’s note appended to three online articles" which I've already provided. In this case, the man with the gun was standing in front of a car at CHAZ on June 10th during the Seattle protests (the David Ryder image). His image was digitally copied, and photoshopped into the Fox montage and into another image to show him standing beside the CHAZ sign. That is typically handled by a separate dept. such as artwork & layout for the website. That's where online publications can get in trouble unlike newsprint which afforded the publishers more time to prep and check, and even then it wasn't 100% foolproof. The image of the man with the gun is real per the Seattle Times: The June 10 photo of an unidentified man with a gun standing in front of a car in CHAZ was taken by Seattle freelance photographer David Ryder, who distributed the photo through Getty Images. Fox News retracted it as responsible news networks are expected to do. It's a done deal. Somebody is probably going to be fired or moved to another dept., which is typically what happens in such cases. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

And what about the image of him also standing in front of a smashed shop, how did they explain that? Or the one oh the same bloke, in the same stance standing next to a free zone sigh?Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same thinig over and over - look at the Seattle Times article - it is explained in detail with the photos. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

[[97]] "Fox News is one such media outlet that published a series of articles on how the Seattle 'autonomous zone' has armed guards and local businesses are being threatened with extortion, and how the Seattle Police has been urged to take back control from "brazen, anti-cop anarchists." "One image shows the armed man standing in front of what appears to be a smashed retail store".Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

However, social media users were quick to notice that the images in all the Fox News articles had one thing in common – they all featured the same armed white individual wearing a bulletproof vest and holding an assault weapon. After some digging, users discovered that Fox News had photoshopped the image of the armed guard into all of its images to portray a more "dangerous" situation in the self-declared autonomous zone."

• Seems to me this is rather serious. We have the POTUS claiming that antifa is involved with the demonstrations and declaring that antifa is a terrorist group. We have the Seattle police saying this might spread to other cities. Then, Fox publishes a fake photo seemingly supporting Trump’s claims. All of this together pushes an image of the country under siege by armed terrorists starting a violent revolution. This is in a heated atmosphere, in a country with guys with AK47s waiting for a race war. O3000 (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Photos are ALREADY considered unreliable for use as a source. Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes (although I can't actually find a guideline to that effect). But, suppose a source fakes a photo of Trump starting the fire behind the church that he held a bible in front of. Would you continue to support such a source as reliable? Headlines are often exaggerated. But, actually faking a photo to push a conspiracy theory favorable to the POTUS that a "news" source has consistently supported is beyond the pale. We have to draw a line somewhere. O3000 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Its not about using the photograph(S)it is the fact that it was a lie broadcast on fox news (and other parts of the Fox empire). Its the fact it shows they make shit up.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I just read this entire thread and carefully looked at the webpages/images referenced. The obvious "lying by Photoshop" and the weaselly retraction that failed to acknowledge that they lied by Photoshop made me change my opinion of Fox News from "Use with care" to "Generally unreliable for facts, events, interviews and quotes." Those images shown at [98] raise the question: if Fox News is willing to mislead me about where a particular person carrying a gun and wearing a green mask was standing, how can I trust anything else they present to me? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

So let's now declare that all RSes that uses clickbait and misleading headlines be also "generally unreliable" which is all of them including the NYTimes, if you go that direction. Pictures, like headlines, are not part of the reliable content we are judging or can use in WP. This is why we have that line being drawn. --Masem (t) 13:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This was not a headline, click bait or otherwise, it was included in multiple programs across Fox.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It is still part of the content outside of control of the actual editorial control of the news desk. Its stuff we as editors can't use as part of a topic. If we want to make reliable sources be responsible and reliable for all content they publish - headlines, photos, etc. - so be it, but that would affect many "normally RS" sources which I don't think is the goal here. --Masem (t) 13:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

What Fox news has no control over what photos they include in a news broadcast? Christ I could not view the Seattle time article and so assumed the picture I could see was a mock up by the Seattle times because it was such an obvious fake. When I saw in fact what I assumed was a joke at foxes expense was actually what they had tried to use (not once but multiple times) I had no choice but to change my choice. Sorry but "no one even thought "this looks a bit off" better not use it" becasue "well its not MY job to think" is not a defence.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Consider what parts of a Fox News broadcast we'd use within articles presuming they were reliable - we can only use what is said by the anchors and any quoted text from video interviews or news clips. What's said by the anchors is copyproofed text from the news department, which is what we're looking at here, and nothing implies that the clips and interviews are being tampered with (outside of cutting them to show Fox's bias). Now, if Fox News was playing with splicing or deepfake game with interviews during those segments, that the equivalent of the DM falsification that we can work from to deprecate Fox. --Masem (t) 14:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

"President thingywobble was not seen at a press interview" cue fake picture of President thingywobble shaking hands with a child rapist "and the white house has not answered our request for clarification of where he it", yes a picture can be used to mislead whilst the words do not, its called a dog whistle. This is my last word here, we should not use news organisations that actually fake content, not even dishonestly edit, actually fake it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Masem, that might carry some weight if the news desk had issued a statement and demanded disciplinary action against the person responsible. Not seeing any evidence of that.

This lends credence to the theory that Shep Smith was the canary in the mine. Guy (help!) 21:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, devils advocate here: when other RSes have screws up like this like Time's OJ picture/etc. have we expected them to call out the person responsible? RS demands editorial control which, even as a stretch here because the photo side is outside the news department, still happened, but does it require appropriate disciplinary action? There's clearly a huge weight of bias to want to tip Fox news into deprecation, and certainly enough of these things that it would seem easiest to be done with it by doing so, but we're going to have people come back to this case and use arguments we're setting here against other RSes to argument for their deprecation over and over and over again, so lets make sure that we are doing it.

The other route, which is circular but would be a lot easier to say why Fox needs to be deprecated, is to modify RS to not only talk about editorial control, but where appropriate, particularly for a mainstream source, adherence for journalistic ethics. Of which the list of misdeeds by Fox (from its news team) starts to grow incredibly long, while leaving little of our main RS untouched. It might take a way a few other sources that are biased that don't show ethics (which I would sort of demand/expect in the AP2 field if we went that way) but I would guess at the benefit of putting Fox into the deprecated category this would be an acceptable loss, to speak --Masem (t) 21:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

On the question of where we talk about headlines not being an RS, Wikipedia:A headline is not a reliable source this essay came out of discussion last month [99] that we all agreed headlines were not RSes from past discussions we never really codified that. --Masem (t) 13:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Rushing to judgment on the basis of one recent incident (in which Fox News issued corrections) would be very unwise. Letting momentary outrage drive long-term decisions on which sources are reliable would be very short-sighted. Based on this rationale, we could have banned any number of reliable sources. In December 2016, the Washington Post ran a false story about Russia supposedly hacking into a utility grid in Vermont. The story was widely reprinted and caused a good deal of panic before it turned out to be completely false - one laptop that was not connected to the utility's control systems had malware that's widely available to hackers online. The Washington Post issued a half-way correction to the story (mentioning that the computer wasn't attached to the utility's control systems, but not mentioning that the malware isn't connected to Russia), but kept the misleading title in place. The Washington Post acted irresponsibly by running a dubious story that aligns with their political outlook, but which a bit of research would have shown to be completely unsupported, and then failed to fully correct the story. Yet it would be really short-sighted to use this one instance to rule that the Washington Post is not a reliable source. I'm sure that there wouldn't be a widespread call by Wikipedians to rule out the Washington Post anyways, because the Washington Post's editorial slant aligns much better with the views of most Wikipedians than that of Fox News does. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You could always nominate it and see.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see how that WaPo story was "false". They correctly reported what officials said. I don't see how WaPo faked anything and they made no claims in their own voice. A far cry from digitally altering a photo, and claiming another was from a different city. And let us not pretend this was "one recent incident". Fox is on this page on a regular basis. O3000 (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a bit like when Fox News makes absurd statements, phrased as a question. The Washington Post's article repeatedly says that Russia hacked the utility, but appends some version of "officials say." In fact, I recall arguing with editors at Russian interference in the 2016 United States election (including some of those who have responded to me here) back around that time about these very sorts of claims. There were many editors were insisting that these sorts of claims had to be stated in Wikivoice, because the US intelligence agencies are reliable, and also arguing against interpreting many of these statements as claims made by officials - but rather as claims made by the Washington Post and other newspapers. For example, take this sentence in the Washington Post article:

The penetration may have been designed to disrupt the utility’s operations or as a test by the Russians to see whether they could penetrate a portion of the grid.

That sentence appears to state, as a fact, that the penetration occurred, and back then, I'm sure those generally arguing for inclusion of as much Russiagate material as possible would have argued that that statement should be interpreted factually (for an example, take a look at this discussion).

The Washington Post's article spawned a whole spate of articles in other news sources, with titles directly stating that Russia had hacked the utility. BBC: "'Russia hacking code' found on Vermont utility computer". Reuters: "Russian hackers penetrated Vermont electric utility - Washington Post". Politico: "Vermont utility confirms system breach by Russians". NBC News: "Vermont Electricity Department Finds Malware Linked to Russian Hackers". Boston Globe: "Vermont utility finds malware code attributed to Russians". The Washington Post did not do basic due diligence on the claims made by the officials, and those claims were debunked by others within days, leading to the Washington Post to correct some - but not all - of the false claims made in the article. If you were only to read that one Washington Post article and the editor's note at the top, you would not know that the malware involved is widely available to hackers - not just Russian state hackers.

In other words, the Washington Post uncritically presented the claims of government officials, and appeared to repeat their claims in its own voice in places. That led to widespread coverage claiming - as a fact - that Russia had hacked the utility. The story then fell apart after basic inspection, which the Washington Post had failed to do before running the article, and the Washington Post never fully corrected the article. But that one incident (and it's not the only from that time involving the Washington Post, including the infamous "PropOrNot" article) should not lead the Washington Post to be listed as unreliable. Making decisions based on individual stories like this - especially in the heat of the moment - is bad practice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Surely WaPo is not responsible for what is published in other sources. The WaPo article appears to be correct as it repeatedly attributes, as they should. O3000 (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

In the sentence I quoted above, they did not clearly attribute the statement. But more than that, the Washington Post failed to do even basic verification of what the government officials were telling it, and the story collapsed within days, once other news agencies approached the story with greater rigor. Yet the Washington Post never fully corrected the article. I don't see how you can view this as anything other than a failure to live up to basic journalistic practices. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides, that argument is an example of the kind of dumbfoundingly vacuous cherrypicking that is at the core of this RfC. Are we ready to have editors falsely and routinely hold WaPo's 150+ year record on a par with Fox? Just about every website posts at least a sizable percentage of fact. Today it is Sunday. It may rain next week. If that's your best shot, we are never going to reach consensus above option 3. Please try to make comments that do not deny the central issue. SPECIFICO talk 15:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: That's a great demonstration of a particularly egregious failure on the part of the Washington Post. On the other hand @SPECIFICO:, your reply is, to use your own words, "an example of the kind of dumbfoundingly vacuous" approaches some editors take towards civility, which is not only required by policy here but also useful in life. Surely there's no need to scrape the bottom of the barrel. -Darouet (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is getting closer to election time in the US, right? I'm of the mind that the upcoming election might be part of the reason for the repeated attempts to eliminate Fox News as a generally RS, and with such vengeance vehemence in a try-and-try again effort to reach what has been an elusive result. I have provided the following quote as an aside to the fact that Fox News has been the #1 rated cable news channel for 18 consecutive years, much to the dismay of their competitors and political opposition; many of whom continue to throw stones at Fox News from glass houses. I would have cited the NYTimes or WaPo instead of Forbes for Fox's rating but lo and behold they did not publish even a blurb about it, which speaks volumes as to why we should not eliminate or downgrade all of our RS, like Forbes and the Washington Times, based purely on political bias. Anyway, the following is quoted from a literature review in the International Journal on Digital Libraries. It made me go "Hmmm..." so I thought it was important to share it as part of this discussion in the event political bias might be a factor in this RfC, unknowing or otherwise, and if it is, then at least now we are better able to understand why:

"Not all frame analyses focus on the text of news articles. For instance, DellaVigna and Kaplan analyzed the gradual adoption of cable TV of Fox News between 1996 and 2000 to show that Fox News had a “significant impact” on the presidential elections. Essentially, the study analyzed whether a district had already adopted the Fox News channel, and what the election result was. The results revealed that the Republican party had an increased vote share in those towns that had adopted Fox News."

^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, this is an odd edit. The study you linked to does indeed say that Fox has had an undue effect on elections. It also stated that Fox was significantly slanted and that Fox viewers were the most uninformed about the Iraq War. So yes, we are trying to reduce dependence on an unreliable source as per guidelines. So yes, it is getting closer to election time in the US, right? But, your claim that those efforts to stop using a bad source is based upon “vengeance“ is a violation of AGF and CIV and completely ignores that they simply don’t like usage of bad sources, while you think you are on the side of goodness to continue usage of a source your own citation criticizes so heavily. O3000 (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I corrected it - that was not the word I originally intended to use. I'm actually done here. Happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Lately I've noticed a tendency to appeal to dictionaries in cases like these. O3000 you might like to look at the definition of "with a vengeance" to understand how (at least in modern English) this is an impersonal expression. A lot of people are having trouble identifying what is and isn't civil these days. I've noticed it seems to depend a lot more on status than on fact. Not sure if that's what happened here, but I thought it was worth providing some expert testimony from a trusted source. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 05:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme already changed the wording. O3000 (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

OK how about this [[100]]?Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Or [[101]] "Fox altering the images without any disclaimer was “terribly misleading.”".Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Further evidence of recent malign behaviour by Fox News

Comment I came here to point out the self-same doctored fake news story as the one discussed above after having voted (above, option 3) some time ago. The Fox News fake-photo debacle is one of a long line of disgraceful truth-evasion on behalf of Fox's editorial standards. They are the American Sputnik, and I have great difficulty understanding why so many people disagree with/are blind to/ignorant of/overlook this. (Delete as appropriate.) Here, though, is yet another instance of Fox`s child catcher level of nefariousness: described by this article In short, the now-famous recent incident of CNN journalists arrested live on air is twisted by Fox into an attack article on its less far-right competitor by: seeking to bury the wholly self-explanatory video of the incident; using the anchor's script smarmily and baselessly to malign CNN journalists; and, to finish: a heavy dusting of their standard line that "the liberal [non-Fox] media is disobedient/disingenuous/violent/non-white/guilty of unAmerican activities". It is unthinkable that such an organization can be considered a reliable source for anything related to news, politics, America, or anything else important or potentially controversial. And I don't for a minute buy this alleged firewall between their newsroom and their pundits. They choose the pundits, they pay them, broadcast them, and embed their opinions in videos on their news articles of FoxNews.com GPinkerton (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Studies on the reliability of Fox News

General (Fox News)

• The Fox “News” Lie: Fox's “news” side pushed misinformation every day for four months straight, Media Matters.
• Fairleigh Dickinson University: What you know depends on whatyou watch:Current events knowledgeacross popular news sources. Found that study participants who watched Fox News we less informed than people who watched no news [102].
• Nelson, Jacob L. (January 23, 2019). "What is Fox News? Researchers want to know". Columbia Journalism Review.
• Benkler Y, Faris R and Roberts H (2018) Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford University Press.

Climate change (Fox News)

• Science or Spin?: Assessing the Accuracy of Cable News Coverage of Climate Science, Union of Concerned Scientistis 93% of global warming coverage by the Fox News Channel was misleading
• Climate-Challenged Society, Oxford University Press. popular media outlets in the US that make no pretense of balance objectivity in their attempts to advance denial, such as Fox News
• https://www.citizen.org/article/foxic-fox-news-networks-dangerous-climate-denial-2019/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=52dbcd4f-2756-4284-973a-7fe06c039cd5 Public Citizen: Fox News Network’s Dangerous Climate Denial 2019] Of the 247 segments, 212 or 86% were dismissive of the climate crisis, cast warming and its consequences in doubt or employed fear mongering when discussing climate solutions. and “Tucker Carlson Tonight” ran the most climate denial segments with 41 or approximately seven per month, followed by “Hannity” with 32 and “The Five” with 29

COVID-19 (Fox News)

• How Right-Leaning Media Coverage of COVID-19 Facilitated the Spread of Misinformation in the Early Stages of the Pandemic, Oklahoma State University, University of Pennsylvania, Carleton College In this paper, we report the results of an automated content analysis showing that right-leaning news outlets (e.g., Fox News, Breitbart) were more than 2.5 times more likely than mainstream outlets to discuss COVID-19 misinformation during the early stages of the U.S. pandemic response.
• The data is in: Fox News may have kept millions from taking the coronavirus threat seriously

"Three serious research efforts have put numerical weight — yes, data-driven evidence — behind what many suspected all along: Americans who relied on Fox News, or similar right-wing sources, were duped as the coronavirus began its deadly spread.

Dangerously duped.

The studies “paint a picture of a media ecosystem that amplifies misinformation, entertains conspiracy theories and discourages audiences from taking concrete steps to protect themselves and others,” wrote my colleague Christopher Ingraham in an analysis last week."

Valjean (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No Go Zone anti-Muslim conspiracy theory (Fox News)

• No-Go Zone Conspiracy Theory, Georgetown University Bridge “there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in;” (at the time of the interview, Birmingham’s population was 80% non-Muslim). — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cummings (talk • contribs) 10:07, June 14, 2020 (UTC)

Discussion 2 (Fox News)

• Comment - I previously hatted this discussion and it was reverted. The reason for my action was because this entire section is irrelevant to the scope of the RfC, and a waste of editors' valuable time. The first source, which is a biased progressive opinion source, briefly mentions the Fox newscast bias, and goes on and on about the Fox News Channel's talk-shows and political commentary that has nothing at all to do with the Fox News Channel's newscasts. Every other source/analysis/poll included after that first source are irrelevant to the RfC because the scope encompasses only the Fox News Channel's political commentary and talk-show pundits, not the newscasts. Hopefully this explanation will save editors from wasting any of their valuable time on off-topic opinions that have no relevance to the RfC. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Given that you've started literally positing a conspiracy against "conservative" sources operating on this page, at this stage you're WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS and probably aren't someone who should be telling anyone else what to post - David Gerard (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @David Gerard: I agree. The constant accusations of editorial bias is a personal attack and must be stopped (for some reason the accuser(s) don't realize their own bias can be seen as the reason they are defending Fox News.... How odd! They shouldn't cast stones.):

"Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions."

It is the lack of accuracy and pushing of political and scientific pseudoscience, IOW pushing counterfactual content and narratives, that is the reason we don't like Fox News. Hey, someone in the news media has to do this propaganda job (that's the nature of the beast), and instead of leaving this job to the most extreme right-wing sources, Fox News has joined the fray after Trump's rise to power (which happened largely because of them as his propaganda voice). Editorial bias has nothing to do with our opposition to Fox News's inaccuracy. That is their own doing. -- Valjean (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I've stated several times now that I do not consider any of the cable news channels particularly reliable, and though it's completely irrelevant, I'll just mention that my political biases are extremely different from those of Fox News. However, it does appear clear to me that the reason why there is a push to exclude Fox News specifically as a source - as opposed to CNN and MSNBC, which are on a very comparable level of overall reliability and political bias/partisanship - is because the bias that Fox News exhibits does not align with the views of most Wikipedians. Wikipedia should have a consistent policy on reliable sources, which means that either all three major American cable news channels are reliable, or all three are unreliable. Taking an inconsistent, politically biased approach to WP:RS will just serve to tilt articles. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Since you clearly missed the nuance, let me spell it out for you, Fox News has been inaccurate on multiple occasions. They made their platform available to pundits who have been wrong on multiple occasions. I recommend either you read the comments carefully to avoid making blatantly pointless accusations or just not say anything that might be viewed as accusatory. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

You have to distinguish between opinion (e.g., pundits) and news articles. Politically motivated reporting is not a peculiarity of Fox News, however - CNN recently ran an interview with Susan Rice in which she claimed the violence at protests over the killing of George Floyd might be instigated by Russia: [103]. All three major American cable news channels (Fox News, CNN and MSNBC) are questionable, and should be handled similarly. Treating the news articles on their websites as reliable is a reasonable policy. Opinion articles and opinion shows are definitely not reliable. It would be reasonable to class broadcast news reports on all three channels are unreliable (as opposed to articles on their websites), in my opinion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, have a quick look at the Ad Fontes chart. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ - notice that it distinguishes CNN.com from CNN Cable, and Fox News from FNC. We also make this distinction. We distinguish NBC from MSNBC, because, yes, we all know that cable infotainment is not the same as real news.

Fox News (as opposed to FNC) has been considered reliable up to now. What's changed is not us, it's Fox News. It's now rated less reliable and more biased than the Daily Mail.

Fox now blurs the line between its editorial agenda and its news reporting. The canary in the mine was Shep Smith. The doctored images of Seattle were on Fox News, not FNC. Fox has changed. Guy (help!) 16:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

What makes Ad Fontes reliable? The doctored images of Seattle were on Fox News. Fox News issued a correction, which is one of the things we look for in reliable sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411: You've several times repeated your assertion, All three major American cable news channels (Fox News, CNN and MSNBC) are questionable, and should be handled similarly. without giving any reasons or explaining why they should not be differentiated based on the evidence under discussion. Can you give us several examples, instances of Fox making an error biased against Trump and the Right and then issuing a correction? Or is it all the other way -- Right-leaning bias in prime time and then a correction buried elsewhere? Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 18:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, no they did not. They mumbled something about the home-page photos “did not clearly delineate” the splicing together of multiple images from different locations. That's a "sorry we got caught". In a responsible news org, the editor would have been fired or at least disciplined. Guy (help!) 20:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "mumbled." They posted written corrections at the top of the articles and changed the images. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Lets all lay of the PA's, and assume good faith.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Slatersteven. Let's stick to the facts as follows: WaPo returned a Pulitzer because of a fabricated story they published, and so did the NYTimes. See this diff for the links to the stories. Why haven't we demoted or even deprecated those 2 sources considering they were actually reporting the news, and not opinion or political analysis? For news & statements of fact, they cannot be trusted after those two major screw-ups. How can we ever trust them again, especially after the past 3 years of them pushing a Russian collusion story - using anonymous sources and unverified material - misleading their readers/audiences - and winning more Pulitizers for getting it wrong? Fox News Channel was one of few who did not promote the Russian collusion story - the talk-shows (political commentary) investigated it and found zero collusion. They got it right and everybody got it wrong. They also got the 2016 election right - but that was analysis/opinion/commentary not news. Shepard Smith was a Fox news anchor and he stated: “The Fox News poll did have President Trump losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton and the Fox News poll was accurate,” he said. Of course, factually he was accurate because that is what the poll stated, but the polling prediction was wrong. We may not agree with what they're reporting, or their POV, but that doesn't make them unreliable. And yes, they're biased - so are all the others. A Fox News Channel employee recently made a bad decision in art & layout when they used photoshopped images as artwork to depict a scene and enhance a story, and for that you want to demote the entire Fox News Channel as unreliable? How often has ABC screwed up and aired fake photos? And CBS, and on and on. What the broadcast did was actually news. What Fox did was garnishments - art depictions on their website. Deadlines cause mistakes and that is why we should closely adhere to RECENTISM & NOTNEWS. If we had, this would not be an issue because it was quickly removed. No...Fox News is not anymore unreliable than any of the other news channels. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Your point is fifty long comments now. Many are the same thing rephrased (like propping up instances of center-left journalists who've been wrong, like it's a 1:1 exchange of "bad Cillizza tweet" to "X claims Hillary killed Seth Rich" articles.) There's no reason be so passive aggressive and smarmy. As the OP mentioned, the vote favors Fox News and my understanding is nothing will change. Your criteria is a blank check that performs terribly as a discriminator function, which is part of why others were criticizing you. Thanks to User:Snooganssnoogans for the janitorial work, it's appreciated. Wunderkiwi (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

^^^Note to closer: This user has 13 total edits.^^^ ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

^^^Note to Atsme: I'm new, I know. That's why I chose not to vote and just left a comment instead.^^^ Please respond to my content rather than my edit count. We've already established that it's simple to rack that number up on talk pages. Wunderkiwi (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Good work on the And you are lynching Negroes argument. This RfC is about Fox News so all you could really do was to prove how other journalistic institutions got it wrong in some instances instead of proving the arguments wrong about how Fox News has diminished in their role as a source of reliable journalism. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

QEDK, please explain your comment and to whom you've directed it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: It's very clearly directed at your arguments in the wall of text (which is something you already knew given your talk page posting, so let's not be ingenuine here). There's nothing to explain, I recommend you read the wikilinked page and understand what I was saying, if you still don't, the second sentence of my paragraph is simple enough to explain that kind of argument. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I am offended by your comment, or that you would even use such a racist analogy. Fox News Channel is currently rated as a generally reliable source - and until proven otherwise, that is how it stands, and from what I'm seeing in the iVotes, it will remain a generally reliable source whether we like it or not. Your insult and use of lynching is unbecomming an administrator. You should be desysopped for making such a comment on this noticeboard. The sentiment that has been displayed here about conservatives and racist comments like yours do not belong here. I advise you to strike your racist comment. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC) *Adding references verifying the word "Negro", singular or plural, is considered a racial slur: University World News, Public Opinion Quarterly, AP style, Slate, WaPo, BMJ.^{21:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)}

I don't think you understand what's racist and what's not, and unfortunately I don't have the time or effort explaining the multitude of levels you're wrong on. I was not the one who came up with this analogy so perhaps you should take it up with Soviet propagandists who did and while you're at it, also understand why I said your argument was fallacious and calling people racist without a) any knowledge of their race or personal life, b) any evidentiary proof that they are racist, is the most offensive aspect about all of this. I'm going to leave this here and you can resume your name-calling if you please. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

QEDK, I'm not following why you chose to say "Good work on the And you are lynching Negroes argument." "Good work on the Whataboutism argument" would have been less inflammatory. You're saying Atsme made a comment referencing racism on this page? I see references to racism in others' comments but I don't see references in Atsme's. Actually it's inflammatory to reference an article about Russian arguments; no need for denegrating Russians. I think this boils down to an "WP:OTHERSTUFF" argument. wbm1058 (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Answering because you pinged me, @Wbm1058:, I chose to say it because that was the basis of Atsme's argument. Maybe it would have been less colourful (commenting on arguments is not inflammatory) but it would also have been inaccurate, since Atsme's point was a variation of the tu quoque fallacy and borderline whataboutism. Similar to how the Soviets used the terminology to deflect criticism of their own wrongs, Atsme is using the wrongs of other journalistic institutions to deflect criticism of Fox News (which very ironically gives platform to racist pundits) — so no, it was not denigrating Russians either (that is how the catchphrase is used). I never said that Atsme made racist comments, I said that they (implicitly) labeled me a racist, racist comments like yours..., ...advise you to strike your racist comment..., which is again very ironic given my predisposition. I have always tried to comment on the content and not the contributor and in this case, I've also done the same. So to hear that I'm a racist and I made personal attacks, I'm baffled. In any case, Atsme is free to attack me in any way they deem necessary, I don't mind. Good day. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

QEDK mentioned me in his comment above so for the record, I am replying to his false allegations and masked pretense that I was attacking him or labeling him a racist. Quite frankly, he is not telling the truth as evidenced in this very discussion, and he continued to cast aspersions against me in his reply to Wbm1058. I was going to let it go as of 15:45 on 18 June 2020 (UTC), until I came here this evening and read his appalling accusations about me which he made at 17:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC). What he said in this diff is what started it all, and it speaks volumes. He purposely picked that title and used those words inline to form an integral part of his sentence to me, And you are lynching Negroes; the wikilink simply served as a CYA for him because nothing I've done or said even comes close to what's in that article or his allegations. No - he framed it that way on purpose to imply that I'm racist, and he did it again in his comment above, wherein he obliquely implies that I'm racist for "deflecting criticism of Fox News (which very ironically gives platform to racist pundits)". QEDK is open to recall, and he should be recalled because of his behavior. ArbCom has desysopped admins for less egregious violations of CIVILITY. I have said all I need to say here in my defense against his false accusations and inexcusable behavior as an admin. Editors are welcome to provide further input on my UTP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

So are you taking it to WP:AN, or somewhere else addressing your wish to get QEDK deadminned? Because WP:RSN is absolutely not the venue for this comment, and your behaviour appears very like an attempt to filibuster this discussion - David Gerard (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme:, your umbrage is misplaced. Your comments are the first ones that implied racism, with a direct frontal accusation of a racist attack on you, one which did not happen.

@QEDK: is correct when they stated: "I never said that Atsme made racist comments, I said that they (implicitly) labeled me a racist, racist comments like yours..., ...advise you to strike your racist comment...,.." I don't see them making any kind of racist comment or racist accusation against you. They used a famous example of the tu quoque fallacy, which you have been using, and also mentioned "borderline whataboutism", which you also use in your arguments. That was their point, and your response immediately derailed and deflected from their point by implying directly accusing them of accusing you of racism. I don't see it. You need to calm down and retract that accusation. We need less heat here. -- Valjean (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

QEDK doesn't want to discuss this on their talk page but they do want to talk about it here, so bring it on. In this edit you congratulated Atsme for her "good work on the And you are lynching Negroes argument." This is a specific type of tu quoque logical fallacy, which attempts to deflect criticism (of Fox News? of Atsme?) by referring to racial discrimination and lynching in the United States. You have congratulated (accused, assuming sarcasm) Atsme of deflection by referring to racial discrimination and/or lynching. I don't think you can point to a diff where she did that. Yes, you said that Atsme (implicitly) labeled something as racist. That's what someone making the "and you are lynching Negroes" argument does. That is what Atsme is very upset about. I'm still trying to assume good faith, that this was just tone-deafness on your part. "Overt racism, foolish racism, or tone deaf racism? Take your pick, it's still racism," (Fox & Friends draws ire). Please commit to never linking to that "and you are..." page ever again in a talk page discussion on Wikipedia. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Only I get to decide what arguments I use and what I do not, you or anyone else have no right to censor me (read WP:CENSORSHIP). It's offensive enough that you justify editors calling other editors racist (even if implicity) without proof but even more so when you use a public forum to shame me for tone-deafness when in reality, Atsme has repeatedly twisted my actual arguments to suit her agenda. Atsme has no authority to hat comments which oppose her viewpoint and you haven't seen me do the same to stifle her viewpoint, have you? I'm quite sure that if I did so, that would be immediately become a point of contention but it's absolutely fine because Atsme did it. If you don't want to respect other editors, that's fine, just don't play the "racist" card when you don't understand context. I have nothing but utter respect for most editors and this is the sort of thing that stretches that respect. So, I'll be straight with you - just because "you" think something is racist (or any arbitrary opinion) does not mean that's the reality. Similarly, just because Atsme was upset about me quoting a tu qoque catchphrase after she twisted my comment on her content to be an attack on herself - does not mean that's the reality. At any point of time, Atsme is more than welcome to begin a recall process or arbitration case against me instead of accosting me to trial at her talk page. And to be honest with you, I don't even want to discuss this anywhere but if I'm compelled to do so, I will. Best, qedk (t 愛 c) 19:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a quit while you are ahead situation. You don't seem to understand the deeply offensive concerns over what you said. You should of let the situation be defused and kept it under a hat. I suggest you re-hat this before someone else does. PackMecEng (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Since you clearly don't get it, citing a fallacy literally cannot be offensive, and just because the original catchphrase itself contains a word racist in modern contexts does not mean the comment itself can be or should be construed as racist. These are really basic things and just because Atsme twisted the intentions of my words has no bearing on how I meant it, in fact, I have repeatedly stated how the argument was used and how Atsme used it - Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED ffs. Your definition of "ahead" is even more condescending - because I'm the one who gets attacked repeatedly and somehow I'm also the aggressor who is ahead. And please do hat your own comment (and only yours) since you believe that that is the correct way to defuse a situation, I have no qualms with your approach. Best, qedk (t 愛 c) 17:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, the everyone else is wrong and just don't understand me defense. Simple and worthless. Don't do that, it is a bad example for others. Listen, if everyone or even a large portion of people are saying you are wrong, perhaps you could take some introspective and consider their viewpoint and not just assume they do not know what they are talking about. So are you sure you will not reconsider the path you seem hell bend on going down here? You really seem to have an issue understanding what you are doing and why others have such an issue over your comments. PackMecEng (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, the everyone else is wrong and just don't understand me defense. Well no, I only said you are wrong. Again, maybe you're just bad at understanding. In any case, it's absolutely understandable for people to get swayed with Atsme's call to action, I've personally seen people defend her time after time even after she casts accusations and aspersions by truckloads (refer to Awilley's sanction et al.) - so, I don't care about getting chastised by her mates on the wiki. I also totally understand how the argument can be misconstrued, but it cannot be misconstrued after I explain my intent and usage, and the usage of the fallacy thereof, and after my apology for causing her distress. You also realize how quickly this shifted from being about Atsme's comment and more about mine? I wonder how, and no points for guessing the correct answer. You are more than welcome to continue this here but I won't be spending a second more of my time explaining myself to people when they have no intention of listening, so you have a g'day. I'm done. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I can understand that, when you are wrong you really only have two choices. Double down or admit you are wrong and try to fix your mistake. It would of just been nice if you went the fixing your mistake route though rather than doubling down on the everyone is wrong but me. Oh well, perhaps it will be a learning experience for you in the future. Have a great day! PackMecEng (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not "everyone", only a few allies. Others disagree with you, including myself. If you examine all the diffs, as I have done (just to be sure I didn't miss something), you'll find that there was never anything related to racist accusations on the page until Atsme did it herself and derailed the discussion by her bombshell reaction and essentially implying @QEDK: is a racist. QEDK could not have been accusing Atsme of anything related to racism with that link to the article (thus showing her reaction was unreasonable), and the very wording of QEDK's posting shows that the racial aspect of that article was not QEDK's focus. That is an article, FFS! QEDK was just using it as a well-known example of the same logical fallacy used by Atsme multiple times on this page (tu quoque). That was QEDK's point, and Atsme didn't see it, but took umbrage to it, which was not the right reaction.

Even after explanations by QEDK, myself, and others who understood QEDK's intentions, Atsme, Wbm1058 (who has totally misunderstood what happened), and yourself refuse to AGF. That's not right. Atsme has still not stricken the strong personal attack on QEDK of making "racist comments", IOW strongly implying they are racist. That's just wrong. She should have AGF and not resorted to personal attacks. She is the one who cast aspersions, not QEDK, and the over-the-top calls for desysopping are just beyond ridiculous. Our admins have a tough enough job as it is, without such personal attacks. -- Valjean (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, please drop the stick. This side discussion should be hatted as not helping the discussion. O3000 (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah you are probably right, would you mind hatting it? PackMecEng (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hah, wouldn't know where to start. Besides, I'm prob'ly too involved. O3000 (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being hatted, but @QEDK: should also consent. -- Valjean (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Fox News: reliability in context

In the RfC responses above, the New York Times was invoked several times as something of a 'gold standard' RS. With that in mind, I ask editors to consider a comparison of Fox News with the following:

• New York Times: we were wrong on Iraq Sources for the Times reporting were the Pentagon and an embedded reporter named Chilabi. From Slate "Because the Times sets the news agenda for the press and the nation, Miller’s reporting had a great impact on the national debate over the wisdom of the Iraq invasion. If she was reliably wrong about Iraq’s WMD, she might have played a major role in encouraging the United States to attack a nation that posed it little threat."
• The NYT printed a false claim and has not corrected it after 10 months. Per Newslinger "Following up on my correction submission to The New York Times, I have not yet received a response from the NYT, and "Trump Shares Unfounded Fringe Theory About Epstein and Clintons" has not yet been amended". The claim serves to exonerate Clinton from ties to Epstein's island, and in so doing, smears victim Virginia Giuffre as a liar. (And since the recent Netflix special, Giuffre is no longer alone in her allegation.)
• The NYT printed an inaccurate statement from Joseph Backholm, one of Tara Reade's corroborators, and did not respond to a request for correction. So, if Backholm is interviewed again he can potentially be discredited for having changed his story. The Times (May 31) article has: Joseph Backholm, who said she had told him about an assault by an unnamed senator when they were students together. However, "Backholm says that Times inaccurately reported details he told them ("She didn’t provide any details and didn’t say it was a senator") Backholm texted back to Lerer."*. In a tweet dated May 26, Backholm stated she told me that while working in DC she had been sexually assaulted by "someone you would know."*
• The NYT stealth edited their investigative piece on the Tara Reade allegation against Joe Biden on behalf of the Biden campaign, removing a caveat from their summary.* According to Fox News, The Times originally reported: "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable. The final sentence was removed because the Biden camp "thought the phrasing was awkward", per Ben Smith.*

I have yet to see anything comparable to these examples from Fox News. What am I missing? petrarchan47คุก 22:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Studies on the reliability of Fox News? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

From what I've observed, editors are saying that Fox corrects their mistakes. Is this not true?

In your list, nothing even remotely compares with fake news that led to a deadly war.petrarchan47คุก 23:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan, your emphasis on the WMD and the New York Times seems besides the point. The vast majority of US news outlets, including Fox News, posted uncritical WMD coverage both before and after the invasion of Iraq. What sets the Times apart is that it issued a retraction, not the error itself which was also made by most of its peers. Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

All other news based their reporting on the NYT, who got it from 2 sources, one of them was the Pentagon. (Isn't this called propaganda?) "Jack Shafer writes the Press Box column for Slate and he has been calling for a reexamination of Miller’s work for more than a year."* Less than impressive. petrarchan47คุก 03:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that I emphasized it, in fact I personally find most egregious the Times lack of response to requests for correction, and the fact that they took editorial advice from the subject of a sexual assault 'investigation'.

Imagine if we discovered Fox News looked into one of the rape allegations against Donald Trump, and that after 19 days of diligent work, concluded that he had a pattern of behaviour worth noting... but then received a call from his office stating that he didn't like the way it sounded, so Fox edited their report exactly as Trump requested. Now imagine that they did this without alerting readers. This is exactly what NYT has done, and I am still waiting for a similar example regarding Fox. petrarchan47คุก 19:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, they have a correction system in place, but it's used woefully inadequately (see e.g. [104][105][106]) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, thank you for this. "Inadequate" is actually a step up from what I've personally witnessed from the NYT, which is "non-existent". petrarchan47คุก 19:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:Other stuff exists and drop this. This RfC is about Fox News, not the NYT. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, take it to the many folks who've previously invoked the NYT in the RfC above. As I stated, The NYT is being touted unquestioningly as somewhat of a 'gold standard' RS. One good way to gauge the RfC questions is by determining what exactly editors find to be a shining example of good practices, and then compare (in this case) Fox News to it. The NYT comparison is highly relevant. One might even ask, why is this RfC focused on Fox when we have worse, or comparable, behaviour from all similar news sources including the gold standard. petrarchan47คุก 19:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe some people consider NYT a gold standard outlet, but Reuters and Associated Press are better sources imo. I don't think that the NYT's reliability should influence how we rate Fox News or vice versa. buidhe 22:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The only way to evaluate this is in context. At the Biden page, we recently had an RfC where the idea that 'if it isn't printed in the NYT specifically, it can't be added to the page', was used in !votes, and this went unchallenged for the most part. In practice, the NYT is indeed gold standard: the number of times NYT is cited on WP dwarfs that of all other news media ( PDF). If Fox is less problematic and (therefore) more reliable than NYT, then what are we doing here? petrarchan47คุก 02:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think that perhaps part of the hangup is the four levels of reliability offered in the initial post. I certainly don't think that Fox should be deprecated as a source (I have cited to Fox News stories many times myself), and I would agree that a lot of cable news/web news type sources would fall more into category 2 than category 1 in many cases. BD2412 T 22:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Right. But if we are to downgrade any of these sources, we should make sure to look at them all. By default, we are considering only Fox which is dangerous in that, as others have mentioned, they aren't less reliable than their counterparts and they often report stories that literally no other outlet (still considered RS on WP) are covering. The requirement for an additional source would often mean content simply can't be added, resulting in a great disservice to readers and a degradation of the project. petrarchan47คุก 02:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should be done across the board because all of them in today's clickbait environment require caution. CNN & MSNBC are among the worst, so if Fox is considered a source to approach with caution, then CNN & MSNBC are a step below that. I have not seen any retractions about their biased innuendos and fictitious conspiracies, not even theories that could be supported - they used unverifiable allegations from anonymous sources nonetheless about Russia-Trump collusion, not to mention the FISA warrants that were questionably obtained, and they did this for at least 2 years. Please, convince me otherwise by showing me the retractions, and I'll consider changing my position. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan, on the WMD, you are presumably aware than in 2005, Fox News watchers were found to be twice as likely to have been misled about the discovery of WMDs in Iraq than those reading print media, and in fact more likely to be so than those taking their news from any other source measured. (source) You don't think that had anything to do with Fox's reporting? Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Uhm, Newimpartial see CISSM, Media Coverage of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the Frontline story (2 parts), and The Intercept. There's plenty of blame to go around. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

My point was not that the NYT didn't disgrace themselves in that instance (they did), but concerning whether Fox News covered itself in glory by contrast (they didn't). Petrarchan was using WMD as an example of how the NYT could not be trusted, in comparison with Fox News, which is a load of high-quality fertilizer if I've ever smelled one (and oh, but I have). Newimpartial (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarification requested (Fox News)

This has been raised in passing above, but not clearly answered - what is the scope of this RFC? When we say “Fox News”, what are we referring to? Does it include the news programming of local Fox affiliates (such as WNEW in New York City)? Does it include the Fox Business cable channel (FBN)? What about Fox’s talk radio broadcasting? Or is the RFC limited to just the main cable news station and its associated website? Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Local affiliates have separately operated newsrooms, so they're not under this discussion. This is about whether or not the cable news channel's news operations have let their bias undermine the reliability of their news coverage. (I say yes.) oknazevad (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Problem is... it isn’t as clear cut as that. The cable channel will often go to local affiliates for coverage of news events, since the locals have camera crews and reporters on scene. So would that reporting be ok or not? It’s on both local AND cable. Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Blueboar: My main focus when calling the RfC was the parts of the Fox News operation that are citable on Wikipedia, i.e. primarily the website and the main cable channel. I added the affiliate question as a response to quieries, but as Newslinger pointed out above, affiliate stations generally are considered to have a separate reliability to the main news operation, and so I don't consider the RfC a vertict on the reliability of affiliate stations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I also wish to address here why I opened the RfC in the first place. Ultimately including option 4 was not because I was intent on depreciating Fox News, but that the language I chose was a standard boilerplate that has been used in other RfCs. Generally reliable, unclear / additional considerations apply and generally unreliable is a useful standard for RfC, and provides some nuance in the discussion. It is far better than "should Fox News be depreciated" that had previously been proposed. There is overwhelming concensus in the RfC that Fox News shouldn't be depreciated, which I agree with. I should note that I generally don't edit the American politics area at all (check my edit history), and this wasn't an attempt to attack Fox News, I would be happy to see it retain its generally reliable status. The RfC is about arguments not simply a straight vote, so when the RfC is closed it will be decided based on the strength of arguments, so if the arguments against Fox News are bad (which I agree that some arguments in this RfC against Fox News are), then they will simply be discounted by the panel of closers. I think that this article in the Columbia Journalism Review "What is Fox News? Researchers want to know" in probably the most relevant piece to this RfC. It discusses many issues that have come up in this discussion, including the lack of research on the reporting of Fox News itself as opposed to the pundits. Calling this RfC has been a huge learning experience for me, and maybe doing some kind of pre-RfC that was done for Quackwatch would've been better in hindsight. Thanks for your understanding. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Request please could someone list the different 'parts' of Fox News, this would be helpful in differentiating different comments. John Cummings (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  John Cummings, I see it as:

  • Fox News;
  • Fox News Channel (FNC), the opinion broadcaster which accounts for most of what people think of as "Fox News" (Hannity etc);
  • Fox local affiliates

  Others may have different definitions. Guy (help!) 14:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  I see no evidance that "fox news" is a separate entity from Fox News.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I would break it down with;

1. FNC (the main cable news channel)
2. FBN (Fox Business Network - business news and commentary)
3. Local affiliates (each with a news division)
4. foxnews.com

These are all interconnected... for example: when a story is breaking, FNC may use local affiliate film crews and reporters to cover it (as they are on scene). That coverage may then get a synopsis posted to foxnews.com. Usually, it is the synopsis on foxnews.com that gets cited on Wikipedia, and not the broadcasted footage. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Local affiliates do lots of in-depth reporting which is never picked up by the main Fox entities either because its niche (most local content is) or because it isn’t “on brand” (most of the affiliates are significantly to the left of Fox News, that doesnt mean they’re left of center it just means they’re center-right or right, Fox News has drifted far-right). We should be using only the in-depth reporting of news organizations, wikipedia isn't for breaking news of the kind you would cut to a local affiliate for an on-the-scene report from. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hypothetical consideration on Fox

I've mentioned about NOT#NEWS, RECENTISM, and how, if we waiting for news cycles to pass, how Fox likely would not be used under an UNDUE evaluation. I'd like to propose this idea as a consideration: if we actually waiting on rushing to add information on current event articles for like, say, a week (This is just hypothetical), then after that week, considering all sources that then cover events, how likely would we be using Fox News over other sources per UNDUE, or how likely Fox News (at the national level) is going to provide completely unique factual information that other sources will not have at all?

That is, in the long term development of any article, does Fox provide any unique content that cannot be sourced from other RSes or appropriate under UNDUE?

If that answer to that last question is mostly no: then I could see a completely fair option of saying that Fox News should be considered a source to avoid (not deprecated in the manner of DM) because its bias raises too many questions on reliability and we can wholly replace it with less biased sources that other give the same information, while leaving open for cases where Fox News may provide unique coverage, flagging that its political coverage should be immediately considered potentially tainted by bias.

if that answer is otherwise yes and Fox does have some long-term unique and useful content, then we've got the issue that we need to still consider Fox as an RS. --Masem (t) 18:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Masem, it's a fair point. My preference is always for analytical reporting anyway, rather than blow-by-blow accounts of events as they happen. I suspect that the instances of in-depth analytical reporting cited to Fox is... low. I won't say it never happens, but most of the content appears to be focused on feeding the outrage machine for another hour. Guy (help!) 10:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm just looking at an option here that considers how much we actually really need to depend on Fox News as a necessary source that we really need to keep given the mass of difficulty of trying to define what part of it is actually reliable and that everything else tied to it seems to be a sinkhole of bad journalism. I do not want a solution that says "Fox News' newsdesk is not reliable", because that has yet to be shown and all arguments being setup for that will come back against other sources in the future if we're not careful, but we can point to the bias that affects its news reporting and ruins the rest of its "news programming" to the point that if we really don't need to use it because we can use other sources for the same information, then great. Not deprecated, just "source to avoid when possible". --Masem (t) 13:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

In other situations regarding low-quality sources, WP takes the strong position that anything notable will be covered in RS, so if your only source is low-quality, then it's not notable. Why not take the same strong position here? In other words, according to this, we never really need to rely on a single questionable source. NightHeron (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I suspect this is how many experienced editors already view Fox. We can't know that they aren't lying to us, except when their reporting is corroborated by more reliable sources, and that makes their use superfluous. I approach them as David Zurawik does Trump: "Let's just assume Trump's always lying and fact check him backward."

When they do have "completely unique factual information," it's often questionable and quickly debunked by more reliable sources, so we also ignore them in such situations. We treat them as a debunked source, but there are editors who do not do that, so we end up wasting lots of time dealing with such attempts because we can't yet just say "don't use Fox News, because a consensus has debunked it. If you want to use it, you'll have to back it up with multiple more reliable sources if you want us to accept your use of it." Such editors are time sinks because they constantly drink the Fox News koolaid and declare it delicious and just as good as other koolaid, while recognizing there is an enormous difference, IOW they prefer the poisoned koolaid. They can't have it both ways (recognize the difference and still declare both types equally good/bad), but they waste our time trying.

An official debunking would save us lots of time and effort in those situations. Most experienced editors already don't trust Fox News as a source for politics and science because Fox News's pushing of climate change denialism and their constant defenses and blind repetitions of Trump's proven lies as if they were fact, are all appalling breaches of everything we require from RS. Such failures flunk them for use as a RS. They fail DUE 99% of the time. -- Valjean (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

From a pragmatist's POV, Fox has reported important incidents that others have failed to report, and they have reported correctly when others have not, and that happens more frequently than we care to admit about today's clickbait political arena where news conglomerates & their echo chambers favor one particular party or candidate over another. And it may very well be that it's a candidate in the same party the news conglomerate supports. There is also the fact that we have individual newscasters with different biases or experienced newscasters that conceal their bias, so are we talking about newscasts or pundits? We have to make that distinction as well. Unlike the other cable sources, Fox News has newscasters from both parties, so that would be another consideration if we are using NPOV to guide our choices and we are actually writing for the opponent. It is not so easily cut and dried that we can just go POOF! and eliminate a generally reliable source because of systemic bias or policial POV. It has to be done on a case by case basis. If you believe FoxNews will not be cited often, then why are we even having this discussion? We can easily continue doing it case by case per WP:RS, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEWSORG, WP:RENCENTISM. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme: "Fox has reported important incidents that others have failed to report, and they have reported correctly when others have not." I don't doubt the first part, but can you give some examples that proved to be true, when everyone else was wrong (and everyone else then had to self-correct)? That is directly relevant to Wikipedia and its editors, because we should then alter lots of our articles if we haven't done it already.

The rest of us see the opposite being the case most of the time, and often Fox News does not come around. They just stay silent on the issue. That is their pattern. It's a feature, not a bug. They do it on purpose. They create talking points which all their talking heads and news hosts are required to use, and those talking points are often deceptive. We have seen myriad examples where Fox News was proven wrong by fact-checkers and where they ignored the facts reported by all the other major sources because those facts were inconvenient to their/GOP/Trump's agendas and not good for their base to really understand, thus keeping their base in the dark.

This partially explains why Fox News's viewers have been shown to be the poorest informed news viewers, compared to consumers of RS (and to those who consume no news at all). Fox News's viewers (and Trump) openly attack the most informative and accurate ones, like NPR and Colbert Report, which are rated to have the best-informed viewers, and those two sources constantly debunk the errors and false reporting from Fox News. Colbert uses humor and sarcasm to debunk and inform at the same time. -- Valjean (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an important, I agree that there are stories that Fox uniquely picks up, but at the end of the day are they really stories that have long-term use to WP?

Keeping in mind that the mainstream slanted-left sources also frequently jump on stories that they cover broadly but end up going nowhere as well (a lot from earlier in Trump's presidency ), so Fox doing the same would not be a surprise to us. I'd rather see if Fox News (national level, not local stations) pick up on non-political stories that do have long-term value that no one else covers. I cannot at all conceive of any such cases right now, and having this cases would be the only reason to keep Fox as an RS over the weight of the other issues that Fox otherwise creates. Or, as I suggest, as long as we call Fox a source to avoid, not deprecated, and when these unique cases come up, that still allows Fox news to be used where appropriate, but still give strong reason to dismiss Fox in the midst of the most problematic cases of political hot-topics. --Masem (t) 17:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

(This to NightHeron's) I wouldn't necessarily classify Fox as "low quality", but the amount of burden that is brought by Fox News as a source, as clearly shown by this RFC, creates so many problems that rather than trying to fairly justify that it is still is an RS by our definition (a point I still contend is true), that it makes it a burdensome source that taints nearly every discussion that it comes into play that for the purposes of minimizing disruption on WP, is better to treat as a source to avoid, leaving wiggle room for reasonable use in unique cases where there's no issue with its presentation of material (read: outside political theater and climate change). Practically, it will be like blacklisting it, but rationally its a different approach to avoid having the arguments to be repeated for "we need to blacklist CNN because they did the same thing as Fox!" except that CNN carries none of the baggage that Fox News has. --Masem (t) 17:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I have never used MSNBC as a source. I have used Fox as a source for articles unrelated to politics (broadly construed). I can find no reason to use them for politics. There are Fox articles that would seem not political, but are. For example, lately they’ve run multiple articles about obscure assaults by blacks unrelated to anything. (Example with expected racist comments[107]) There are about 2,400 aggravated assaults in the US per day (more than one a minute); yet they create entire articles about single such events not covered in other non-local sources. I find it bothersome to use such a source for anything even remotely political. O3000 (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly the type of extra focus they give that we'd never cover as an encyclopedia. That's the type of articles that Fox covers that may be "true" but never will find a place here. --Masem (t) 18:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no source that is totally unreliable, or reliable. In politics, some sources try to search out and highlight everything favorable or unfavorable about their preferred political positions, and will on occasion be the best and most reliable source. The opinion that anything covered by fox is necessarily either false or unimportant is thesort of extraordinary opinion that would need extraordinary evidence, . The view that many of the stories covered by Fox are less than fully reliable, or are relatively trivial , is a much more reasonable statement. There is good ground for caution with any news source I know in in contemporary (or for that matter, historical) American politics; there are especially good grounds for great caution with Fox in current national politics--but this applies much more to their editorial coverage or some of their columns. Readers expect to see information from all sides of an issue at Wikipedia , and if we do not use the best available sources on all sides we are rejecting NPOV, in favor of advocacy. It's a perfectly reasonable proposition that what is called for at these times is in fact advocacy against those positions favored by Fox-- and I would consider it praiseworthy for anyone who feels that way to do what they believe needful--but not in WP.

If they try to do it here, they're harming their own cause: the people who come here to read political articles are often those who do not yet have a firm position, and come here in the hope of finding truly unbiased information based on our reputation for NPOV. If they come, and find we emphasise only one side of a question, they're not likely to have much confidence in anything they see here. DGG ( talk ) 07:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

In terms of your last point, WP absolutely sucks in between the combination of our policies, practices and current editor makeup and behavior if one is looking to get NPOV on what the "big picture" is on a given ongoing controversial topic if that topic is in any of the big "ArbCom" areas (AP2, IP, etc.). UNDUE is, IMO, misused to try to capture the mainstream press's stance at the moment and eliminate most other views as fringe, when in actuality, we either shouldn't be covering any of those views in the short-term and wait for long-term retrospectives to give us a way to review with neutrality (the better and much easier solution to implement, which in the case of Fox News here, doesn't require us to keep them around), or we recognize that UNDUE should only be applied to evaluate the long-term presentation of sources, and when we're writing the articles while these controversial topics are ongoing, we need to include many more sources including Fox to provide the wider, more neutral picture. This latter, while more helpful to the reader, is also the route that is going to be rife with so much edit warring and disruption. It's just something WP is not well-suited for. (*assume my usual rant on NOTNEWS/RECENTISM applies here*) --Masem (t) 14:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, we have a great example of unique Fox reporting just this week: Fox unearthed an audio recording of Jimmy Kimmel (who's already under fire for wearing blackface) using the N-word six times when he was doing a Snoop Dogg impression. Nothing has really happened just yet, but stuff like that has the potential to ruin a celebrity's career. And if it does, that'd definitely be of long-term relevance when it comes to him. Of course, there's potential this won't amount to anything (and if it's proven that Fox fabricated this, which I consider highly unlikely, then I'd agree we should avoid citing the website), but I just wanted to point this out. EDIT: Kimmel just confirmed it's real. JOEBRO64 15:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

National Enquirer may come up with something. So, we wait until an RS publishes. As you have shown, that quickly happened giving us an RS to use. WP:NODEADLINE O3000 (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The National Enquirer has been first to break a story and turned out to be right multiple times. See 10 Times the National Enquirer Has Been Right: From Michael Jackson to OJ Simpson and 7 Stories The National Enquirer Actually Got Right. That doesn't make it a reliable source. Yes, they were the first to report that Steve Jobs was ill and the first to report that Rush Limbaugh was abusing pain killers, (both correct) but they were also the first to report that in 2016 Hillary Clinton had 6 months to live and the first to report that Prince was diagnosed with AIDS (both bullshit). As Pravda on the Checkout Line points out, "The best propagandists always remember to fold a dash of the plausible into the mix, and here the tabloids excel." When you see something in an unreliable source, you don't know whether it is like the Steve Jobs story or like the Prince story. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon and Objective3000, comparing Fox to the National Enquirer is a false equivalency. Fox is a legitimate news outlet that broadcasts real (albeit biased) news. The National Enquirer is a supermarket tabloid that publishes anything that will catch someone's eye. If I call the National Enquirer and tell them that Abraham Lincoln faked his death and is actually living it up in Cuba with Tupac and Hitler, then they'll probably publish it. JOEBRO64 12:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the point. You posted: we have a great example of unique Fox reporting just this week suggesting that as a reason for using Fox. We used National Enqiurer as an example why that’s not a good reason. Actually, it is easier to be first if you are sloppy as you don’t have to take the time to adequately verify. O3000 (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not "comparing Fox to the National Enquirer" and I don't believe Objective3000 is either. We addressed the specific invalid argument that, just because sometimes a publication has a scoop that turns out to be correct, that proves that it is a reliable source.

Again I ask, Regarding the images shown at [108], If Fox News is willing to purposely mislead me about where a particular person carrying a gun and wearing a green mask was standing, how can I trust anything else they present to me? (Also see [109] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

We know that for close to 3 years, Fox got the story right about Russian collusion, and WaPo and the NYTimes went home with Pulitzers...uhm, for getting it wrong? It appears viewers responded unfavorably to the poor news coverage by the big 3, CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, WaPo and NPR as indicated in this poll. It also demonstrates a stark partisan divide, especially as it relates to FoxNews getting the story right about the Russian collusion theories that were being spread/implied/spun by the other networks in an effort to lock-in their viewers who agreed with the Democrat's POV. The poll shows Republicans stuck with Fox but the credibility ratings for the other networks took a nose dive. It also appears Democrats disliked FoxNews even more for their accurate reporting about the concocted Russian collusion theory, but even their trusted stations took a nosedive. Masem, I'm of the mind that this poll obliquely speaks to your question about Fox exclusives, so I'd say "yes", that it is an important source. As I've said before, we still excercise caution and follow relevant PAGs, keeping in mind they all make mistakes but the sources that retract/correct should be given more weight. I'm calling it a night. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I know you believe all this from your TP. That's why you have difficulties on AP2 articles. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

In what universe did Fox "get the story right about Russian collusion?" Some people clearly have an easy time hopping timelines, and I'm stuck in a crappy one with an impeached US president still in office, ceding world leadership to Russia and China while a respiratory virus runs rampant in the Americas and South Asia. How can I get to a timeline with dirigibles and competent political leadership? Newimpartial (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've not at all put any time into trying to follow the Russian interfere story outside of the broad strokes, but even just browsing sources, I'm trying to figure out how "Fox got it right" is there (all current sources have Fox at the center of this web of misinformation to get Trump elected, so...). Even if Fox did get something right, I'll get my NOTNEWS/RECENTISM soapbox out and point out that this is the type of story that in the long run to discuss how the story broke we should be relying on more academic sources like Columbia Journalism Review to know how things fall and who was "right", rather than trying to document at the start, and to that point, Fox again would become less likely as a source, or in my proposed "source to avoid" would still be used if its initial stories were deemed "correct" by scholarly sources. --Masem (t) 01:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I can answer that question. (sarcasm alert) Fox News got "the story right" in the Fox News universe misinformation bubble. By contrast, RS apparently got it all wrong "for close to 3 years", and that's why we have articles here that are considered totally wrong because they are based on RS. In what universe does THAT thinking prevail? One that is not based on RS, but on conspiracy theories, such as the one described here: Russia investigation origins counter-narrative (actually a mashup of several conspiracy theories). In THAT universe, that article is wrong, and those conspiracy theories are considered true. It's a universe where the items described at Fox News controversies are considered actual facts, and not debunked nonsense. It's a universe where the fact, reported by RS (not just Fox News), that the FBI made errors in the FISA applications, suddenly invalidates all the proven facts regarding the Trump campaign's collusion/invitation/facilitation/lying/obstruction/favoring-Putin-rather-than-America/aiding-election-interference, etc. are therefore all wrong, did not happen, and are not true (and if true are okay), just because of some errors. Russia didn't interfere in the election, Trump didn't welcome that help, and it had no influence on why he won. That's the thinking in that universe. It's a strange universe, but if one can defend Fox News, one can also believe what's in the Fox News misinformation bubble. -- Valjean (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Masem, *WaPo (op), *The Intercept, *WaPo graphics, New Yorker, *Guardian, *Fox News, *Boston Herald (op-ed), *50 media mistakes, etc. I imagine the Durham report will provide an interesting finale. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 06:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Without spending the hours researching the points, I get the impression from all of this that the statement "Fox was correct" is comparable in this situation to "a broken clock is right twice a day". Simply by disagreeing with the mainstream that there was no collusion - not because they actively took steps to show that but simply by denying the points of their opponents on the opposite side of the political spectrum - they ended up being "right". That's not how I would see Fox News being useful, to my point in this section. --Masem (t) 16:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

To ^Atsme - It seems you've misrepresented the Morning Consult poll that you link. From the poll you linked:

1) Among all adults, Fox News came in below: NYTimes, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and Wall Street Journal,

2) The WaPo is not included in the poll so I don't why you mention it as being part of the poll,

3) The poll does not mention "Russian Collusion" at all (so it's unclear why you mention it as being part of the poll - it's not),

4) The poll shows that, even among GOP, the credibility of Fox News has declined,

5) On Coronavirus coverage, the poll shows that all adults (including GOP adults) distrust Fox News more than any other media listed and evaluate Fox News as having the "poorest" coverage of all media listed.

The Morning Consult attributes the decline in trust to Trump repeating the same lie, "Fake News" over & over & over for 4 years. Trump often repeats the same lies over & over, not just his lies about "Fake News. I will note here that "Repetition is an integral part of brainwashing." [110] Which reminds me that in 2015 Republican President Ronald Reagan's Domestic Policy Adviser Bruce Bartlett published his detailed analysis of Fox News wherein Bartlett concludes Fox News is a "Propaganda Machine." [111] In his analysis, Barlett reports on several studies that found "Fox viewers are misinformed" and are "more likely to have factually untrue beliefs than those who receive their news from mainstream sources." Bartlett says of Fox viewers, "it can almost be called self-brainwashing – many conservatives now refuse to even listen to any news or opinion not vetted through Fox, and to believe whatever appears on it as the gospel truth."

Finally, I notice that you've used questionable sources on this talk page such as: realclearpolitics, huffington post, bes-reporter.com, digitalethics.org, washingtonexaminer, and Fox News talking head Bernard Goldberg - so- I figure it's acceptable for me to include the link to Reagan's domestic policy advisor's analysis of Fox News. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

In response to your misinterpretation and wall of text about what I was referring to by linking the poll, that isn't what I said, meant or intended. Try reading it again. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You posit that Democrats distrust FoxNews because of Fox's "accurate reporting about the concocted Russian collusion theory", which is hyperpartisan flamebait (at best). Can you make at least a token effort to express your views without constant recourse to partisan talking points? They add a lot of heat and no light to the discussion. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

MastCell, in response to your question, I simply explained my views about the Morning Consult poll which demonstrates Democrat distrust in FoxNews. That's no surprise. The graph clearly indicates a partisan divide regarding the credibility of each source. I also just provided multiple sources for Masem that further support my position. You don't have to like it, but nothing I've said was derogatory or intended to be anything beyond what that poll and RS have already demonstrated. Why you singled me out, I don't know, but you wrongfully described my comment as "hyperpartisan flamebait (at best)", and said nothing about the derogatory comment by Valjean in this same discussion when he spoke about WP editors who consider FoxNews a generally RS, and I quote: Such editors are time sinks because they constantly drink the Fox News koolaid and declare it delicious and just as good as other koolaid, while recognizing there is an enormous difference, IOW they prefer the poisoned koolaid. That comment is noncompliant with WP:PA, specifically that "some comments are never acceptable", and the first bullet point states, Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs,..., (my bold underline). What are you going to say to him? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 09:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

To ^Atsme - Whether intentional or unintentional, your comments on this talk page includes your use of Fox News links (among other links) to push a false narrative (a conspiracy theory) regarding "Russian collusion" by falsely claiming/inferring 'no Russian collusion.' You strike me as an intelligent person, so it is not clear why you intentionally, or unintentionally, push that false narrative - which by its very nature - is a very dangerous & diabolically false narrative.

For example, you sent Masem a Fox News link (here [112]) that pushes that false narrative in-part by blurring, and thus falsely equating, 'collusion' with 'criminal conspiracy.' To be clear: they are not equal - not in law and not in a dictionary. Not only that, but your Fox News link doubles down on spreading misinformation about the Mueller report - and because your Fox News link spreads misinformation & pushes that dangerous, diabolical false narrative - your Fox News link becomes one more example of why Fox News is not a reliable source. 

This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. It makes no difference what individual WP editor's politics are, what they watch on tv, or where they enjoy getting information -- every single WP editor should call-out and reject the intentional or unintentional spreading of false narratives, disinformation, and misinformation that is found anywhere on this wikipedia website.

To be clear: Mueller did find evidence Trump campaign 'colluded' with Russia, several members of Trump campaign pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about their colluding with Russia, Donald Trump Jr colluded with the Russian government via Russian nationals, and Mueller found evidence that Trump campaign "conspired" with Russia. 

• Russian collusion: The Mueller report describes evidence that confirms, yes, the Trump campaign did 'collude' with Russia.  Mueller spent 200 pages outlining “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign" - that's collusion. [113] A few other examples include: several of Trump campaign officials pleaded guilty to "willfully and knowingly" lying to the FBI about their colluding with Russia.[114] [115] [116] And, Donald Trump Jr's emails confirm Donald Trump Jr 'colluded' with Russia and was willing to accept the "Russian Government" offer to give Trump "official High Level Sensitive" that Russian Intelligence gathered "as part of Russia & it's Government's support of Trump" [117]
  
• Criminal conspiracy: Mueller investigation found evidence of 'conspiracy' between Trump campaign & Russia just not enough to prosecute on criminal conspiracy.  Regarding criminal conspiracy Mueller wrote “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” [118] As a side bar: Since you speculate on "Durham" - I'm sure won't mind me speculating here: Because Trump obstructed the Mueller investigation, and because Trump was too afraid to testify under oath, we can only speculate as to whether Mueller would have found enough evidence to prosecute Trump & members of his campaign of "criminal conspiracy."
  
• I'd be remiss if I did not mention that, of the Mueller report, even Bill Barr wrote Trump is "not exonerated" and even Barr did not write 'no collusion' [119]

So, given all that, it is not clear why a seemingly intelligent person, such as yourself, would use an encyclopedia talk page to push the false 'no collusion' narrative. BTW: I say "even Bill Barr" because, in Federal court, a federal judge said Bill Barr put forward a “distorted” and “misleading” account of the Mueller report's findings and Bill Barr lacks credibility on the topic. [120]

Once again, The Fox News link you gave to Masem is a Fox News link that pushes a dangerous, diabolically false narrative which makes your Fox News link become one more example of why Fox News is not a reliable source; therefore, your Fox News link is additional evidence that Option 3 and Option 4 best describe Fox News. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'd consider what I'm proposing here is a new "Option 5" that none of the other options give: Fox should be avoided, not because it isn't a reliable source (we have yet to find the equivalent of clear evidence that was there for Daily Mail and Breitbart when it comes to what their news desk produces), but its the weight of the bias of everything else the Fox network cover that harms that reliability, to the point that Fox is rarely a source that is needed to uniquely cover a topic in the long term so we can safely avoid it (why I asked this hypothetical). Not deprecation (though still the same type of language from Daily Mail, where it is relevant to the topic at hand) and allowance only when it is a last resort for sourcing information that is deemed essential in a topic's coverage. It's a novel approach , and avoids the future cases that if we had ended up calling Fox unreliable without strong proof and only riding on its bias, then we'd have editors in the future trying to turn those tables on sources like CNN (which does have some bias but which is nowhere close to the baggage that draws its reliability down). --Masem (t) 22:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

If we aren't brave enough to actually deprecate Fox News, then this "Option 5" makes sense: "Whenever possible, we should avoid using anything from Fox News." This will also send a signal to Fox News to get their act together. -- Valjean (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

My Quick Two Cents (about Fox News)

I didn't know this discussion was ongoing or I would have spoke up sooner. Before I start, I am a hard left-leaning, registered Independent, support just about everything the Dems do and say, and loathe Fox News and Trump in every. way. That said, I can do say this neutrally....

Anyway, for anything below a "class C", it might be OK. I would have a backing, secondary reference just in case. Some of their news articles do have a "slant", while some do not. Even if the organization is considered reliable, I would still recommend editors have backing, secondary references on anything they source from Fox News. For any articles that are "Class A" and up (ie: GA and FA), I would not use it. We are going for the best of the best and we demand the best sources. That said, I do have an FA under my belt that uses Fox News as a source for the soul reason as I can't find what I need sourced anywhere else. That was actually a point of contention for one of the reviewers during the FAN. They weren't thrilled with the Fox News source.

So, in short (ie: TL;DR) "class C" rated articles and below, for me it's OK, but there should be a backing, secondary reference. "Class A" and up (including GA and FA), it shouldn't be used. Just my two cents...and my opinion (and you know what they say about those). :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:23 on June 27, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

What smart people who are not me say about Fox News

(Because Wikipedia is based on sources, not opinions)

• A.J. Bauer, Visiting Assistant Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU, contrasts “esteemed outlets like the New York Times” with “an outlet (Fox) with dubious ethical standards and loose commitments to empirical reality.”
• Yochai Benkler, Law Professor at Harvard Law School and co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University: “Fox’s most important role since the election has been to keep Trump supporters in line,” offering narratives of the "deep state", "immigrant invastion" and "the media as the enemy of the people". On the supposed "symmetric polarization" in media, Benkler says: “It’s not the right versus the left, it’s the right versus the rest.”
• Christopher Browning, Professor Emeritus of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: “In Trump’s presidency, [propaganda has] effectively been privatized in the form of Fox News... Fox faithfully trumpets the “alternative facts” of the Trump version of events, and in turn Trump frequently finds inspiration for his tweets and fantasy-filled statements from his daily monitoring of Fox commentators and his late-night phone calls with Hannity. The result is the creation of a "Trump bubble" for his base to inhabit that is unrecognizable to viewers of PBS, CNN, and MSNBC and readers of The Washington Post and The New York Times.”
• Lauren Feldman, Associate Professor of Journalism and Media Studies at Rutgers University: “While MSNBC is certainly partisan and traffics in outrage and opinion, its reporting—even on its prime-time talk shows—has a much clearer relationship with facts than does coverage on Fox.”
• Andy Guess, Assistant Professor of Politics and Public affairs at Princeton University: “There’s no doubt that primetime hosts on Fox News are increasingly comfortable trafficking in conspiracy theories and open appeals to nativism, which is a major difference from its liberal counterparts.”
• Nicole Hemmer, Assistant Professor of Presidential Studies at the University of Virginia: “It’s the closest we’ve come to having state TV... Fox is not just taking the temperature of the base—it’s raising the temperature. It’s a radicalization model. [For both Trump and Fox] fear is a business strategy—it keeps people watching.”
• Daniel Kreiss, Associate Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's School of Media and Journalism: “Fox’s appeal lies in the network’s willingness to explicitly entwine reporting and opinion in the service of Republican, and white identity.”
• Patrick C. Meirick, director of the Political Communication Center at the University of Oklahoma, states in a study of the "death panel" myth that “...rather than polarize perceptions as predicted, Fox News exposure contributed to a mainstreaming of (mistaken) beliefs.”
• Reece Peck, Assistant Professor at the College of Staten Island - City University of New York, characterizes Fox as political, "comedically ridiculous" and "unprofessional".
• Joe Peyronnin, Associate Professor of Journalism, Media Studies, and Public Relations at Hofstra University: “I’ve never seen anything like it before... It’s as if the President had his own press organization. It’s not healthy.” “No news channel reported on Obama being from Kenya more than Fox, and not being an American. No news channel more went after Obama’s transcript from Harvard or Occidental College. Part of mobilizing a voting populace is to scare the hell out of them... I heard things on Fox that I would never hear on any other channel.”
• Jay Rosen, Associate Professor of Journalism at NYU and former member of the Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board: “We have to state it from both sides. There's been a merger between Fox News and the Trump government. The two objects have become one. It's true that Fox is a propaganda network. But it's also true that the Trump government is a cable channel. With nukes.”
• Steven White, Assistant Prof. of Political Science at Syracuse University: “Political scientists are generally not massive Fox News fans, but in our efforts to come across as relatively unbiased, I actually think we downplay the extent to which it is a force for the absolute worst impulses of racism, illiberalism, and extremism in American society.”

• Jen Psaki, former White House Communications Director: “The peddling of dangerous conspiracy theories is not just a Chris Farrell or a Lou Dobbs problem. This is a Fox in the age of President Donald Trump problem... And it is one that could not only do lasting damage to the legitimacy of media in the US, but could also spur more anger, division and even violence in the short term.”
• Blair Levin, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and former FCC chief of staff: “Fox’s great insight wasn’t necessarily that there was a great desire for a conservative point of view... The genius was seeing that there’s an attraction to fear-based, anger-based politics that has to do with class and race... Fox News’ fundamental business model is driving fear.”
• Jerry Taylor, President of the Niskanen Center: “In a hypothetical world without Fox News, if President Trump were to be hit hard by the Mueller report, it would be the end of him. But, with Fox News covering his back with the Republican base, he has a fighting chance, because he has something no other President in American history has ever had at his disposal—a servile propaganda operation.”

• Carl Cameron, former Fox News Chief Political Correspondent: “Fox News' 24 hour news wheel is down to really the Bret Baier show... Most of the rest is predominantly talk [that is] predominantly supportive of a president who is violating all kinds of American values, laws, rules, precedents, etc., etc., and the American people need to hear that... otherwise, it's just propaganda...”
• Alisyn Camerota, former Fox News host: “When I worked at Fox, sharia law was one of their favorite bogeymen. Roger Ailes was very exercised about sharia law, and so we did a lot of segments on sharia law. None of them were fact-based or they didn’t – there was no emphasis on them being fact based.”
• Bill Kristol, former editor of The Weekly Standard: “It’s changed a lot. Before, it was conservative, but it wasn’t crazy. Now it’s just propaganda.”
• Ralph Peters, former Fox News analyst: “In my view, Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration...[Fox News anchors] dismiss facts and empirical reality to launch profoundly dishonest assaults on the F.B.I., the Justice Department, the courts, the intelligence community (in which I served) and, not least, a model public servant and genuine war hero such as Robert Mueller.”
• Simon Rosenberg, former Fox News commentator: “It was always clear that this wasn’t just another news organization, but when Ailes departed, and Trump was elected, the network changed. They became more combative, and started treating me like an enemy, not an opponent... It’s as if the on-air talent at Fox now have two masters—the White House and the audience. [Because of this] Fox is no longer conservative—it’s anti-democratic.”
• Jennifer Rubin, political commentator at the Washington Post: “[Fox is] simply a mouthpiece for the President, repeating what the President says, no matter how false or contradictory.”
• Greg Sargent, political commentator at the Washington Post: “Fox News is fundamentally in the business of spreading disinformation, as opposed to conservative reportage.”
• Andrew Sullivan, political commentator at The Atlantic: “The point is surely that the only "liberals" allowed on Fox News are the ones designed to buttress the "conservative" worldview... Just as important [and] what's needed on Fox - and what you'll never see - is solid conservative attacks on and critiques of other conservatives, on matters of principle or policy. That's the difference between an opinion channel and a propaganda channel.”
• Margaret Sullivan, media columnist at the Washington Post: “Everyone ought to see [Fox News] for what it is: Not a normal news organization with inevitable screw-ups, flaws and commercial interests, which sometimes fail to serve the public interest. But a shameless propaganda outfit, which makes billions of dollars a year as it chips away at the core democratic values we ought to hold dear: truth, accountability and the rule of law.”

François Robere (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you for posting that information. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The closer(s) must be careful considering this info. This is cherry-picking everything bad said about Fox News. There might be opinions on the contrary, as well, and for the most part these refer to Fox's talk/opinion part, not their news part. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"Might" be opinions to the contrary? You're accusing me of "cherry picking" based on hypothetical evidence?

As for your other claim, it's pretty clear from quotes referring to the "Fox News network" that they aren't referring just to the its "talk/opinion part". In fact, some explicitly reject this false dichotomy, like Jay Rosen from NYU: "The only people left who think there's actually a "news side" of Fox may be the handful of people at Fox whose self-image is as a journalist rather than warrior against the liberal media. They're not capable of doing much, but what they can do is introduce cognitive dissonance." François Robere (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This post started out so well with the opening parenthetical comment

Because Wikipedia is based on sources, not opinions

Unfortunately, it was followed by a number of selected… opinions. Why shouldn't this whole section be hatted as irrelevant to the discussion?S Philbrick(Talk) 19:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

An opinion in a reliable source is reliable. It's how we gain insight into everything that has ever happened in history - through the opinion of someone who witnessed it, or was told about it. Koncorde (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sphilbrick that it needs to be hatted and so do a lot of other off-topic/unrelated/irrelevant discussions throughout this RfC. I've lost track of where the actual RfC begins and ends. It makes cellphone scrolling nearly impossible. Per the RfC statement (my bold underline): Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of Fox News? (as separate from their cable pundits) foxnews.com It clearly excludes the talking heads and pundits. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, I'm puzzled by your comment. We can find many examples of opinions expressed as opinions in Wikipedia articles. However, this is an RFC about whether Fox News qualifies as a reliable source. It has been stated multiple times above that one must distinguish the news division from the punditry, and I don't think a single person has disagreed with that notion. I saw the parenthetical remark as supporting that distinction, which I expected to be followed by facts, not opinions, so I remain puzzled by the relevance of a long list of opinions. Yes, we do have opinions in Wikipedia articles but that's not the subject of this RFC. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's that confusing. Your comment seemed to be alluding that these opinions are just opinions, not sources, and therefore somehow of no significance and relevance just because they are "opinions". Now you seem to be conceding we have opinions in articles establishing their relevance. It can be best summed up as: Why are these sources only opinions, in your opinion? Koncorde (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, Opinions, properly identified as opinions, often have a valid place in an article. This isn't an article. This is an RFC, which is an attempt to determine whether Fox News meets our standard for for a reliable source. That assessment ought to be based on facts, not opinions. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: and @Sphilbrick:, let's parse this so it makes sense. The real meaning of "Because Wikipedia is based on sources, not opinions" is more likely referring to "editorial opinions", as in the "opinion" of the poster @François Robere:. Let's see if that's what he meant.

Our reliable sources include facts and opinions, and the opinions are often more enlightening than bare facts, so, as long as they are attributed properly, they should be used and often given as much, or sometimes more, priority than the bare facts, often because facts alone stand without context, and the opinions describe the context and connect the dots properly. The opinions are often the setting that allows the rough diamond to gain luster and shine, demonstrating the true importance of what appears to be a dirty stone on the ground. -- Valjean (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The sources and quotes should definitely not be hatted, as they are important evidence for editors to ponder. -- Valjean (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: Thank you for the ping. That is very much correct: is String Theory a potential theory of everything? How did the Battle of Trafalgar affect the British Royal Navy? Was Babe Ruth the greatest baseball player ever? These are all questions that we answer based on expert assessment (or expert opinion, if you prefer) - in line with WP:RS. Whether or not François Robere thinks Babe Ruth was the greatest Baseball player to ever live bears little on what Wikipedia should say; but if the Sporting News editorial board says it, then that's a different matter altogether. The same applies here: lest reliable sources are consulted on the veracity of Fox News, we're to decide based on nothing but our vanity. François Robere (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The only major issue on most of these opinions at the end of the day is that they aren't distinguishing between the Fox News desk and the whole of Fox - which again, maybe is something we have to recognize is near impossible for us to be able to do. No matter how much editorial control and proper fact checking that the Fox news desk does to qualify as an RS, the weight that the other 90% of the network that it lugs behind it has reason to find a solution that addresses that problem. --Masem (t) 13:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: On the contrary - the problem is that we do. If the vast majority of RS view FN as a coherent corporate and media entity, why don't Wikipedians? Do we know something about FN that they don't?

No matter how much editorial control and proper fact checking that the Fox news desk does to qualify as an RS, the weight that the other 90% of the network that it lugs behind it The fact of the matter is that the news desks at FN don't pull their weight in front of the opinions desk. They host them, but they don't "fact check" them; they appear on their shows, but they don't tell the truth. Some of them routinely spread misinformation. Shep Smith, one of just two honest journalists who routinely confronted "prime time" hosts, was forced to resign. François Robere (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Because we aren't doing that for CNN or any other RS that also has opinion shows or the like. (See last section below about starting an RFC for CNN and MSNBC). If we want to start hanging the bias of the non-news opinion shows on the news side of any organization as a regular part of judging the RS, that will immediately change the way we use a lot of RSes, as I will agree that CNN's clear liberal bias would make its news side questionable if we took that into account (but we clearly don't). We don't judge CNN because of its talk shows but of the quality of its news desk shows, and the same for Fox. But I am all for trying to find a route (as I've identified in my Hypothetical section) that we also never have to use Fox in the long term because it rarely offers anything unique itself (in contrast to CNN which does to its own investigative work), and thus we can deem it a source to avoid (not deprecate) and thus not have to worry about accounting for the weight of all that bias baggage the news side has to struggle with. --Masem (t) 15:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Because we aren't doing that for CNN or any other RS Aren't we? We don't have two separate entries each for CNN, NBC or Bloomberg like we do for Fox, because they're considered "generally reliable" - not "specifically reliable", or "reliable with caveats", but "generally reliable". That's why I'd have no problem whatsoever citing Jake Tapper or Anderson Cooper for facts, even though they're "opinion hosts"; because unlike Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson - they don't lie. FN hosts are the only ones that we explicitly admit lie. François Robere (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't presently but what I feared might happen is what the section about calling for an RFC on CNN and MSNBC alludes to and gets back to this point. As soon as you talk about the bias in any outlet of a source as a determining factor (as has been argued strongly for here in Fox) for reliability, you open the door for these others, which are known to have strong biases that make some of their opinion program unusable for facts. It is not that they lie, but they exaggerate or make hand-waiving claims that are not backed up by the same quality of reporting that their newsdesk reports are given. They are nowhere close to the blatent lies of DM or the FUD of Fox News' opinion shows, but they are biased opinion that we should not quote as fact, and *insert soapbox on NOTNEWS/RECENTISM* stuff we avoid in the short term as opinion. But I definitely would not put any of CNNs/MSNBC's opinion shows' bias as an issue that affects the impression of their news reporting. Bias has always been acceptable for an RS, just that it does make us ask tough questions about it. --Masem (t) 19:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

1. So what? They're still distinct media entities, not collections of departments. Each has one editorial hierarchy, one management, one ownership structure. Why treat them as if they're anything but? If your local transportation authority published the right schedules only half the time, you'd consider the entire organization less reliable. Yes, you'd make various distinctions like "the info boards are accurate, the website isn't", but you'd still consider the organization less reliable for it. It's the same thing here.
2. As an aside, I'm somewhat flabbergasted by the fact that a source that's "only acceptable half the time" is somehow acceptable in an encyclopedia. I'd expect our sourcing standards to be a bit higher, say >95% accurate.
3. As for "bias" and "hand waiving" - again, this isn't it. What we're talking about here is lying, distraction and politicization.[121][122] It's a whole different ballpark. François Robere (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

A question to Fox's Friends

Continuing on the discussion with Masem above: two defences of "Fox" recur in this discussion:

1. That "everybody lies", ie that "Fox" isn't different from any other outlet. This claim has been thoroughly debunked by sources spread throughout this discussion, as well as on my own "Fox" page.
2. That "only Fox's 'opinions' hosts are bad", while its news is decent. That too has been debunked (see eg. BetsyRMadison's comments in the "responses" section); however, the question still holds: why shouldn't Fox's "opinions" project on its "news"?

Opinion writers in any respectable outlet take their role very seriously (see eg. WaPo's opinion writers). They research. They fact check. They do not lie. When NYT published an op-ed by Tom Cotton that was factually wrong, they retracted it and apologized.[123] In fact - NYT is so thorough in its corrections, that it even corrects recipes.[124] But on "Fox News", hosts like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Brian Kilmeade lie with impunity, and even participate in political campaigns.[125] Functioning editorial controls make this sort of behaviors virtually impossible in any other news outlet. Why? Because at the top of every editorial hierarchy there's a publisher, editor-in-chief and executive editors, who are tasked with making sure the machine as a whole runs smoothly. After NYT retracted Cotton's op-ed, publisher A. G. Sulzberger replaced opinions editor James Bennet - a "rising" star, who according to some sources was due to inherit Dean Baquet as editor-in-chief.[126] If Fox News had a functioning editorial hierarchy, it would've done the same long ago; but they haven't, because they don't. François Robere (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again on point #2, I'd summarize all that to call that "journalistic ethics", with the NYTimes known to the primo example of what that is supposed to be. Everyone knows and agrees with that. But that is not a requirement for a reliable source on WP. We are looking for editorial control. That if they make a mistake they do correct it in a reasonable and timely manner. Do we expect them to put to task the writer that made the mistake, especially if it was one so big? No, not at all. What we probably don't want is a cavalcade of mistake after mistake that we have to start guessing if every article could have a problem error in it - eg loss of editorial control. That's clearly not happening here. If we want "journalistic ethics" to be a requirement for RSes, we could have an RS to do that, but that's going to nix a LOT of usable RS across the board completely. There may be areas, like in AP2 or in dealing with BLPs in the AP2 region, that journalistic ethics need to be a key part of the RSes (so that we're not including random rumors) but it wouldn't fly for all sources across all topics. --Masem (t) 19:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Masem, editorial controls are there to enforce ethics. Striving for accuracy is an ethic.[127][128][129] François Robere (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

That may be an external metric, but we don't use the concepts of journalistic ethics, only that there's editorial control. Implicitly, the higher quality sources we consider are those that also tend to also have the highest journalistic ethics but since not all of the sources we use are those that would use journalistic ethics (eg scientific journals), its an impractical standard to apply across the board. --Masem (t) 20:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

There's some mental gymnastics. That is not "an external metric", that's core to the business. But let's frame this in Wiki-terms, for your delight: per WP:NEWSORG, "signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest."

1. "News organization", not "news department" or "news desk". Fox is an organization.
2. "Engages in fact checking" - lots of evidence around this thread that they often publish without FC.
3. "Has a reputation for accuracy" - ???
4. "Publication of corrections" - sometimes, rarely with an admission of guilt (see more on that on my sandbox page)
5. "Disclosures of conflicts of interest" - Wait, what? Ethics? Here? (PS this is something Fox failed miserably at with Hannity[130])

Notice how we use neither the term "ethics" nor "editorial controls", but we imply and associate both to outlets' reliability. François Robere (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, What on earth is the point of your first entry? The New York Times is an organization, but we distinguish between the reporting functions and the opinion functions. Forbes is an organization, but we distinguish between the articles written by the reporting staff and contributed material. I won't be surprised if this distinction applies to virtually all organizations, so again, what point you're trying to make? S Philbrick(Talk) 17:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Policy does not distinguish between reporting and opinion functions, it distinguishes between reporting and opinion content. Reputation is still considered on an organizational and individual levels. If one opts for a literal interpretation of policy as Masem did, one simply cannot ignore the fact that Policy does not allow this sort of organizational dissection. If you want to claim that Fox News is nothing more than a collection of subdivisions with wildly varying policies and reputations, and no unified code of conduct, then the onus is on you to prove it. François Robere (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes we definitely distinguish for all sources news and opinion statements. An op-ed in the NYTimes is considered less reliable than a news story. See WP:NEWSORG : Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. But if you want to go that way, then I would immediately have to say we need to eliminate CNN and MSNBC and CBS and ABC as their op-ed shows are very much biased in the same manner and pose a problem for the organization (which, no, I am no going to go), as well as the fact that the Fox affiliations, part of the Fox organization also need to be nixed. Remember that policies are not meant to be read to the letter like laws, they're a matter of practice. Nearly everyone in this discussion seems to recognize Fox has a news desk that is less problematic and its talking heads/opinions side that is fire and brimstone that we want to avoid at all cost, and it that near association that's causing concern about using the news desk. But we need to make sure that a decision to restrict the use of Fox's news desk is presented correctly as to not trigger the same problems that one can logically argue are also there with CNN and any other network/agency with both news and op-ed sides. It's why NEWSORG is written to be based on the context of the article within the organization, and not as just by the organization. --Masem (t) 19:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Read again. The policy discusses individual pieces (stories, articles etc.), not organizational subdivisions. We are not in a position to judge the internal structures of news organizations, only to review them from the outside. We can judge shows, individuals and organizations, but to judge desks you'd need to show evidence that they have distinct policies and reputations. You haven't.
• Regarding bias, I'll quote Valjean: The bias of a news source is not a reason to oppose its use, but extreme bias does affect accuracy, and that is of concern... Extreme bias, be it right-wing or left-wing, always sacrifices accuracy and reliability. CNN, MSNBC, etc. may have bias, but they still stay close to what is factual. If you can show this not to be true, I'll support their removal as well. Otherwise I don't see how your fear of a wave of RfCs will materialize.
• Remember that policies are not meant to be read to the letter like laws Exactly, which is why I found it amazing you stuck to a literal interpretation of Policy to argue Wikipedia doesn't care about journalistic ethics (which it obviously does).
• Nearly everyone in this discussion seems to recognize Fox has a news desk that is less problematic First - no? Second - we're an encyclopaedia (!!!), we shouldn't rely on anything less than excellent. François Robere (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• NEWSORG implicitly distinguishes op-ed departments from news departments within a singular organization, and has been held that way in practice across all sources. We have never judged any other RS by the accuracy or lack of bias in their op-eds, though I certainly would agree that a work that routinely contains off-the-rail op-eds and similar opinions is a problem. And yes, extreme bias is a problem, but I will stress that the Fox news desk in this discussion has yet to be shown to have that same extreme bias as the opinion side of the network. They have a clear bias - they try to support Trump and the GOP, attack the Democrats, and still weakly hold onto a denial of climate change as has been shown but that affects the tone of what they write and not the accuracy on the news side, which we have yet to show anything like the silver bullet that was for deprecating the the Daily Mail in terms of outright fabrication in news reporting. CNN + others have similar tonal issues in their news reporting but from the opposite side in terms of attacking Trump/etc. (and not as from from middle as Fox News is) which is standard for reporting nowadays outside of the most neutral sources (NYtimes and BBC). So again, while we can talk of the Fox News desk purportly being so biased to be unreliable, that just hasn't been show. Its why any reasoning to eliminate Fox News solely on this basis is going to bite us because people will use that to try to remove CNN etc.
• Its why I've stressed my so called option #5, in which we recognize in the long run, Fox News rarely brings anything to WP that no other reliable source already does, or where it would not be necessary under UNDUE in the long term, as to avoid all the issues that Fox News other wise brings due to its association with the rest of the network and its extreme bias and chicanery. It serves your goal to use the best sources available recognizing that Fox News' newsdesk simply can't be called a "best source" while the rest of its house is a mess even if it was delivering the best news out there. Its threading the needle so that these arguments can't mirror and apply to CNN or other similar left-leaning sources with strong opinions. --Masem (t) 13:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

References (Fox News)

Collapsed because these are references primarily to political pundits, like Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel, not Fox News. GQ headline reads Fox News Was Duped by a Seth Rich Conspiracy Pushed by Russian Intelligence. Fox News retracted the story from their news section but pundit Hannity continued. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

What's the point of viewing Fox News in isolation? They are the ones who provide the platform to people like Sean Hannity and hence they should be treated as the same entity, or atleast related. "Not Fox News" is an incorrect conclusion. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, probably because this RfC is about Fox News which is separate from the Fox News Channel's talk-show commentary: Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of Fox News? (as separate from their cable pundits) foxnews.com. It appears this RfC may have wasted a significant amount of our valuable time arguing with those editors who conflated the two and did not distinguish between factual newscasts by Fox News anchors and the channel's political talk-shows. I was concerned about that issue from the very beginning, and mentioned it to Newslinger. I'm afraid you may have just validated the reason for my concern. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

It was a drawn implication, hence I clarified my vote in each aspect of reliability, my point is simply to correct the notion of Fox News and pundits being separate entities when they function in conjunction. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme How are they separate? What other news organizations are only reliable at certain times of day? Do we have to specifically disbar "pundits" (regular employees, not mere guests) with other news outlets? Where do we disqualify such content under the BBC's head? GPinkerton (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, GPinkerton - please see my sidebar note which follows my iVote in the RfC iVoting segment above. The scope of this RfC is strictly the newscasts, not the talk show entertainment on the Fox News Channel - two entirely different things. Think of it as you would an ABC broadcast on channel 8A which includes daytime & primetime talk shows, movies, series, and then there is "the news". Also, a few questions were added below the original RfC a day later, and should not be considered part of the actual RfC. I do hope editors have not been confused by it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Also... (not Atsme’s point, but worth noting)... there is an analogy to print journalism, where we draw a distinction between the “op-Ed” (opinion) pages and other (news) sections of the paper. We can equate stuff like Hannity’s show to the op-Ed page. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

See below. François Robere (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the {{sources-talk}} template above captures citations in everyone's comments from this RfC, including comments posted after the ones above. — Newslinger talk 10:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Uncollapsed and moved to bottom (again). --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Call for close (Fox News)

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.

---

I say that we should all stop posting about Fox News, put is a request at WP:AN for an experienced and uninvolved admin to evaluate the consensus and post a closing summary, and get on with our lives. Everything that needs to be said has been said, and another 10,000 words will not change the result. If the participants are unwilling to wind this up, I ask that an uninvoled experienced editor move this to a seperate sunpage so that I can unwatch it without unwatching the rest of the noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support close as nominator. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• No opinion on when the RfC should be closed, but I recommend a panel closure to match the 2017 and 2019 Daily Mail RfCs and the 2019 Quackwatch RfC. — Newslinger talk 08:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Newslinger a panel should be mandatory for a decision with significant consequences, and possibly potential news coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The whole RFC is defective. The 4 options did not include the most plausible answer which is that the options all invalid over-generalizations, as is any attempt to do so for something as huge and diverse as Fox. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• This RfC format has been authorized since the 2019 header text RfC. The standard four options are suggestions, and editors are free to provide more specific details in their responses. — Newslinger talk 14:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with North 8000 regarding close concern and if just 4 options are a good idea with such a large and complex discussion. I would also add a question, how has the ambiguity regarding how Fox News should be treated negatively impacted Wikipedia thus far? That is, what actual problem are we solving? What is gained by changing the status quo? Do we have examples where somehow a story that Fox ran has resulted in a Wikipedia article saying something that later had to be changed as it was found to be false? If something Fox News says is controversial what are the odds that talk page discussions will find the information is DUE? It really comes across as editors trying to restrict use of a source not because it has been show to harm Wikipedia but because they don't like the source. I'm not claiming they don't have just cause to dislike it but that doesn't mean treating it as a RS has thus far hurt Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The harm is complete inconsistency in following our RS policy by creating a special walled garden exclusively for Fox News, one in which it gets a protected status in spite of failing all our criteria that describe a RS. Fox News has no clothes, but we refuse to say it out loud. That inconsistency places a blessing on a truly bad source. All other sources with such a horrible track record get demoted drastically. In practice, we generally only use it as a last resort, choosing to use RS when possible, but without a mandate from this RS board for that unofficial deprecated status. We recognize it's unreliable, but refuse to say the words out loud. That's bizarre. @Masem: has waxed eloquent on this point.

We have one group of editors who defend it because they believe that the false and deceptive opinions on Fox News are true facts, and thus see it as on a par with all other major networks, so they use the tu quoque fallacy to defend it as being equally bad as other sources. Another group of editors sees its false opinions for what they are, and see that they are being treated as facts by the network, thus blurring the line between facts and opinions, a situation so at odds with what we require of all other RS that we would fail any other network which did this.

The fact that occasional factual reporting does occur at Fox News is not seen by the latter group as justification for keeping the Fox News dungheap in the same courtyard with the other major networks, just because one can dig through the dung and find occasional factual pearls which are scorned by Fox News. Those pearls can be found on the surface, clean, untainted, and presented as facts in the reporting of all other mainstream sources. Fox News treats unfavorable facts as garbage, unlike other sources which treat facts as facts.

If a source is unreliable, it should not get a special status in a walled garden. We treated Trump that way for far too long, refusing to label his proven and egregious lies as "lies", just because some mainstream sources were reluctant to do it. Now we can say, in Wikipedia's voice, that he is a profligate liar without equal in modern political life, and we can say it in Wikipedia's voice because all RS do it every single day. The evidence is overwhelming. Trump is no longer in a walled garden where Wikipedia pretends his lies are exceptional and minor faults. They are not.

We should do the same with Fox News and end this official hypocrisy which fails to honor the demands of our RS policy. If a source is unreliable, then it should be openly declared to be unreliable. Break down the walls of the Fox News Walled Garden. -- Valjean (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I would agree time to close, we are not really having any fresh input just the same arguments made by the same people. All the evidence is in (well for now), so lets just have a decision.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is more of a note to the closer(s) as I have not much time be heavily involved in this discussion. It seems to be most of the evidence shown as to how Fox News (website and regular newcasts) is allegedly unreliable is actually evidence that talk shows on Fox News (Tucker Carlson Tonight, Hannity, Fox & Friends) are unreliable. I think the core part of this discussion is how to differentiate between the different parts of Fox News. Yes their website may make a mistake, of which are rare, but this sometimes happens even with the most reputable reports (something noted at WP:NEWSORG, and Fox does issue corrections which further indicates reliablity). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Spy-cicle: ...is actually evidence that talk shows... That seems to be a narrative put forth in favor of treating Fox News as reliable, but I see no evidence supporting it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  Here's an example provided in the above discussion ([131]). For the sake of argument let's assume it a reliable source which is a big assumption given that at least two of the four sources have conflicts of interest with their organisations. It states Fox [...] now functions basically as a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. These poor, generalised statement are unhelpful. Are the talk shows (like Tucker Carlson Tonight) propaganda? Is the regular news reporting propaganda? Is the website propaganda? Are the local affiliates propaganda? Is Fox Corporation propaganda? These types of generalising statements without specifically differentiting between the different parts of Fox News are littered in a lot of the above sources. I mean if that source seriously thinks that the local affiliates of Fox News are propaganda I do not know what to tell you. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  Spy-cicle, there are no bright lines between the reporting and the "propaganda". That's the problem. We can't have endless discussions on article talk pages to decide whether a particular citation is RS. And there are too many editors who come to WP mistaking the nonsense for valid reporting. And then too, there are the shows that report the truth but not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, further confusing partisan editors and talk page discussions. If we cannot rely on a source to be reliable, then it's not reliable. Editors are not coming here with our limited volunteer time to have pointless arguments with obstinate and uninformed colleagues. Such editors are a small minority among editors but they account for at least half the talk page text in politics articles. SPECIFICO talk 22:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

To the criticsms of Springee and North8000, the four options are merely guidelines to aid the closers for what the concensus for the discussion is, ulimately the language of the closer should be based on arguments presented. In another comment I said I regretted not workshopping a RfC as was done for Quackwatch, but I am not sure ultimately that would have worked any better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• That's not now the first part was written, it said pick one of the 4 options, and IMO leaving out the most plausible one (that any such finding as the 4 options is an invalid overgeneralization) fatally affected the RFC. North8000 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with Guy and Newslinger about a multi-person close being in order here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• I also agree that a closing panel is needed. BD2412 T 19:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I have made a request at WP:AN for an admin panel to close... but please check my request to see if I did it right, and make any amendments needed. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2020 (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.

Also CNN & MSNBC

I hope the same kinda Rfc has been opened up, concerning CNN & MSNBC news a sources. As much as Fox news is pro-Republican, CNN & MSNBC news are pro-Democrat. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Lets end this one first, whataboutsim is not a valid argument.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Indeed, this transparent and facile attempt is false equivalency at its worst. oknazevad (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually most sources agree that's not the case. FN is generally seen as being in its own category, far and away from other outlets,[132] with a level of partisanship hitherto unheard of.[133] What's more, several studies show that FN viewers are less informed than any other network's, in one case even less than people who don't watch news at all (links here). François Robere (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be fantastic, really great, absolutely yuge if we could get that fake news outlet of CNN banned! We will build a wall, it will be a big beautiful wall to keep out all their fake news from Wikipedia and CNN will pay for the wall! In all seriousness though, this is almost a non-starter. We know CNN has a left wing political bias same as Fox has a right wing one. All media outlets have one. If anyone's making up real fake news, it's ABC. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

All corporate-sponsored news media have a bias. Manufacturing consent on behalf of their sponsors, is common practice. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Yes, but do they present facts? FN routinely doesn't to a much greater degree than anyone else. François Robere (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Ya can't split hairs. All those news networks aren't totally honest. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether a news network manufactures news or not isn't "splitting hairs". François Robere (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a source for the statement "Manufacturing consent (sic) on behalf of their sponsors" since that is not what news outlets do. MarnetteD|Talk 17:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@The C of E: Actually in most studies I've seen CNN is taken as the middle grounds between FN and MSNBC. That ideological orientation is also reflected in the explicit goals of the networks - CNN was founded as an unpartisan (as opposed to "nonpartisan") 24/7 news network; FN was founded as a conservative outlet; and MSNBC was founded as a contra to Fox. So if you want to make the comparison, it's MSNBC to Fox, not CNN to Fox - though MSNBC is still considered fact-based, while FN isn't (see quotes above). François Robere (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. If Fox is depreciated based on its bias than CNN could be equally depreciated as they a both biased.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I would also support the initiation of an RfC on this question, with the same options as this one, plus a fifth option to treat these sources equally. I would just wait until this one is closed, so that we would know what that fifth option entails. BD2412 T 22:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I would agree CNN pre-2017 was more neutral/in the middle between FoxNews and MSNBC, however after Trump's election that is unfortunately no longer the case (especially CNN's ample coverage of debunked conspiracy theories like Trump/Russia collusion). Yodabyte (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

There was nothing “debunked” and it’s not a conspiracy theory no matter how many right wingers repeat that ... Fox News fake news talking point. Volunteer Marek 04:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes it has been 100% debunked. No charges were brought against Trump or anyone in his campaign after an exhaustive 3 year long investigation (summer 2016 FBI investigation begins-spring 2019 Mueller report completion). Other charges were brought but zero charges for collusion or conspiracy with Russia, so by definition the collusion conspiracy theory peddled by CNN, MSNBC, WAPO, NYT, etc, has been officially debunked. Several prominent liberal journalists (including Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi) have documented this fact, not exactly "right-wingers".Yodabyte (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was "debunked", but it's clear that "at least 17 Trump associates had contacts with Russians or Wikileaks... at least 100 face-to-face interactions, phone calls or electronic messages with Russians or Kremlin-linked figures and at least 51 individual communications... three Trump associates have now admitted lying about these encounters," and that "the special counsel has indicted more than 30 people, including four members of Mr Trump's campaign team or administration, an adviser and long-time ally, and 26 Russians, as well as three Russian companies."[134] The report itself states that "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."[135] François Robere (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

And this is why I was cautioning against any decision about disallowing Fox News strictly on a bias basis without proving out an issue with it being a reliable source or other factors, because you get people asking these questions that clearly don't make in context of why Fox News is being discussed. --Masem (t) 05:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest that RfCs on both CNN and MSNBC be launched once this is closed, if only to determine how we should treat their use particularly in the field of American politics. I'm not sure what exactly happened, but CNN (even the international version, which is what I watch) seems to have become more political and more-American centric over the last few years. Perhaps whenever Fox/CNN/MSNBC are used as sources in American politics topics they should be attributed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, except Fox just shouldn't be used at all. It fails the "reputation for accuracy and fact checking" requirement of our WP:RS policy. In fact, it's kind of a textbook example of a major media outlet that does the opposite (there's of course lots of examples of smaller media that also fail it). Volunteer Marek 18:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, Please don't make assertions without evidence. I know there are a number of anecdotes in this RFC, some of which document errors by the news division, but a handful of errors do not remotely qualify as failing a "reputation for accuracy and fact checking". If that was all it took, we wouldn't have any sources qualifying as RS. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The "anecdotes" in this RfC go far beyond just a "handful of errors" but rather show a systematic pattern which 100% supports my claim that Fox does NOT have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. They are far worse than many other sources.

I disagree, but there's not much point on discussing this further without a metric. one potential metric is to count the number of news reports produced, then count the number in which a verifiable and uncorrected error exists. However, even if that metric were used, we don't have a useful comparison. Our standard for RS doesn't hint at a measurable metric. I don't know how many news reports have come out of Fox News but I assume it's in the tens of thousands. Even if every anecdote in this RFC reported an actual failure, it's not obvious that this would be enough, and just about every anecdote I've looked at is flawed – either making an accurate identification of a flaw, but talking about a pundit rather than a news reporter, or just flat out wrong. I'm sure there are some. I'm sure there are many. However, that's not the standard for demoting a source as an RS.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

CNN & MSNBC are worst than FOX, but I think MSNBC was already demoted. Those 2 networks combined barely equal Fox News ratings, and that's with the recent surge of viewers because of COVID-19. They were in a a slump in the summer-fall of 2019. CJR and Poynter provided some insight. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ratings don't mean squat for reliability. And did you actually read the Poynter piece? Because it exactly calls out Fox as out of touch with reality and pushing false narratives. oknazevad (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, this is just completely wrong. Ratings /= reliability, and this has been pointed out repeatedly before so please stop it with the WP:TEND behavior. Washington Times, btw, isn't all that reliable either. Also, you have a link to where "MSNBC was demoted"? Volunteer Marek 14:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I totally agree that "Ratings /= reliability". I don't think that was what Atsme was intending to suggest, but as I don't understand why this irrelevant factoid was mentioned I will let that editor respond. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

If ratings are to be the metric by which we rate reliablity, then Game of Thrones and NFL Football should be our guidling lights. O3000 (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, the high ratings of Fox are why its bias is such a huge problem, and why it has been the subject of substantial scholarly analysis. Guy (help!) 14:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand your POV, I just don't agree with it based on my long-standing career experience, although I remain open-minded and will make proper adjustments if I am convinced by fact-based arguments in an apples to apples comparison rather than opinions published in politically biased sources, by biased academics and/or when there are financial conflicts of interest which include, for example, academic funding, competitors and advocacies. I consider viewers to comprise consensus and that consensus is validated by ratings which reflects what the majority of viewers watch...and leading for 18 consecutive years is darn good reason. It tells us viewers consider them more trustworthy than the other networks in that department - and I've said, there is a mix of left & right in Fox reporting. Guy, you already admitted that you don't watch Fox News Channel, so let's not pretend that you know all there is to know about its programming. What I've seen in your responses is political bias, intentional or otherwise, and you're a stand-up enough guy that you don't deny it. Attempts to rate an entire network based on a handful of errors is ludicrous at best, and I certainly hope the 3 chosen closers will see through it. It will be interesting to see the arguments for and against some of the other news networks which have been the worst offenders in news reporting. The latter includes online news publications as well. Fox has never won a Pulitzer but they never had to return one, either. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You are of course free to disagree but this isn't "my POV", it's actual Wikipedia policy. We DON'T judge reliability of sources based on ratings, full stop, end of story, that's it. If you feel otherwise, and you follow this alternative practice then that brings up clear issues of WP:NOTHERE. It's also disingenuous to pretend to be "open minded" and consider "fact-based arguments", while... in the very next phrase dismissing all possible sources that would disagree with you out of hand.

This is a pointless discussion. You either accept Wikipedia's policy on RS or you don't. If you do, then you don't bring up ratings or other nonsense into it. Volunteer Marek 18:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder if other sources (CNN for example) were subjected to the same level of scrutiny and the same level of "assume the worst" if they would look just as bad. A catch 22 with the high ratings is it means many of the things Fox covers would have quite a bit of weight since "the highest rated news source" covered them. As someone who doesn't follow FN much looking at this, it looks like Fox is being targeted as much for being willing to deliver commentary that disagrees with others as it is for any actual accuracy issues. Look at the example of "inaccuracies" reported in the section below and most take quite a bit of mental gymnastics to reach their conclusions. I will again ask, how has having Fox News listed as generally reliable ever hurt Wikipedia? Which articles were damaged by this? A counter argument to that question has been "That isn't a criteria for WP:RS". That is true but consider the alternative. Externally calling Fox unreliable will be clearly viewed by some as a partisan action and a case where the wolves outnumbered the sheep while voting on what's for dinner. That will not be good for Wikipedia. If we can't say how treating Fox as reliable has hurt Wikipedia then it seems clear this is more about silencing those who we dislike vs anything else. Springee (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if it will be "good for Wikipedia" or not. Depends what you mean by that. Will it be good for the perception of Wikipedia? Among some folks, not others. But who cares. Will it be "good for Wikipedia" in terms of content quality? Yes, yes it will. And at the end of the day that's all that matters. Not whether some asshole windbag with a youtube channel talks shit about us because we deprecated Fox News, but whether deprecating Fox News improves the encyclopedia. And I think a strong argument has been made that it would. Volunteer Marek 18:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Fox News pushing misinformation about George Floyd protests

There are numerous articles at Media Matters about Fox News pushing misinformation about the George Floyd protests:

• A far-right “boogaloo” supporter allegedly killed a Black federal police officer — and right-wing media blamed it on protests
• Fox News still pushing false police claim of Seattle protester violence — even after the police retracted it
• Fox News' coverage of police brutality protests is a conspiratorial, fact-averse mess
• Fox News hypes up baseless fears of violent “antifa” protesters amid reports of white supremacist groups inciting violence
• Fox News spreads disinformation about antifa “riots heading to suburbia,” supposed impending arrests
• Fox News runs another unproven police allegation of protester criminality
• Fox News reporter blames “mob” of protesters after man allegedly shot at them, wounding one
• Nine ways Fox has pushed disinformation about civil unrest to terrify its audience

The cases mentioned in these stories are about Fox's actual news coverage (for example, on America's News Headquarters or Fox News @ Night), not opinion shows (although subsequent coverage on opinion shows is often discussed). Given the evidence, I would support not relying on Fox News as a reliable source for information about the George Floyd protests, Antifa, or Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. Kaldari (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Media Matters is a highly partisan source (especially when it comes to Fox, which they despise with a burning passion) and is not considered reliable at WP:RSP. Also, from what I looked most of the examples they cite are from the opinion shows. JOEBRO64 19:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: it is not true that they are "not considered reliable at WP:RSP": "There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed."

There is no decision, likely because, in spite of their mission (partisanship), they remain accurate. When debunking lies is your mission, you are "highly partisan" with a "burning passion", and your work is the truth, so they qualify as a RS. They have the same mission as fact-checkers, which we consider the most reliable sources of all. Media Matters remains accurate when they are debunking the lies pushed by Fox News. We favor that type of partisan source, but we do attribute it.

I don't know why we have to keep repeating this, but bias is not a reason to deprecate a source. It is only when the bias is so extreme that it negatively affects reliability and accuracy that we deprecate a source. If they are still telling the truth, they are considered a RS, regardless of their bias.

On the exceptional occasions a couple of its news anchors tell truths that are contrary to the mission and agenda of Fox News, the whole network makes fun of its own anchors who dare to do that. That tells you that, with rare exception, Fox News cannot be trusted. Since Fox News generally does not tell the truth and constantly pushes pseudo-journalism and false narratives, we should deprecate it.-- Valjean (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Kaldari, I picked one of the entries at random, to see if it stood up to inspection. It doesn't. I picked the second one "Fox News still pushing false police claim of Seattle protester violence — even after the police retracted it". To start with, the headline asserts a false claim of "violence", but that word is used exactly once, in the headline. Not a single mention in the body of the article. While extortion is a serious charge, and can involve a threat of violence, it is not, in itself, violence. So the headline is false. If they were to amend the headline to talk about a false claim of extortion, it would still be wrong. The article includes a quote from Assistant Police Chief Deanna Nollette. The police later retracted the claim, and as the article notes "Steve Doocy did at that point mention the police chief’s retraction..." To summarize, the MediaMatters headline is false (and ought to impugn MediaMatters as a reliable source), the police did claim there were extortion attempts, which Fox reported, and the police did retract the claim, which Fox reported. How on earth is this an example of irresponsible reporting? (Other than by Media Matters) S Philbrick(Talk) 13:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: By June 11th afternoon the claim of extortion has been rescinded by police, but on June 12 "America’s Newsroom" was still displaying a chyron claiming armed guards and threats of extortion. Note at least a couple of outlets made attempts at verifying the claim before it was rescinded, rather than just repeating it; Fox hasn't. Also on the show, a commentator suggests "Antifa" presence and decries NYT story "that's almost a travel brochure for Antifa." François Robere (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, Well, we are making progress. You didn't dispute my observation that the headline mentioning "violence" was not supported by the article. In other words, the main claim by MM is demostrably false. You didn't dispute that Fox reported the rescinding of the claim about extortion and you are left with arguing that they didn't change their chyron soon enough. That's pretty thin gruel. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

1. @Sphilbrick: No I didn't, but it's a small error compared to a major new organ repeating a defunct and defamatory claim without even having tried to verify it independently.
2. If you're concerned with headlines' veracity, would you care to discuss those of Fox? ATM their website brandishes tabloid-like photo overlays like "how could this happen?", "get used to it" and "doubling down" in all caps.
3. Remember we're not hashing MM's reliability here (especially not based on "a number of anecdotes", to quote a previous comment of), we're hashing Fox's; and for Fox we have whole collections. François Robere (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

François Robere,

1. You asserted, without proof, that they repeated it without attempting to verify it indenpendetly. Unless you have inside access to Fox News, you couldn't possibly know this.
2. Nice try at changing the subject. If you are willing to concede that MM got this wrong, we can move on to other subjects.
3. Maybe we should be reviewing MM's veracity. Just about everything I've looked at indicates they have a terrible track record, but we are here to discuss Fox, and MM was used in an attempt to demonstrate problems with Fox, and instead it is boomeranging on MM. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:

1. I'll rephrase: Fox's account does not hint at any attempt of independently verifying the claim, as other outlets mentioned by MM have done.
2. "Change the subject"? I thought Fox was the subject. I've addressed MM's headline in my previous message; will you address Fox's?
3. I've just conducted a short review of MM myself. As it turns out, they've been cited by papers of record and news agencies from multiple English-speaking countries,[136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143] and the book "The Fox Effect" (co-authored by two MM associates) has been cited 47 times since publication. Overall, they seem to be reliable enough to discuss.
   1. That said, since I don't actually care for their commentary as much as I do for their links - which we can, and have verified ourselves - discussing their reliability is redundant.
   2. Also, since they're just one of several dozen sources, I don't actually care if you take a good swing at them, as long as you make a good effort at the others as well.

François Robere (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Kaldari, I took a look at the next item on the list, the one with the headline "Fox News' coverage of police brutality protests is a conspiratorial, fact-averse mess". while it wouldn't be hard to poke holes in their "analysis", there is no need. The discussion is about talking heads, i.e. pundits on Fox stations not Fox news. This RFC is about the news division not the purveyors of opinion.

Your list of articles had nineeight entries. I looked at two and found them wanting. One talks about the news division but doesn't back up its claim, the other talks about pundits and makes the common error of conflating pundits with news reporters. (One might hope an organization dedicated to the media would know the difference.) I don't have time to go through all of the entries. Can you tell me which one you consider the best one? (Of course, a single example of flawed reporting doesn't remotely disqualify a source as an RS, but I would like to know if there are some real examples.) S Philbrick(Talk) 13:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Martha MacCallum is mentioned as failing to question gov. official on "anarchist" movement membership, and for an apologetic tone on police violence; Bret Baier is noted as lying about "Antifa" stocking up bricks and flammables to fight the police, and Lara Logan is said to have fallen for three separate online hoaxs. There are also links to other articles on problematic presentation of the Lafayette Square incident by various newscasters (note this particular incident was covered very differently by virtually all other mainstream outlets, regardless of political orientation).[144][145] François Robere (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, I'm not quite following your post. I had noted that Kaldari Link to eight news articles. I reviewed two and found both of them flawed, and rather than go through some of the others only to learn that Kaldari felt that one was particularly telling, I decided to ask which one was the most solid. Obviously, this is not a private forum between that editor and me; anyone can share their thoughts on which of those items is particularly noteworthy, including you, so I initially thought you were picking one of those news items but you included some text and some links, and based on my cursory review, the text has nothing to do with the links provided by Kaldari or by you, and the links have nothing to do with the links provided by Kaldari. I'm guessing you are attempting to respond to my parenthetical query about flawed reporting, but can you clarify your point? S Philbrick(Talk) 19:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: You wrote that you took a look at the next item on the list, the one with the headline "Fox News' coverage of police brutality protests is a conspiratorial, fact-averse mess", and that it does not mention Fox's news reporters, only its "talking heads". That is incorrect - the item mentions Martha MacCallum (news anchor and host), Bret Baier (chief political correspondent and host) and Lara Logan (investigative reporter). François Robere (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, Fair enough that some straight news reportes were mentioned. I'm sure you will agree that the article is mainly about Hannity, Ingraham, Gutfeld, Williams and other talking heads, which suggests that Media Matter doesn't even understand the distinction between punditry and news. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: "Understand" or "agree"? Per Jay Rosen, Associate Professor of Journalism at NYU and former member of the Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board, “The only people left who think there's actually a "news side" of Fox may be the handful of people at Fox whose self-image is as a journalist rather than warrior against the liberal media. They're not capable of doing much, but what they can do is introduce cognitive dissonance.” François Robere (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, Sorry, I gave you a chance but I'm giving up on you. I pointed out that a MM headline made reference to violence while not mentioning it in the body. I asked you to at least concede that fact and you change the subject. I pointed out that another MM article purports to talk about Fox news but mostly talked about pundits. Instead of conceding that MM blundered, you try again to change the subject. I'm not good at nailing Jell-O to a wall so I'm going to move on. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: You're mixing two threads discussing two different pieces. Re-read your messages to Kaldari. François Robere (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Fox News crops Donald Trump out of Jeffrey Epstein photo

(François Robere (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC))

This is from the NEWS department, not the talking heads. This is Leland Vittert Correspondent and anchor:

• Video
• Article

Valjean (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a selective choice of cropping showing bias but it is NOT falsification or the like as argued in the Seattle Free Zone photo manipulation. --Masem (t) 20:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• And yet again a really simple "mistake" easily caught out [146] they have had to apologise for. One involving the altering (in this case just cropping) of a photo on Fox news. How many people work on in the "lets not publish dishonest material department", none?Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Look at the picture on right. Why are these soldiers digging in a pile of rubble? Are they trying to rescue someone? And why aren't they using tools? Were they bombed?

Oh, wait - it's actually the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima, just... cropped. François Robere (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought linking to YouTube videos like that was a copyvio per WP:YOUTUBE? PackMecEng (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That applies to articles, not here. That is a Fox News broadcast and linked by a recognized organization's YouTube channel. No one is proposing to use it in an article. -- Valjean (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

No, copyvios apply to the whole of Wikipedia. PackMecEng (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Also I was not aware the tabloid Raw Story owned the rights to that broadcast? PackMecEng (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A link is not a copyvio. -- Valjean (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

See WP:VIDEOLINK, WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYVIO. Specifically things like Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to. You are wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

We could make this a weekly event. The Fox news altered picture of the week.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this is a total non-story. They used a picture with Epstein and Maxwell. Trump was not part of the story so why include his picture? Perhaps they could have used a different picture of Epstein and Maxwell? The problem with using this to "prove" a problem is it undermines the case. It doesn't prove the issue since there are perfectly reasonable answers as to why not include Trumps picture (the story wasn't about him in any way shape or form). Instead what this does is suggest there is validity to the view that people will make a big deal out of anything in an attempt to make Fox look bad. The only real mistake was not cropping Melania as well. It would have been an awkward picture but she was also not involved in the story. This is more pathetic than anything else. Springee (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It was not about his wife either, they included her.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I said that. My guess is aesthetically it looked odd to either have Epstein right at the edge of the image or have Melania obviously cut off. So perhaps the controversy should have been why did they leave her in rather than removing Trump as neither had anything to do with the story in question. Perhaps they are biased against Melania. Springee (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Well as they have said "it was a mistake" without saying why we shall not know what their "thinking" was. You are right, its not very significant, other than as another example of photo manipulation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

How difficult is it to just present an unmodified photo in a news story? How can removing a sitting POTUS from a photo be considered aesthetics? How many excuses are we going to make for their "mistakes"? Particularly when they always appears to benefit one person -- supported by the owner and founding CEO. O3000 (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

How difficult is it to just present a different photo in a news story, [[147]], corr that was hard.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Fox News have since apologised for this error [148]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

[149] François Robere (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Current tally

A current rough tally of votes is

• Option 1 70 votes
• Option 2 24 votes
• Option 3 38 votes
• Option 4 10 votes
• Total 142 votes

These are all probably off by a handful of votes, but it clearly shows that opinion is equally split between Reliable, and any degree of unreliable/additional considerations apply. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course this RfC is WP:NOTVOTE and the close should be based of the strength of arguments presented, but it clearly shows that there is no strong numeric concensus one way or the other. Hemiauchenia (talk)

References

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.

• Can someone please fix the contradictory templates at the top? One says "Please do not contribute further" while the other says "New comments are still welcome". --Guy Macon (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Crowdfunders

Should crowdfunding platforms be blacklisted, as petition sites are, with specific links whitelisted as needed? Guy (help!) 08:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Background

Petition sites are blacklisted, with specific links handled by whitelisting. This is due to widespread use of Wikipedia to promote petitions, often but certainly not always in good faith. Most uses of petition sites were of the form In (year), a petition was launched for (cause). Source: Link to the petition.

The same applies to crowdfunders, with the additional problem that they are not just asking for signatures, but actual money. Many of the links are (inevitably) to campaigns that have now ended, but even here, they are primary. Example:

On April 24th 2013 Braff started a Kickstarter campaign to finance "Wish I Was Here" which based on a script he wrote with his brother Adam Braff.

References

This was added on the day the kickstarter launched.

The scale of the problem is not small.

• gofundme.com   (123 references)
• indiegogo.com   (876 references)
• kickstarter.com   (2,973 references)

Opinions (Crowdfunders)

• Support as proposer. Guy (help!) 08:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Guy - David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support – If the crowdfund is notable, then it should not be hard to find a secondary source as a reference. If there is no secondary source, then it is not notable and should not be mentioned. I also have a hard time imagining a situation in which these websites are necessary as a source for notable facts. (Perhaps as a source for self-published birth date on a BLP, but a request to whitelist will suffice in that situation.) --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support if crowdfund is not covered in secondary RS, we should not cover it either. buidhe 12:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - We can mention the existence of a crowdfund if it is mentioned by independent reliable sources... but we should not link to it. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I agree, these funding requests can become very political, very quickly. --- FULBERT (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Agreed, a crowdfunding campaign on its own without secondary coverage does not establish notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support seems obvious to me. Springee (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I agree crowdfunding sites should be blocked. They are like fundraising links. You would not allow PayPal pages or links to someone's ebay page. --Althecomputergal (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support: no brainer. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as explained below. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose But I'll explain more below - we should not be using these sites for anything notability related or similar, but once a notability threshold is reached they are fair game as equivalent to primary sources for the projects backed. --Masem (t) 20:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Allow in external links for crowdfunding in relation to notable subjects, per Masem. BLPs who are supported by Patreon subscriptions, for example, ought to have their crowdfunding linked. EllenCT (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  EllenCT, What? Why? Why on earth would we include a link that basically says "give this person money here"? We can link the official website, and leave them to do thier own panhandling. My monthly Patreon bill for subscribed content is in excess of $100, I'm not opposed to crowdfunding, but it's not our job to drive donations to the article subject. Guy (help!) 09:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: I'm not entirely clear how linking to their website is different from linking to the kickstarter of an active campaign. What if the website is nothing but promotion of the campaign and direct links to how to contribute? Isn't linking to any for-profit website, or non-profit that takes donations, or any official website for that manner, possibly construed as some kind of promotion? Is the issue here that it will increase search engine ranking for the actual kickstarter page? To which I ask again, how is it different from any link or reference to any official website? —DIYeditor (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for closed campaigns as per Masem's rationale but deprecate links to live campaigns, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Citations of active crowdfunding campaigns violate WP:NOTPROMO, and should be substituted with reliable secondary sources. Citations of closed campaigns might be usable as primary sources when used to supplement reliable secondary sources, but those cases can be whitelisted as needed when there is consensus to use them. — Newslinger talk 02:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  I would support deprecation with an edit-filter set to "warn" as a second choice. — Newslinger talk 11:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - We can always whitelist a link if relevant and appropriate. But we should ensure the message warning that the site is blacklisted includes an explanation on how to appeal for whitelisting. Per Newslinger. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 05:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support, with the proviso that needed whitelisting be done without a lot of tooth-pulling. The main reason to cite one of these is for WP:ABOUTSELF purposes (e.g. that a crowdfunding proposal claimed something at a certain date, and we've quoted it; or that a certain crowdsourcing site has a policy that states X and we're writing about that). That can be handled by selective whitelisting. We could also do this for cases where the subject has no official webpage other than their Patreon or whatever. We don't block Amazon.com on the article about Amazon, despite the fact that following that link will lead you to a site at which you might agree to spend money. So "there's a shopping card form there" isn't really a rationale. Links to such pages frequently being added gratuitously as a fundraising mechanism, like posting survey links on WP as an input-generating means for them, is the actual problem to address.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  PS: I will add that these sites are not like PayPal, because they provide (primary-source) editorial content and are not simply a payment mechanism; they're even more valid to link for WP:PRIMARYSOURCE-valid purposes, in this regard, than would be Amazon.com or some other "web store".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, I agree, the bar should be set low. Guy (help!) 14:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. If most additions of links to such pages are in good faith, a Daily Mail-style spamlist will be adequate. These sites are often enough useful that requiring editors to whitelist every legitimate use would be too much of a hassle. feminist | freedom isn't free 07:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Well-intentioned no doubt, this assumes secondary sources exist that parrot exactly the information we want to use, which obviously is not always true. This also seems to be a bad faith assumption that any use must be wrong, even for a live request.

  I have no problems with a warning filter that helpfully reminds editors about do’s or don’ts, but still allows the use. But I oppose basically banning their use especially when they are often the source of news. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, if there are no secondary sources then it probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia. And the proposal doesn't prevent such use, it merely creates a presumption against it. Guy (help!) 18:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That’s not what I wrote or intended. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support The fact that something was crowdfunded can and should be included if that fact is significant. However, if that fact is significant, there should be other sources for that information. I wouldn't mind links to the closed campaign in the external links section; but not cited as a source and never for ongoing campaigns. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• If there is no secondary source for a crowdfunder, then it is not significant. If there is a secondary source then use it and don't link the crowdfunder. This seems obvious to me. It's the approach we take for petitions, and it is working well for that. An edit filter or revert list will not work I think: revert lists can be overridden trivially by simply reinserting the link, an edit filter set to warn will be ignored, as is the case for blogs and self-published sources (e.g. filter 894, 1045), and if set to enforce, whitelisting of individual links is obscure. The blacklist / whitelist process is well suited to handling this issue. Guy (help!) 08:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This seems pretty obvious and clear - David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• AngelList (but see discussion below)
• ArtistShare
• Community Funded
• Crowd Supply
• DonorsChoose
• Experiment
• Fundable
• Fundly
• FundRazr
• GoFundMe
• Groundfloor
• Indiegogo
• InvestedIn
• JustGiving
• Kickstarter
• LaunchGood
• Lending Club
• MicroVentures
• Patreon
• Piggybackr
• RocketHub
• Seed&Spark
• Wefunder

I think I want to create CrowdFunderFunder, a crowdfunding site to collect donations for creating new crowdfunding sites. If it works out, CrowdFunderFunderFunder... --Guy Macon (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, but how will you fund that? Guy (help!) 15:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the WMF will create wikifunding. They seem to be pretty good at that sort of thing... --Guy Macon (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Guy Macon: AngelList is not a crowdfunding site, it has information similar to Crunchbase and is more like Linkedin. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Would you be so kind as to look at Template:Crowdfunding platforms and remove any non-crowdfunding platforms you see??

{{Crowdfunding platforms}}--Guy Macon (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

for some reason, having this template expanded at the indent level was screwing up indents down the rest of the entire talk page, I've "nulled" out the expansion from above as a note. --Masem (t) 13:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree with the rapid sense to treat these like change.org (which I fully agree should be blacklisted) but I do agree with waving the huge flag on their frivolous use. Hundreds of projects attempt crowdfunding, few met their goal, and fewer still of those are WP:N-notable before they get completed. But there are more than a few exceptions of projects that have been announced first through things like Kickstarter that get attention through secondary sources that we have had articles on. And where I have found the crowdfunding sites sometimes useful is in that they serve as a primary source for some information not always captured by the secondary sources but needed to properly flesh out an article. (but not documenting EVERYTHING said on the funding page). This is no different from using a development blog hosted anywhere else for some of the finer details, as long as notability has clearly been shown and we're talking filling in some of the holes rather than building the entire page off that primary source. But again, this is under limited cases, and not the common situation that these links are used for which is the promotional spam without any sense of notability. --Masem (t) 20:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. I took the time to look through a few dozen pages with these links to get a sense of how they're used. I removed a few clearly egregious cases, but in a reasonable minority of cases I see this pattern: a secondary source describes an event/item that underwent crowdfunding, and the crowdfunding reference is placed after the secondary reference. I can see from a user's perspective why this would be useful. Jlevi (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think Masem has a good point. Look at Ogre (board game)#Kickstarter project as one example of a legitimate citation. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

If we have to spamlist it as opposed to blacklist (so that I have to press "accept my edit" twice to reduce the "change.org"-type additions, that's fine. I understand the clear concern of when these are being added as inappropriate promotional links and this is definitely a goal I back. And I would certainly make it a RS/P item as very situational as a primary source, not for notability, only to be used in moderation when trying to be comprehensive but not "complete". (I am speaker here as having backed video and board games through KS and others, and have once in a while used those sources here to add the odd missing detail, but not to do anything close to WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE regurgitation which is the other side of caution when allowing these.) And of course, when talking about crowdfunding, the non-funding parts of these sites are authoritative, such as KS listing out its top projects by $ amount. --Masem (t) 23:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Masem, OK, but look at filter 1045 (blog) or filter 869 (deprecated source). Most editors are clicking through and making the edit anyway. And a mainspace filter will not prevent people spamming crowdfunders on talk pages. Guy (help!) 09:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I looked at Ogre. I tried to find a secondary source for the content currently cited to Kickstarter. Turns out to be remarkably difficult. Which is kind of my point: the two main uses are (a) active campaigns added by obvious fans and (b) primary sources for trivia. Neither passes WP:RS.

Of course most kickstarter projects ship late, some never ship at all - we both agree I think that live campaigns should not be included. How do we police that? How do we stop it on Talk pages?

With petition sites, we do link (via whitelist) a few closed petitions that have received external coverage and where the content of the petition page is of specific interest. That is exactly what I am proposing here, in fact. But for the most part the primary source is either excessive detail or an active solicitation for support, which is inappropriate IMO. Guy (help!) 09:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a factor here that not all crowdfunding sites are the same. Whereas I trying to make sure that Kickstarter or IndieGoGo pages are still open - because a key feature of most projects there is their running devblog/progress which is the information value we want - a site like Patreon or GoFundMe is all about getting you donation and rarely provides useful info or is about anything notable in the long run. (And as this question started, if any of those types of campaigns are actually of note, they will get secondary coverage). The Kickstarter/IndieGogo pages (and I think there's a few others like this) are the ones that are the basis typically for notable commercial products, which is a key difference here, and usually that's not going to be something "personal" that will get started. You still might have people spamming links during their open campaigns to get others to help support that, which is an issue but because these usually can't be started "on a whim" like a Patreon, GoFundMe, or change.org petition, they aren't as frequent or common. That might be a key distinction to think about here. --Masem (t) 13:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Masem, crowdfunding is indeed a notable thing. We should certainly include it when mentioned by secondary sources. What we should not do is include links to crowdfunding projects, for exactly the same reason that we don't link to petitions. When I have gone through and found the original addition, almost all appear to have been added while the campaign was active. This seems to me to be a serious problem. Guy (help!) 09:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Some crowdfunding projects gain notability while they are active in the month or so (And then you have something of the situation like Star Citizen which has been in a perpetual crowdfunding situation since 2013, but let's call that one the outlier). In some cases (and these are cases I've edited on so I can speak to it), these are easily tied to existing topics - the Mystery Science Theater 3000 revival passed its goal quickly but that was easy to already tie to a notable topic (the original show). Surprisingly at the end of the day, the only time I ended up linking to the kickstarter was to provide a snippet of information about the ORIGINAL show that we didn't have before that came during the project updates during the campaign period from the show's creator. A separate case would be the example of Broken Age which when it launched as a KS in Feb 2012 was just known as Double Fine Adventure, and at the time because one of the highest-funded projects and gained significant attention to a point that it was clearly notable whether or not it ended up being made (in part because the team behind it was already a known factor ( eg state of the article about 2 weeks after the start of funding) Now, at this point, we hadn't had to link to KS, the only link being the one in the External Link, because the secondary sources were covering it well, but my point is that can be crowdfunded projects that are notable or tied to notable topics that we may need to touch on the updated and informational pages that most crowdfunding sites use for keeping the crowdfunding supporters up-to-date on the project as primary sources. Additions where they are used to build out details that we would expect for contemporary works like development (conception, influences, behind-the-scenes, etc.) are useful, and this is where I'm worried the action here is potentially cutting those off. But in both cases, and in general, these were only included until after secondary sources established that crowdfunding was going on (and in the latter case, enough to establish independent notability). I fully agree that if first mention of any project is by the inclusion of the crowdfunding link, particularly while it is actively, is more an attempt to draw people to participate in it, not to use for informational purposes, but that's not the only use of crowdfunding sites for WP's purposes. --Masem (t) 13:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  To add and stress: the cases I only started adding significant information on the crowdfunding efforts in these examples and others was after the project was clearly past its target goal well before the end of the project (these two examples were within days of the start of the campaign) Obviously, this is a key factor for notability. --Masem (t) 13:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Masem, I do not disagree at all. I just don't think we should be using the primary source, or indeed allowing users to publish links to crowdfunders on talk pages. The crowdfunder pages are SPS and primary and almost by definition promotional. Guy (help!) 14:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  SPS nor primary sources are not immediately disallowed by any policy (though obviously can't be used in some situations like BLP), and whether the links are used in a promotional fashion or not all depends on context where it is being used. There are some of the crowdfunding sites that you listed like Patreon that I cannot see any other use but promotional in any article because of how that is setup, whereas a Kickstarter project's use is going to depend how its incorporated - just dropping a link off on talk and saying you should back this is clearly promotion, while dropping the link off and saying there's some details on the project's inspiration that can be added is a good use, and something we'd not want to block. Now I fully agree that I'd rather pull that info from a secondary/third-party source repeating the information from the crowdfunding page, but that's not always possible. --Masem (t) 14:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have no problem with MENTIONING a crowdfunding campaign in an article. The concern is with LINKING to it. Linking seems promotional in nature rather than informational. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that linking to a crowdfunding campaign that...

• is closed and no longer accepts money, and
• is the origin of a product or service notable enough to have a Wikipedia article

...is not automatically promotional. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, well, it's primary and self-published, but it's also a marketing communication, isn't it? Guy (help!) 14:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Some certainly are. But the story in Ogre (board game)#Kickstarter project documenting how the game morphed from a tiny game in a zip lock bag that fits in your pocket to a massive box -- far larger than any board game I have ever seen -- because so many people donated is an interesting story, and the huge size (but not necessarily how it got that way) has been noted in multiple reviews of the game. Seeing as how they sold out of them and have no plans for making any more, it is hard to see how at this point that particular kickstarter page is promotional. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, yes, it's an interesting story. Is it covered in any secondary sources that make this point? Guy (help!) 15:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that the sourcing for game reviews won't be found in The New York Times or The Gauardian, there are many sources that comment on it being huge, but none really explain how it got that way.

OGRE reviews

"Back in December, I got my hands on a copy of the Designer’s Edition of Ogre. It weighed over twenty-five pounds, took hours to punch out and assemble all the hundreds of pieces, and took up more width on the couch than I do... It sat there for seven long months, taking up the entire laundry room, beckoning in the night like a green light flashing at the end of a pier. Why didn’t I play it? It really comes down to intimidation, or maybe the fact that I can hardly lift the thing without pulling my back, groin, biceps, and hamstrings."[150] "Back in 2013, Mr. Jackson crowdfunded a special 6th edition of Ogre and you better bet I was on board for that. It proposed to be the complete Ogre package, featuring virtually everything ever made for it and then some. This was to be the first Ogre release since the somewhat ill-considered miniatures version of the game, featuring these lovely little cardboard models and big, mounted board that were a far cry from the tiny little paper maps that I once enlarged and mounted on foamcore. Fan material, supplements, all of the official expansions...it was epic. But it was also unwieldy, excessive and gigantic. The box was enormous, and in it were hundreds of counters, terrain overlays, variant Ogres, highly specialized units, and enough units for both sides to play multiple concurrent games. You'd think that an Ogre fan would be delighted. I wasn't. I was disappointed that the 'Designer's Edition' completely lost sight of the compact, contained nature of the game and turned it into a sprawling mess. It felt like a burden to own. I found myself wishing that there was something of a "compact" Designer's Edition. "[151] " It’s too damned big. Yeah, I know big is the point with 6th Ed., but seriously now. With the counters punched out the box still weighs in at over thirty pounds and it’s got an enormous footprint. The only place I have that’s large enough to store it is either in the attic or on top of my wife’s dresser. Guess which she vetoed? It’s difficult to get down and while the carrying bag was good idea, the shoulder strap isn’t wide enough and the load digs into my shoulder terribly, so transporting it to other places to play is kind of a non-starter, unless I break down and buy a hand cart."[152] "What’s 28 pounds, takes 2 people to lift and is back from the 1970s with a vengeance? Steve Jackson Game’s OGRE of course! "[153]

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Zero Hedge

Should Zero Hedge be deprecated as a source, with an edit filter set to warn editors who attempt to use it as a reference? — Newslinger talk 01:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Zero Hedge)

• Yes. Zero Hedge is well-known for disseminating conspiracy theories, and has a reputation for publishing false or fabricated information. — Newslinger talk 01:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes any source should be deprecated if it deliberately disseminates conspiracy theories, which ZH certainly does. buidhe 03:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, clearly and deliberately publishes conspiracy theories and blatant lies, so it should be deprecated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - it promotes conspiracy theories and nonsense. It cannot be trusted to be a Wikipedia source - David Gerard (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes as per previous comments. It's original content is often completely untrue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, obviously - but I thought it already was? This should be deprecated and systematically removed. Unlike the Daily Mail, ZeroHedge was always junk. Guy (help!) 10:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Leaning yes, though the option to just add it to WP:RSP could be viable (see below; there are only about 20 citations to it, and they don't seem to be problematic ones).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, it's already there. Guy (help!) 12:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, so what's the issue? Are people regularly citing it for nonsense? I don't really have an issue blacklisting it, as long as we selectively permit certain specific URLs for WP:ABOUTSELF citations as needed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, I think Newslinger wants to include it in a filter with a warn template, presumably 869 Guy (help!) 14:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, that's the standard practice and that's what I'm proposing here, unless there is consensus for some other measure. I would not oppose blacklisting, since there is precedent in globalresearch.ca (RSP entry) and InfoWars (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 12:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Works for me, then.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes distorts kernels of truth, misrepresents, possible ties to dark money propaganda. -- GreenC 13:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. I don't understand the argument that the problem has to get out of hand before addressing it. --Calton | Talk 23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, warn filter is helpful. Neutrality^talk 23:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes — might as well get out in front of the problem while it's still only sparsely used. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes — nipped in the bud beats rampant use, which the warning may prevent. Lindenfall (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Any source that deliberately fabricates information like they do needs to be deprecated ASAP. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Do not deprecate — one investing book [154] has called Zero Hedge "a favorite daily read among Wall Street's literati... an amalgam of punchy economic analysis, conspiracy theories, and wonky rants about the failings of U.S. political and economic institutions ad policies." Another [155] called it "Perhaps the most famous blog on markets in general is Zero Hedge, a site with a cult following." As I write in more detail below, the site has written some awful stuff, but it's also clearly a notable and popular source of opinion. Based on the discussions about the site and published opinion, it clearly falls under the category "generally unreliable" WP:GUNREL. Interestingly, as noted by reliable sources, Zero Hedge frequently posts unpopular opinions. One book [156] explains that the blog "uses anonymity as 'a shield from the tyranny of the majority,'" concluding "whenever you need a little raw reality, swing by Zero Hedge." Unpopular opinions are not a basis for deprecation, but is it possible that this may influence comments here? How are editors deciding between whether a source should be considered "generally unreliable" or "deprecated?" I agree with Blueboar that these designations, like much of internet-based communication, remove nuance and result in poor policy decisions. Prohibitions within Wikipedia against citing famous and notable voices outside of it, even if those voices are often unreliable, does not help us accurately reflect public discourse. -Darouet (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• You confuse popularity with reliability. An outlet can be "notable," "widely read," even "famous," yet also completely unreliable. This is the case with, for example, Weekly World News, The Drudge Report, and Zero Hedge. Also, a book saying that a blog publishes "an amalgam of punchy economic analysis, conspiracy theories, and wonky rants" does not seem exactly like a mark in favor of the blog. Neutrality^talk 00:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• That's not a confusion found in my comment, where I have addressed both popularity and reliability, and advocated that Zero Hedge be treated as "generally unreliable," i.e. WP:GUNREL. You're also selectively quoting from the source I cited. -Darouet (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes — Surprised to see this here. There are no characteristics of a reliable source. O3000 (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No - there is no need such whimsical behaviour as it is already listed in the yucky WP:RSN and the few cites seem to be for articles of it, it’s editors, and categories for conspiracy theories, etcetera. In that context, it seems a good RS and not readily replaceable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to deprecate, a purveyor of literal fake news. ValarianB (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Zero Hedge)

• There have been three previous discussions of Zero Hedge on this noticeboard:
  1. ZeroHedge Blog post by "Tyler Durden (2015)
  2. Zero Hedge (2018)
  3. rate "Zero Hedge" (2019)

Zero Hedge is currently used in 20 articles  . — Newslinger talk 01:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

20 citations seems a bit low for a full blown depreciation RfC, though I had thought about proposing this myself. Have zerohedge citations been previously removed? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

COIBot reports that there were 1,149 link additions as of December 2017, although this includes non-English Wikipedias. With an Alexa rank of 1,627, Zero Hedge is a prominent website. — Newslinger talk 02:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Hemiauchenia. ZH has some provocative stories and I suspect there is a lot of good information there but there is also a lot of conspiracy stuff. Regardless, I feel like we shouldn't deprecate unless there is a real problem with the source being used badly. It doesn't appear that is the case here. Perhaps just add them to RSP as not reliable and leave it at that. Springee (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • ZH has some provocative stories... Yes, all the falsehoods and conspiracy theories they push are very provocative, I'm sure. Not a standard for a reliable source.
  • ...and I suspect there is a lot of good information there. Wikipedia has standards higher than "suspect". You know, the whole "reliability" thing. --Calton | Talk 23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Not sure why you would bother replying to that. Its like you think I'm claiming it passes Wikipedia's RS when I'm clearly saying it doesn't. I'm sorry that wasn't clear for you. Springee (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Why you think distorting my statement helps your case I don't know. Maybe, instead, you should pay attention to my noting how bringing up irrelevancies like how they have "provocative stories" and content-free opinions like "I suspect [emphasis added] there is a lot of good information there" is an obvious effort to undermine the obvious conclusion that Zero Hedge is garbage. --Calton | Talk 01:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
        • That is an illogical conclusion. You certainly went on a which hunt to find more than I put in there. I very clearly stated that ZH is not a RS. It absolutely does not pass WP:RS standards. Should have been end of the discussion. But you wanted to make an issue with something I said for who knows what reason. OK, you might feel that 100% of their stories are garbage. I've found at least some of their stories promoted by some very smart people in the finance world. Not smart people trying to get others to buy or sell but trying to get others to understand things the market or companies are doing. That doesn't mean they are reliable by Wikipedia standards or should ever be used as a RS even if they can be thought provoking/enlightening from time to time. I'm sorry my opinion was so problematic that you felt it was important to call out. Please keep our previous civility discussions/warnings in mind when doing so in the future. Springee (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's a conspiracy blog. There is non-nonsense content, but the good stuff is not original and the original stuff is very bad indeed. Shouldn't be used as a source for anything, including statements about itself - David Gerard (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• I hate the entire concept of deprecation... context matters. So rather than a simple !vote, I would say it is Reliable when used as a primary source, but Not reliable when used as a secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • What's your evidence that it can even be trusted as a primary source? - David Gerard (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    • EVERY source is reliable when used as a primary source... the problem isn’t reliability, it’s that there are very limited situations in which it is appropriate to use primary sources. The problem with deprecation is that it ignores the few rare instances when it IS appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
      • We literally know that dailymail.co.uk can't be trusted for the contents of the Daily Mail, for example - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

      Blueboar, well, up to a point. I think I'd struggle to come up with a definition of reliable that encompasses whale.to. Guy (help!) 14:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  Blueboar, in a sane world deprecation would not be needed: people would just not use crap sources. Seems we don't live in that world. There are still people trying to cite WorldNetDaily, and the essence of fake news sites is in any case to hide their fakeness so there are good faith errors as well as editors who simply don't understand what constitutes a reliable source. Guy (help!) 11:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The question is: are there situations when it is appropriate to cite such sources? I say yes. They are very very limited, but they exist. Hence my opposition to deprecation as a concept. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, actually that's a point in favour of deprecation (as opposed to blacklisting). Deprecation says that the source should be avoided unless there is clear consensus to include for some specific reason. That seems entirely consistent with your point here. Of course, people misinterpret it, and that's a valid criticism, but we should fix that by being really clear what we mean by deprecation.

It's my view that we should include an optional parameter in the root citation template for something like "consensus=", to record consensus to include otherwise unreliable sources. That would include the handful of self-published books that are agreed to be RS, as well as deprecated or generally unreliable websites. Guy (help!) 14:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have seen deprecation in action. It has become a defacto blacklist. The concept is flawed. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this an argument about the reliability and usefulness of a purported information source, or some sort of misplaced free-speech argument? --Calton | Talk 23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have already said that I think it can be reliable when used as a primary source, but not as a secondary source. Thus, it should not be deprecated. Blueboar (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Deprecation has been broadly recognized since WP:RSNRFC. For the few cases that a citation of Zero Hedge would be useful as a primary source, an editor can establish consensus to include the citation on the talk page of the article, and then add the citation to the article by clicking the "Publish changes" button after the warning message is displayed. Regardless of whether Zero Hedge is deprecated, it is highly unlikely for there to be consensus for citing Zero Hedge (outside of the Zero Hedge article), since the due weight policy assigns minimal weight to unreliable sources. — Newslinger talk 03:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have already said that I think it can be reliable when used as a primary source Since that statement applies, in general, to literally every single source of any quality whatsoever on Wikipedia, and you haven't cited any examples, counterfactuals, or possibilities regarding THIS source, I repeat: is this an argument about the reliability and usefulness of a -- this particular, the one being discussed -- purported information source, or some sort of misplaced free-speech argument? --Calton | Talk 01:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment — Zero Hedge has posted some ridiculous and libelous material, for instance claiming that some Chinese scientists had created the COVID-19 pandemic (Reuters source). Furthermore, while twitter may have forgiven Zero Hedge for that monstrosity [157], I haven't. Despite that, the blog is highly notable. I don't think it's a reliable source of news, but it is an important source of opinion. For that reason, I don't think it should be deprecated, a highly specific response that has targeted an increasing number of news and/or commentary sites since the deprecation of the Daily Mail, and the implementation of the perennial sources list. As I've pointed out earlier, there are various sources that have described Zero Hedge as an important source:
  • Social Media Strategies for Investing: How Twitter and Crowdsourcing Tools Can Make You a Smarter Investor, Brian D. Egger, "F+W Media, Inc.", Nov 1, 2014:

"Many individual investors might also be unfamiliar with Zero Hedge, the blog associated with Mr. Ivandjiiski. Zero Hedge has emerged as a favorite daily read among Wall Street's literati. According to Quantcast, a digitical audience-measurement and advertising company, Zero Hedge recently attracted about 3.4 million monthly unique visitors. The website has built up an impressive amount of monthly traffic for a publication with the mystique of an underground operation. More mainstream blogging websites, such as TheStreet and Seeking Alpha, each attract 8–9 million monthly unique visitors, according to their advertising web pages. Zero Hedge and its principle contributor with the mysterious pseudonym are not exactly newcomers to the world of financial blogging. In 2009, a New York Magazine article, entitled "The Dow Zero Insurgency", shed light on Zero Hedge's little-known principal in a feature article on the burgeoning world of financial blooding... Zero Hedge's coverage of [a Goldman Sachs] story became emblematic of its unique brand of investigative journalism — one laced with a deeply cynical distrust of Wall Street... Zero Hedge is an amalgam of punchy economic analysis, conspiracy theories, and wonky rants about the failings of U.S. political and economic institutions ad policies... Its writers dart back and forth between conventional news coverage and opinion-laden editorials. Readers value the blog's frequent, topical updates and strong point of view. Followers of Zero Hedge also praise the author's cerebral brand of cynicism and determination to challenge mainstream views about business, finance, and politics... Many financial advisors and stock investors have bookmarked it (and others like it) and scan it for interesting headlines several times a day... etc."

• • Dark Pools and High Frequency Trading For Dummies, Jay Vaananen, John Wiley & Sons, Feb 23, 2015:

"Perhaps the most famous blog on markets in general is Zero Hedge, a site with a cult following. Zero Hedge dwarfs all other financial market blogs. Started in 2009, the blog is written in an activist style and is highly critical of markets. It has managed to remain shrouded in mystery. It's still not entirely clear who started it and it's believed to be edited by several people..."

• • The Neatest Little Guide to Stock Market Investing: Fifth Edition, Jason Kelly, Penguin, Dec 24, 2012:

This site's unsentimental worldview is right in its header: "On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero." Its anonymous writers post articles under the pseudonym "Tyler Durden"... about risks and shady developments in financial markets, news that impacts economies, and politics. It also runs guest posts by named contributors. Zero Hedge says its mission is "to widen the scope of financial, economic, and political information available to the professional investing public" and "to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become." It uses anonymity as "a shield from the tyranny of the majority." Whenever you need a little raw reality, swing by Zero Hedge."

I understand that Zero Hedge's reputation has suffered in recent years, but that's not sufficient to prohibit the source from being used, particularly as a reliable source for its own opinion. I think we've clearly established that opinion is notable. -Darouet (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

If their opinions are notable, then why not use non-primary coverage of those opinions instead of Zero Hedge itself? That's what's done with InfoWars and other conspiracy theory sites when their opinion is notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: we certainly can do that. The recommendations of WP:GUNREL apply perfectly: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable. It has not been demonstrated why the further step of deprecation is necessary. -Darouet (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: You've kinda missed my point re comparison with InfoWars: that source is depreciated and whenever it would almost appear necessary to cite it we cite a secondary source instead. Depreciation is different from blacklisting, which is when the site is straight up blocked. The sources you've cited to show that sometimes it has noteworthy opinions also demonstrate that it is very likely to be cited. As others have pointed out and you acknowledge, it frequently hosts blatantly false conspiracy theories. While we shouldn't play whack-a-mole with sources favored by conspiracy theorists, it is simple enough to take out the ones that have gotten mainstream attention. The need for depreciation hasn't reached anything of an emergency level but I don't see why it needs to become an emergency before we do something about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: thanks for your comment. I've never seen any favorable commentary by reliable sources describing InfoWars. By contrast, as I've shown above, there is agreement among reliable sources that Zero Hedge is not simply a notable, but also a valuable source of commentary. For that reason InfoWars and Zero Hedge are very different sources and should be treated differently. The comparison with InfoWars supports my statement that editors are not treating sources with the nuance. -Darouet (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Twitter

The citing of Twitter posts has become widespread with the ubiquity of the platform. However, social media are in essence self-publishing platforms, thus fail WP:PRIMARY. Simply looking at reference sections reveals that editors use these as they would use reliable secondary sources while forgetting their true nature; that's without mentioning the clutter it sometimes creates. Notable comments made on Twitter usually have an abundance of secondary sources (like all other happenings), so can be validly cited. Yet, there's now a template that apparently institutionalises citation of tweets. Let's discuss whether this practice should continue. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Context matters. A twitter post by a gobshit should not be used, but SPS allows for use of expert opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, weeeelllll, yes and no. I absolutely support exclusion of random opinions by random bloviators, however well-known (WP:GOBSHITE should absolutely be a thing) but I actually don't think Twitter should be used for anything at all if we can avoid it. We are supposed to be based on secondary sources, and virtually nothing posted on Twitter counts as a secondary source. I know this is tilting at windmills by now but there are vast areas of Wikipedia that are infested with blow by blow accounts of breaking news about insignificant crap drawn from the Twitter feeds of media personalities that are probably operated by their bloody PR anyway. Guy (help!) 14:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes it should not be a goto certainly. Twitter posts lack context often.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd say to allow it in principle but avoid it wherever possible. For example, John C. Baez has a Twitter account, and mathematics or physics material that he posts there is technically permissible by WP:SPS. But even when there aren't BLP concerns or anything like that, the format is awkward, and if the only source for something is a tweet, then including it is probably giving it undue weight. XOR'easter (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think there are very many places where we can use Twitter posts. Yes, in theory it could sometimes pass WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, but in practice if it is WP:DUE it is likely to have sources elsewhere. Worse, many of the things people most want to cite to Twitter are either unduly self-serving or WP:EXCEPTIONAL. And it is very easy for people to forget the other strict requirements about WP:SPS (ie. no contentious claims about third parties, fullstop.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the warning about using it as a source higher up in the template's documentation page. That won't stop everyone, but it's better than having the warning below the ones about editing and discussing the template itself (neither of which are done often by most editors). Glades12 (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for moving that Glades12. I know I'm a bit late to this but I should let you know that I am seeing hundreds of tweets used in articles about the covid pandemic as well as political endorsements in the US elections. My worries are that they are a WP:PRIMARY source and that there is zero oversight or fact checking involved. While this might not change any of the posts you've already made I thought it worth mentioning. MarnetteD|Talk 18:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. But I'm afraid that nothing short of full deprecation will stop this increasingly dubious practice which is beginning to undermine one of our fundamental tenets. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 21:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• It is fine to use a verified twitter for simple about self stuff. Nothing controversial, but there are plenty of situations where it is useful. PackMecEng (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that WP:SELFPUBLISH is no longer policy? If so than Ohconfucius is correct about the undermining of the fundamentals. BTW all the tweets I'm seeing are stand alone with no followup verification. MarnetteD|Talk 06:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: The exact section you linked to allows citing of self-published media (including that on social networks) written by subject-matter experts. In a nearby section, #Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves, the page also allows use of such content as sources on the authors themselves, in certain cases. So no, PackMecEng never implied that SELFPUB doesn't apply. Glades12 (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The practice that I think violates the fundamental tenet and that I object to is citation of Twitter willy-nilly. There is the increasing tendency of editors to cite Twitter as a first port of call just as they would cite secondary sources because you follow someone on Twitter and found it interesting and relevant to an article, or just because the tenant of 1600 Pennsylvania uses it profusely. Of course, it isn't helped by the fact that many respected journos and media outlets also use Twitter abundantly. But the problem is that it isn't being used sparingly and as a last resort here on WP. In any event, the vast majority of the time, proper media searches would allow you to find an article that cites the person making the relevant and notable comment, without resorting to citing Twitter, and such an article can then be cited in compliance with our policies. Use of the {{cite tweet}} template doesn't solve the problem, it just institutionalises this sub-optimal practice. While I go around tagging all such citations {{Primary source inline}}, I feel like I'm battling a torrent and I hope that the communty calls time on the practice. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but my point is that Twitter is not always an unacceptable source for everything. Glades12 (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• It is policy, but as it says, exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources, and WP:EXCEPTIONAL places additional restrictions on what can be used that way. That's what PackMecEng meant by "nothing controversial", I think. If a published subject matter expert has a thread about some uncontroversial bit of history in their area of expertise or whatever, we could in theory cite it (although WP:DUE is often a problem when the only source is Twitter), but if it's something shocking or exceptional we would usually want a better source, especially if there's a risk that the source may have a conflict of interest. --Aquillion (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yup that is what I mean. I would only use a self published source for simple things that might not have secondary coverage but are not controversial most of the time. Something like where they were born or a birthday. Past things like that it gets into undue territory. PackMecEng (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Agree that it is ok for uncontroversial self sourced info like date of birth, and place of birth imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware that people lie about their birthday all the time. As to the earlier mention that WP:SELFPUBLISH has some provision for a primary source being used that is for material where the writer's bone fides can be checked. As is all too apparent anyone can have a twitter account and they can type any material factual or drivel that they want. Furthermore WP:BLPSELFPUB stresses Verifiability because "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." Twitter does not meet any of that criteria so it should not used for info anymore than facebook or linkdn should. Furthermore claims are made every day that "my twitter account has been hacked" which makes its use even more dubious. Relying on social media like that takes us right back to why Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident brought about the need for reliable sourcing in the first place. Back then there was less than one million articles and virtually all of those were on an active editors watchlist. Now there are over 6 million and, based on my experience, there are a huge number that are on their lonesome and edits to those do not get checked. Now if someone wants to start a wikiproject where the members fact check every use of twitter as a reference then that could be a place to start a discussion. MarnetteD|Talk 07:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Eh the examples you provide are rarely likely to happen for uncontroversial things like birthdays or where they are born. Again this is not to say using a verified Twitter account should be desirable or the first stop. Always use secondary RS first, but sometimes is special situations it is acceptable. PackMecEng (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Eh did you miss my first sentence - "Perhaps you are unaware that people lie about their birthday all the time" and both of those items are controversial if they are wrong. MarnetteD|Talk 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Nope, didn't miss a thing. That is why the first thing I did was reply to that claim and how it really does not apply to anything. Perhaps you missed it? Yes if they are wrong they are controversial, and if you know they are wrong they can be changed. But if a subject says my birthday is X there is no reason not to use that unless you have a secondary source that contradicts it. In which case, as I said, you would just use that. If your only argument is well yeah but they could lie about it, well that is a weak argument that holds no weight. PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Verified Twitter pages (I.E. blue checkmark) should be treated the same as any other primary source when cited for specific information. But as with any other primary source, reliable secondary sources are generally preferable. I concur with Slatersteven that context is key. Darkknight2149 01:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• OK to use under limited circumstance: As stated in above and other comment, "context is key". Twitter should only be used if it's a tweet by an individual, organization, network, company (in short, a specific entity) and the tweet is (1) from the official account of the entity, and (2) only to verify content attributed to the entity. The web became public domain 27 years ago and the communications field has changed rapidly since then. We shouldn't stick our heads in the sand and ignore how Twitter is being used in lieu of print, online, and broadcast media. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

YouTube personality subscriber and viewing figures in BLPs

What is the standard practice for sourcing with respect to stated Youtube subscriber and viewing figures in BLPs? This is one example, see in particular the info box data. Is editorial reporting on Youtube figures WP:OR? Also, with respect to notability, do these figures matter? Acousmana (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The latter is easy, no. Notability is determined by third parties nothing you and commenting about it. As to the former, as I recall YouTube stats can be manipulated and this are not really an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This is my reading as well. YouTube subscriber / view figures (taken directly from YouTube) are WP:PRIMARY statistics of generally unclear meaning and significance; this means that there are very, very few valid uses for them. In particular, they should absolutely never be used in a way that implies popularity or which would encourage readers to make inference about the topic's reception - that would be WP:OR. The potential risk of manipulation in particular is itself enough to make the numbers almost unusable without a secondary source, because it means that we, as editors, can't really ascribe any meaning to them, and using them in almost any context carries an implicit endorsement that we are not qualified to grant without a secondary source. --Aquillion (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well they matter in the sense that's how streamers/content creators make their money. But it's not really relevant to notability except that someone with very high numbers will be more likely to have been mentioned in what we consider reliable sources. But in terms of listing the figures, it's either a reliable primary or secondary source, not OR. In that the figures will most often be sourced to the person's channel. But those numbers are not curated by them, but by the host. So while it's still primary, it's extremely unlikely to be fudged. They can of course be sourced to secondary sources, most articles about these influencers will mention their numbers, but those are rarely stable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

OK so in the example given, we read in the lead: "...who is best known for his music-related YouTube channel The Needle Drop, which has gathered over 2.19 million subscribers." There is no discussion of this figure, or channel subscriptions generally, in the main body, but it is stated prominently in the lead as if something notable. I'm reading this statement as a synthetic construction, so therefore OR? no? Acousmana (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the body of the text. If it's not sourced and mentioned in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead. It shouldn't be a problem sourcing it, but it needs more than a passing mention in the infobox to be lead material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The above, but that is not an RS issue, its a wp:weight issue. If he is know for something, independent third party RS would mention it, if they do not he is not known for it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, helps. Acousmana (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Not only are YouTube views/subscribers a weight issue, the numbers are also unreliable. Just do a google search on "buy youtube subscribers". --Guy Macon (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• I cautiously use them to note the changes in popularity. Buying views is disreputable so I’d need some notable evidence they are accused of doing so before assuming they do. And the subscribers/views are notable as it ranks them against all others in their category, it determines their earning potential and track record, and reliable sources regularly report these figures indicating they believe the metrics are notable. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"changes in popularity" according to what reliable source? Everything you describe here is editorialising, it's OR. The other aspect to consider is that YouTube is NOT a publisher. So, the way I see it, if an editor is not consulting independent sources that discuss a subject's viewing and subscription figures, they should not be entering this data in an info box. Acousmana (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

There are also accuracy issues, almost literally the information will be out of date as you enter it. At no time will any snapshot of views or subscribers will be current, thus its only use would be historical (in Jan 2018 gitvonwommblenose had 1.8 m subscribers). But then others issue crop up as well.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

For example: Singer X, had 20,000 subscribers in 2016; after their appearance on Foo’s Got Talent 2017 that rose to 230,000 subscribers, with their cover of “FooMerica the Beautiful” having the most views of any of their videos at 4.6 million as of June 2020. It really depends where reliable sources lead as to what you can report, but there are encyclopedic ways to do so. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"but there are encyclopedic ways to do so" - yeah like following the guidelines on sourcing and original research. Additionally, with respect to so called music journalism, very little of it is genuinely independent, either a record label's/artist's publicity department has made a pitch or they have enlisted an advertising agency that runs a music webzine (Fader for example) to do a write up. Acousmana (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, someone’s a grumpy glum. Many reliable sources also quote YouTube metrics, and I would only use primary sources to supplement what those state. Not sure why anyone needs to use OR to report straight forward metrics. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"report straight forward metrics" - but we are not here to "report," that's the job of the reliable sources we consult. By "reporting" metrics you are making value judgements of their significance. Acousmana (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. The same way we report the name of an album, if they got married, the date they were born, and every other fact we report in articles, we use our editorial judgement if it’s notable enough to report what reliable sources are saying. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"notable enough to report what reliable sources are saying" - YouTube is saying nothing about said figures, it's not a publisher, or a reliable source, that's the bottom line. Use reliable third party sources that discuss/report/assess significance etc. of the data. Acousmana (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

*If* you need to use YouTube, it’s generally a primary source, and as the world’s largest home of video content, by far, their system of recording views and subscriptions is the only one available. Secondary sources should be leaned on first but primary source usage for basic counts is acceptable. I’m not seeing anything worth getting worked up over. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"I’m not seeing anything worth getting worked up over." - it's reasonable to question the validity of the sourcing method, quite clearly it's flawed. Acousmana (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess I don’t agree there are any flaws; the stats are what they are wether we report them or not, there they are. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Buying views is disreputable so I’d need some notable evidence they are accused of doing so before assuming they do. That is absolutely not how WP:V / WP:OR works; you can't just say "saying that this source could be manipulated is an unfair accusation, therefore we must trust it!" Sources need to have their reliability and usability in a particular context positively affirmed - if we have no evidence either way, the correct solution is to omit everything. We would obviously need evidence to state that they buy views in the article text, but when approaching WP:PRIMARY data that can be manipulated in ways that can make its meaning unclear, we need a secondary source to establish any specific meaning, and probably even to establish WP:DUE weight - furthermore, using them uncritically in ways that implies the numbers are meaningful (ie. almost any usage at all) carries an implicit assertion that they are valid, which requires a secondary source to avoid WP:OR. This means that you must provide positive proof via a secondary source in order to make the implication that the YouTube figure accurately represent popularity. Otherwise, citing them directly in a way that implies that they are a meaningful measure of popularity is WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 01:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• You may have to take up the argument with statisticians. We measure things and report those measures. With YouTube you’re alleging their measurements are faulty. I don’t see it but I’m eager to see RS that that’s true.
  If the NYTimes or any other RS was shown to err, we would balance that with a number of factors and likely to determine they’re still reliable. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Of course we like it when secondary sources republish primary information because it makes us feel better about using it, but in this case I think it's a bit silly to say that Reliable News Daily has any more information than we do from looking at youtube.com when they say that Vlogger2 has 9,000,001 subscribers as of 1 January 1970. Either these figures are significant in general or they're still not significant when a secondary source says it—except for very rare cases where there's something significant about the particular subscriber/view milestone with reference to a particular YouTuber (e.g. PewDiePie vs T-Series). And as others have said, notability and subscriber count are unrelated. — Bilorv (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• In one case I used the counts to show subscriptions had tripled over a set time period coinciding with their time on national tv. It’s too simplistic to speak in absolutes and deny the statistics have any meaning. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• We should not be using YouTube as a primary source for the number of YouTube views. The number of views is often increased artificially, especially by people prominent enough to have a Wikipedia biography. See "YouTube Users Are Buying Views", "The Flourishing Business of Fake YouTube Views", "Google’s YouTube clamps down on ‘fake views’", "The Business Of Fake YouTube Views Has Got To Stop", "Google inadvertently profits from fake YouTube views even as it fights them: report", "How to Fake Views on YouTube" and "Inside YouTube's Fake Views Economy". It's much better to use a WP:SECONDARY source that announces a number of views reached by a particular date. The secondary source may not be investigating fake views and determining or guessing the real number, but at least they are not an automatic number generated by some algorithm that can be manipulated. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The Intercept and politics

Is The Intercept considered a reliable source in the context of political news? Its page on WP:RS/P only mentions that it is "generally reliable for news" but "is a biased source and its use may need to be attributed". The two discussions linked don't seem to cover its political reporting, with the first discussing it in a general manner and the second in reporting on science (in this case, the Amazon rainforest). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Edit: Just for clarification, this question is with regards to The Intercept as a source for political news specifically (whether it be government-related, election-related, etc.), not about its reliability in general news reporting. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Attribute for political reporting I would consider The Intercept to be a usable source for political reporting, but it should be attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable Relevant data point. In 2011, in one private email, Neera Tanden (responding to an email titled "Re: Should Libya pay us back?") cited the US deficit, said "having oil rich countries partially pay us back doesn't seem crazy to me." Compare and contrast what Tanden said to what the Intercept claimed:[158] "Other emails [sic.] show Tanden arguing that Libyans should be forced to turn over large portions of their oil revenues to repay the U.S." HouseOfChange (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Instead of quoting one email and assuming that it is the same as the "other emails" mentioned, did Tanden ever actually say that Greenwald got it wrong? You can see Tanden's response to the Intercept story in this article in Salon.[159] Second, even if you establish that Glenn Greenwald said one thing and Neera Tanden said another thing, on what basis do you conclude that Tanden is telling the truth and Greenwald is lying? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable with attribution Have the usual editorial controls and are frequently cited for their investigative reports. They tend to be a tad sketchy on source origins (not the rigor of like WaPost, but not completely back-alley sourcing) so would require attribution of anything contestable. The example by HouseOfChange to me looks like a common slight stretch of the truth that many other sources will do and nothing that raising any immediate flags (compared to Daily Mail falsification). --Masem (t) 20:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It is falsification, and literally false, to transform one vague sentence in one email into multiple "emails" and "arguing that Libyans should be forced to turn over large portions of their oil revenues." HouseOfChange (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you know how many emails there were for certain, particularly when one email is "private"? Perhaps the Intercept had access to additional emails. --Masem (t) 00:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

These were the stolen Podesta emails, and the Libya claims from Intercept were widely chewed over by their ecosystem. But the only evidence any of these folks ever brought forward to support those claims was that one email. So perhaps they had more secret evidence that they concealed but it seems unlikely. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

And you know that "These were the stolen Podesta emails"... how? The story simply says "The emails, provided to The Intercept by a source authorized to receive them..." You are accusing The Intercept of bald faced lying about there being multiple emails. Can you point to a source where Tanden claimed that there was only one? Or even a source that shows Tanden saying that The Intercept got it wrong instead of saying her internal private emails don't reflect the official CAP position? Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for news, but with attribution for opinions - as with all sources that publish political opinions/analysis/commentary rather than simply reporting the news about an election, a natural disaster, double homicide, bridge collapse, etc. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Biased but reliable. Reliable for news, attribute for political reporting and opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for political news with attribution. The Intercept has a reputation for high-quality investigative journalism, particularly with its stories based on leaked official documents, and has significantly contributed to the coverage of topics including the PRISM surveillance program, Operation Socialist, the Drone Papers, and other controversies related to international politics. The publication does explicitly declare a point of view, as it states that it is "dedicated to holding the powerful accountable through fearless, adversarial journalism", and I recommend in-text attribution on this basis. However, this point of view has not harmed The Intercept's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. — Newslinger talk 05:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Question does the Intercept make a difference between factual news and opinion?--ReyHahn (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, The Intercept's opinion pieces are placed under their "Voices" opinion section. If either _VOICES or the name of one of the publication's columnists is on the top-left of the page, it is an opinion piece. They ask for opinion pitches to be labeled explicitly. — Newslinger talk 10:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for news but Requires attribution for comment, due to bias. It is open about its bias and has a record of strong factual reporting. I tend not to use it, though, because a reliable source presented in the context of a wrapper of biased commentary is not ideal. Guy (help!) 13:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable and attribute for political reporting. The outlet has broken a number of important stories, and it has a solid history (and has issued retractions in the past, in a manner much clearer than other outlets). Jlevi (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Needs attribution According to Jewish Telegraph Agency, The Intercept's founder "has relentlessly criticized Israel and its political leadership, and at times has invoked tropes of dual loyalty in attacking the pro-Israel community". Politico described the website as "the loudest voice attacking Democrats from the left". buidhe 09:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe, sure, but does anyone without a dog in the fight say that? We know from long experience that any criticism of the apartheid regime in the occupied territories is represented by some Jewish commentators as anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and hatred of Israel. Guy (help!) 18:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not going to say what my personal opinion is, I am just stating one of the Intercept's biases so that editors are aware what its viewpoint is. buidhe 20:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

References

• I agree with the current consensus that it's generally reliable for facts but it's a very strongly biased news source. While it doesn't appear to be to the point of outright lies, their presentation and contextualization of the facts they present are heavily affected by their bias. Their incredibly strong anti-Israel position is also noted here and I believe we should attribute as well as consider it generally unreliable for factual statements relating to that conflict on account of their strong bias. For example, take a look at this article (not labelled as "voices" or by an opinion writer). [160] It goes into a very detailed account that almost (but not quite) says that two people murdered a Palestinian activist named Alex Odeh that's written with a very clear slant towards only one side of the issue. It then makes a claim that multiple people living in Israel with different names are the suspects in the killing. While it's quite possible these claims are true, the article is very heavily biased towards one side of the issue at hand with practically no opposing views in the article beyond those used to advance the author's clear agenda. I would not be comfortable with this being used in a WP:BLP on the suspects in this case without other corrobating sources. Likewise with these two articles [161] [162] that very clearly show deep bias on this conflict. We should consider using other sources if possible when discussing facts relating to this topic.

Additionally, for their investigative journalism we should always attribute, as investigative journalism is much closer to a primary source than a secondary source. This is common sense but should be re-iterated. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 05:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for news; attribute opinions. - DoubleCross (‡) 17:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. Time and again they are proven right even on stories where other reliable sources are initially skeptical. This includes American politics but also reporting on Operation Carwash in Brazil. Connor Behan (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Attribute for reporting. Other media mostly attributes. The Intercept did produce some notable investigative journalism pieces, however most of each reporting is of a lower caliber (also fabrication scandal) and mixes advocacy, or as The Intercept puts its: "dedicated to holding the powerful accountable through fearless, adversarial journalism"[163]. Beyond the stated "adversarial journalism", politically The Intercept is very much to the left of most other reporting.--Bob not snob (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for news, attribute for opinion. Wether or not it is reliable for news should depend on one thing: it's "track-record". And its "track-record" for getting the news right is excellent, AFAIK, Huldra (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for all news, and as should be the case with any other news outlet, we should attribute opinions to The Intercept when describing them. -Darouet (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for news and use attribution for opinion pieces, per Huldra and others. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

News Break

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to deprecate News Break. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Should News Break (newsbreak.com) be deprecated? Guy (help!) 13:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Rationale

• newsbreak.com  

News Break is an AI news aggregator - it applies no human review of articles, but gives (just) sufficient detail to allow them to be traced to the original source. News Break's algorithms have picked up sites such as Communities Digital News (see below). It also harvests Breitbart (seen in [164]). Guy (help!) 13:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Opinions

1. Support deprecation: anything that's found on this site should be referenced back tot he original source instead. Guy (help!) 13:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Strong support for obvious reasons. This site serves no value on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter. Praxidicae (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Support. News Break only provides a snippet of the article, so there is no reason not to cite the original source instead. — Newslinger talk 15:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Support No reason to use this source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Support - no value, stick to the original source. Deprecate the link. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Support. Reliability is judged by the author and publisher. Republication by a news aggregator will normally neither increase nor decrease the Reliability of that content. Any citation to a news aggregator should preferably be rewritten as a ref to the original source - but per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT a replacement can only be made after confirming that new cite points to the same content or it is otherwise verified to support the relevant text here). Alsee (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Oppose deprecation as it's a news aggregator and not an actual source on its own. News aggregators aren't sources and the site appears to consistently attribute the articles they republish, nor do they appear to alter the articles they aggregate. Deprecating this "source" would be equivalent to deprecating Google News, and given that in the past deprecation has been interpreted by many off-wiki that a particular news organization is bad-quality, we should seriously not consider labelling a news aggregator in the same manner that we do actual bad-quality sources. It also bloats deprecation overall, not every source that shouldn't be used needs to be formally deprecated. The website is only used in one article at the moment (likely due to mass-removal) and we can continue to replace it with links to the original source in the future. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 05:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
8. Support. Citing aggregators does a disservice to readers by making the original source unclear; we should always cite the actual WP:V-satisfying source instead. --Aquillion (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Given that MSN is now also AI run, and it cited over 14,000 times on wikipedia per msn.com  , is MSN also worth having a depreciation discussion about? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

msn.com has 100s of sub-domains. For example what the difference is between msnbc.msn.com and msnbc.com I am not sure. There are independently operating organizations within MSN. -- GreenC 20:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

MSNBC has been completely separate from MSN for over a decade. I noticed that we have over 1,000 links to Encarta per encarta.msn.com  , which has been defunct since 2009. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• They've only just switched to AI so existing refs are ok, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atlantic306, still an aggregator, though - every ref I have found is taken from another site. Everything from clickbait ad sites to college newspapers. Guy (help!) 12:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that citations of MSN are acceptable, although citing the original source is preferred over citing MSN or any other news aggregator or republisher. MSN can be useful if the original source has been taken down for some reason. When citing MSN in this way, I would name the original source as the work in the citation template, and use the via parameter for to attribute MSN as the location of the article being cited. The AI switch affects how articles are selected to be republished on MSN, but does not appear to affect the content of MSN's republished articles. — Newslinger talk 02:46, 25 June 2020 (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.

Communities Digital News

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Unanimous consensus to blacklist this source. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Should Communities Digital News be blacklisted? Guy (help!) 13:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• commdiginews.com  

Have a look at this "journalist"'s contributions. Or this which is top of its politics feed right now: "What the lying liberal media falls to report is that the day before the rally, people in line were sent home due to a “curfew.” As attendees tried to enter the arena, they were met with anarchy and violence at the hands of George Soro’s funded mobs". Guy (help!) 13:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Opinions

1. Support blacklisting as a fake news site, in the classic sense of the term. Guy (help!) 13:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
2. strong support This is just Breitbart light and by light, I mean the actual web design. Praxidicae (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Blacklist. Yet Another Right Wing Conspiracy Theory Page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Support. Propaganda site. Add one more to the list: their article "Summertime 2020: The Top 30 Hottest Political Women" lists a male politician as a woman because "liberals have taught us that gender is just a social construct". — Newslinger talk 15:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Blacklist. Pure BS propaganda. -- Valjean (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Support Per above. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Blacklist this is a no brainer. Fake news, propaganda. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
8. Deprecate and blacklist and put it in a bin - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
9. Deprecate and blacklist - 52 citations to this website as of right now (I will go through and try to nuke some) is absolutely horrifying. Neutrality^talk 20:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

Jacobin

What is the reliability of Jacobin, particularly on the issues of economic and political reporting? It's not currently listed at WP:RSP and a search through the archives didn't find any discussions on Jacobin specifically, usually only passing mentions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• It is a strongly biased opinion magazine, so usable for the attributed opinion of contributors. I would not consider it generally reliable for facts according to the usual test: If I read something in Jacobin and not any other source, I would not believe it was true without confirmation. buidhe 05:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• While it is a Magazine that focuses particularly on economic and political reporting with a strong left/socialist bias, mediabiasfactcheck.com rates their factual reporting as "high", noting that "they have not failed a fact check" yet. Mottezen (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Mottezen, WP:MBFC is not a reliable source. buidhe 08:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, but the commentary on the page I linked is way more inciteful than the 3 comments in this section that say it "it is not reliable enough for reporting facts in relation to economic and political news" or "Yellow-rated at best". No example or evidence were provided to show its so-called unreliability for these topics. Mottezen (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  No source is considered reliable by default. Supporters of a source being reliable must show that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:RS. buidhe 17:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Good, now we return to my original comment. Mottezen (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Expressly and proudly partisan source. Not actually liars as far as I know, but I would use any other source. Yellow-rated at best, use attribution - David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• I suspect it is not reliable enough for reporting facts in relation to economic and political news, as articles on that topic would be opinion pieces. However, I think that some articles may be used for some specialist historical issues e.g. around the history of the left. This article, for example, is used in some of our historical WP articles on the history of anti-fascism, and seems solidly researched. This article is by an academic who has published a book on this historical topic, antisemitism among the Bolsheviks, which seems like it would be a reliable source for that sort of topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• It is pointless to go through tens of thousands of magaxines and determining which ones to add to the blacklist. Editors should have the basic skills to determine if a source is the best and most reliable for the article they are writing. That means, as User:Bobfrombrockley points out, we might want to use them as a source for topics that the mainstream media ignore and most readers are interested in. In my experience the only reason editors use alternative media for articles about major topics is if they contain information ignored in mainstream media. IOW information that lacks weight for inclusion. We shouldn't use rs to correct for errors not following weight. BTW most Jacobin articles are opinion pieces which are not reliable sources wherever they are published. TFD (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion to deprecate or blacklist Jacobin, only a discussion on its reliability (and perhaps how to list it at WP:RSP). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably a bit early to list on RSP at this point (especially given the recent RfC on RSP RfCs). In any case, I haven't seen many cases of inappropriate usage. Jlevi (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the above, that Jacobin articles should be treated more like opinion pieces, and in using them (with attribution), the political orientation of the magazine should be borne in mind (e.g. views are representative of the type of people who don't think "Jacobin" is a pejorative). I don't think that completely precludes use, however, and even in opinion articles, the facts relied on may be correct. TheBlueCanoe 23:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable. I don't see it as anything more than a socialist propaganda outlet. It's obviously going to lean to the left and thus it is too biased to be used. At best it could maybe be used only if accompanied by other sources that don't conform to its point of view, as a means of balancing said bias. SolarFlash^Discussion 23:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

A source being biased does not necessarily mean it's unreliable. Those two aspects are usually independent of each other, although in some cases they do correlate. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It's clearly fact based, with a fact-checking process. It's connected to a peer-reviewed journal Catalyst and many of its contributors are academics. It also has fairly accomplished journalists writing for it. It's definitely ideologically driven though – but I suppose being ideological and also fact-based isn't necessarily a contradiction. I see it cited often in NYT and elsewhere. Dsakey1978 (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable but not always due. The source is cited fairly widely in left-leaning sources, including plenty that are far more moderate than Jacobin itself. The outlet is described as one of the most important sources representing the young left. For that reason, it may be useful where that viewpoint should be represented. For instance, Slate describes it as, "the house organ of America’s far-left boomlet over the past decade", a NYT opinion describes it as "an influential publication among young leftists," and Vox notes that it "has in the past five years become the leading intellectual voice of the American left." In 2013, Wired describes it as an emerging "intellectual outlet" alongside The New Inquiry and the LA Review of Books. Again, articles don't always need this perspective. Where they do require that perspective, however, Jacobin is a good choice. Jlevi (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Just realized that this was about economic and political reporting specifically. Jacobin has a lot of serious academic contributors, and I would probably look to them to determine reliability before I look to the publishing outlet itself. That said, I haven't seen any major problems, and there seems to be standard editorial protocols along with a quite robust editorial board with 10+ full-time editors, 10+ contributing editors, and a separate editorial board. We know the editorial board actually does things, because they have issued retractions in the past and some of their editors have been the subject of profiles in the New York Times. These include a profile of Bhaskar Sunkara (and the site), the site's founding editor and someone who has been in left-wing journalism for quite a while. This piece also mentions Corey Robin, a Jacobin contributing editor, political science professor, and journalist. Jlevi (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the arguments about Jacobin as a primarily nonfactual opinion/commentary make much sense given how Jacobin is used by others. This publication is very often referenced for statements of fact, including in peer-reviewed journals and award-winning nonfiction:

• Referenced (as the only reference for this fact) in Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World to link the rise of Breitbart to the rise of the Tea Party. This book is pretty notable, having won the Lionel Gelber Prize.
• Referenced to support statements about the relation between sex workers and directors in a dissertation.
• Referenced to support statements about feminist activism in the early 2000s in an academic book published by the University of Chicago Press.
• Referenced to support statements about Trump-era trade policy published in a peer-reviewed journal here.
• Referenced to support statements about how Teach for America interfaces with the market for teacher labor in the flagship peer-reviewed journal of the AACTE.
• More generally, The New Statesman notes in 2013, while Jacobin was still getting established: "Jacobin authors have been cited by columnists in Bloomberg, on the reliably liberal, pro-Democratic Party TV network MSNBC, and elsewhere in the less-than-radical-spectrum." (Note that this statement is somewhat different from Jacobin itself being cited)

Note that in most of these cases, statements from Jacobin are simply stated as facts, without explicit attribution. These sources are not treating these Jacobin pieces as standard opinion articles. We can look to Nieman Lab, the Harvard journalism institute, to understand why. It describes most articles in Jacobin as "analytical essays", and it seems to place them in a vein of academic analysis for the masses. Not all pieces take this form, of course, but it makes the wide citations more understandable. Jlevi (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable: Jacobin only publishes opinion pieces. They never do reporting. It is true that they have a lot of academics writing for them, but they are all coming from a far-left communist perspective. Moreover even those academics are writing opinion pieces. Their status on reliable sources should reflect this. The editors that claim they have a fact checking process have not shown this to be true, they have just proclaimed it to be true. Nobody that writes for them comes from a neutral perspective. I second the call for yellow at best. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, attribute, very explicitly a biased source, but that does not mean they are not reliable. They seem to have a solid reputation for factual accuracy, and they are home to numerous experts. Given their open biases towards the topics of politics and economics and opinion-based coverage it should be attributed though. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable but attribute opinions and take care regarding due weight, per Devonian Wombat and Jlevi above. Their focus generally seems to be more on analysis and commentary than day-to-day, shoeleather reporting; I doubt that "Jacobin reports the occurrence of a specific event that nobody else does" would actually be a failure mode that happens very often. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Only usable for attributed statements of opinion. I would not rely on this for statements of fact (even when attributed) because it's an opinion journal, and for factual statements there will nearly always be a better source. For statements of opinion, "Jane Doe wrote X in Jacobin" is fine, but agree with the due weight concerns. Neutrality^talk 04:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable including for factual reporting on politics and economics. As someone else said “bracingly rigorous and polemical in a really thought-provoking way”. Burrobert (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, but it could depend on the author of the specific article. The Jacobin has a lot of outstanding expert columnists who are certainly reliable sources. The Jacobin has great coverage of Central America by Hilary Goodfriend, a scholar who has also been published in many academic journals and history anthologies. Unless there's a good reason to doubt the specific facts being reported in a given article, I would definitely use this magazine as a citation. Homemade Pencils (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Attribute As it have clear political agenda also WP:DUE should be taken in consideration when using the source --Shrike (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. In typical articles, factual claims that aren't part of the author's own expertise are themselves attributed to sources. So in that sense citing Jacobin is just a shortcut. But for establishing that some issue has sufficient WP:WEIGHT within left wing politics, it definitely helps to cite Jacobin. Connor Behan (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see Jacobin as reliable. It has no obvious basis to be represented as a reporter of fact, being priomarily an opinion / commentary journal, and its opinion is clearly biased. Guy (help!) 15:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. Attribution and weight should be established and taken on a case by case analysis per Jlevi et al. Unlike many right-wing outlets and a few others left-wing ones, Jacobin's bias does not result in conspiracy theories, fake news, misinformation, etc. I do not think their explicit view of socialism should be used to claim its unreliablity. As long as Jacobin remains factual and reliable as it is, that should not be used as disqualifier. Most reliable sources are pro-capitalism; they may not say it so explicitly like Jacobin does in the opposite direction, yet they remain based on facts and are generally reliable. This is not science vs. pseudoscience where false balance applies. As far as I know, the main criticism of socialism from a mainstream or neoclassical perspective is that there is a lack of incentive.--Davide King (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Only usable for attributed statements of opinion, and even then should only be used with caution per WP:Due weight. The source is explicitly and clearly biased towards promoting a political POV held by few economists and public policy experts, which will obviously slant how it covers anything. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable per Jlevi, who gives the best analysis I see in this discussion. I'd support using attribution always or almost always, and of course contributor's opinions are contributor's opinions, like any news source—but when those contributors are experts then it's an expert's opinion. Jacobin has a political perspective that is far from the mainstream; this is not the same as it having a strong bias, which I would take to mean "is willing to sacrifice factual accuracy for political interests", and I'm not seeing any evidence of that happening here. — Bilorv (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable on facts, always good for left-wing commentary: Jacobin does not tend to post false stories or incorrect facts, but their coverage is always going to have a socialist or left-wing bias. Nevertheless, they are a great source when providing Responses or Opinions or Reactions, since they represent a strong strain of the American leftism movement. PickleG13 (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

allaccess.com

I'm inclined to say this one is unreliable but I thought I'd get some opinions first, as it's always good to have a discussion for future editors to reference.

So, allaccess.com is owned by a company called "All Access Music Group, Inc." which is a privately held corporation formed in 1995 by President/Publisher Joel Denver and his wife and partner, VP/CFO & Operations Ria Denver. I can't find much about the company but according to this source [165] All Access Music Group "specializes in promotion and marketing efforts for all major record labels, and aggressive independent record labels as well as non-music clients including radio networks, syndicators, consultants and others interested in reaching key decision-makers" within the radio industry. Their LinkedIn profile refers to them as "the largest music promotion company in the United States" [166].

The website itself says All Access Music Group is "also a marketing partner with Mediabase, BigChampagne.com, PromoSuite, A&R Worldwide, Triton Digital, Dial Global, Citadel Media, Premiere Radio Networks, Westwood One, and many others." [167]

So, I think simply because the website is promotional in nature, it fails WP:RS. On top of that, I see no way to confirm the presence of editorial oversight and/or a reputation for fact-checking. Almost certainly unreliable but any thoughts? SolarFlash^Discussion 21:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable as it seems to be a glorified pr operation in my view Atlantic306 (talk) now persuaded it is reliable in some cases Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There are over 4,000 uses. The interviews might be ok to use, but probably not the "top 40" and "future releases". Examples would help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The website is used for future releases of songs only, sure the interviews would be ok. Nobody uses the top of their charts as Billboard is the compilation of other data. It is reliable for said dates of future releases as labels send the songs there. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to say, I’ve never dug very deep into the website, but it’s used pretty frequently in citing release dates for music, and although it’s anecdotal, I’ve worked in the content area for over decade, and don’t recall it ever having errors. Actual, official “single” release dates can be hard to come by, so I think it’s at least good for that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I say it's reliable for future release dates of singles only, just as MarioSoulTruthFan and Sergecross73 pointed out. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. It's an music industry source, similar to Music Week though its focus is more specifically on industry news and releases. It is heavily relied upon for radio release dates because it is the main source of where they are published. I wouldn't personally read too much into what is listed on LinkedIn because that is self-published, and the whole purpose of LinkedIn is self-promotion. The site collates useful information for the radio industry from places like Mediabase and there are tonnes of interviews on their too with people from the industry. Being marketed as a promotional/PR site, isn't necessarily rendering All Access a factor to mean it is unreliable. While it is highly promotional, its not necessarily promoting itself or its services, its promoting artists, songs and albums which would be expected when it is used to promote release dates. It is independent of record labels and radio stations though it works with them very closely! ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The BBC

Over at 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes a user has claimed the BBC is not an RS [[168]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I claim I am also a billionaire. Praxidicae (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No other source reported this he/she says. Quite incorrect. FDW777 (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I deliberately did not use potentially biased sources, there were a few Indian newspapers denying this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

FDW777 I wouldn't really consider Deccan Chronicle an RS though. But yeah, the point still stands that there's no reason to believe BBC is unreliable in this context. Praxidicae (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The editor concerned quotes this reference in an edit summary in an edit to their sandbox version of the article. I'd say there's nothing wrong with Indian media references (subject to reliability of course) for this point, since they are probably more likely than the BBC to have contacts at the Ministry of External Affairs. Whether the text really belongs in the article is another point, possible involving WP:RSBREAKING since it's not that unreasonable that a journalist's sources (apparently speaking off the record, since it's "said defence sources", "Indian military sources told NDTV" and "defence sources said on Wednesday") might not be completely honest due to it being a potentially ongoing military situation. But that's really a matter for the article's talk page anyway... FDW777 (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on my previous point. The article doesn't need to have the whole "the Indians denied it, but then the Indian Ministry of External Affairs confirmed" it narrative. It can be just as simply stated along the lines of "Pakistan shot an Indian plane down". FDW777 (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• The RS question is dead easy: the BBC is reliable. The WP:UNDUE/significance question is separate. Guy (help!) 12:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

BBC News is generally reliable (though it has had some very poor mistakes). Other parts of the BBC less so, take for instance the fact that they falsely asserted that Florence Nightingale was a racist [169] [170] [171]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Spy-cicle, I would challenge you to find more than a handful of 19th Century English people who were not racist. There is close to zero doubt that Seacole was subject to racism, and that her interactions with Nightingale embodied at the very least institutional racism. It's a valid point, even if Horrible Histories (an entertainment show with a history theme, as the title implies) may have over-egged it.

Redux: that was a shit example, try again. Google Laura Kuenssberg if you need some suggestions. Guy (help!) 22:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The trust ruled that the sketch was historically inaccurate because it gave the impression that Nightingale herself rejected Seacole"... "They would "be likely to regard the implied allegation of racial discrimination as established historical fact", the trust said. There was no evidence to suggest that Nightingale had been racist. According to The Times. Anyway, this is not the venue for this type of discussion. However, I do ask you strike your comment: "that was a shit example, try again" based on Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility 1.a/1.d. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Spy-cicle, yes, a sketch, in a popular history programme. Nothing to do with BBC News. I was hoping that penny might have dropped, but apparently not. Guy (help!) 18:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with some other editors here; the BBC is not a reliable source in some situations as it is government owned. For example the British government has interfered numerous times in the BBC's coverage of the Northern Ireland conflict. In conflicts to which the British government is a party or was significantly involved we should try to use more neutral sources. Likewise with many cases of BBC World Service, which exists to promote British interests abroad and we should view its opinions on many subjects as having a pro-British slant. Overall though the BBC is a reliable source and in this case it certainly is. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Legally, the BBC is independent from Government direction. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Also practically, which is even more important. Clearly reliable.--Bob not snob (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Consistently reliable: The BBC can absolutely be wrong. One may dispute their facts. Any news source can be wrong. However, classifying them as an unreliable source is simply false and defamatory. They are one of the most reliable news sources in the world, and if we do not cite them, who would we cite? (The only sources I might argue are more reliable are the Associated Press, Reuters, and The Guardian. PickleG13 (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The New European

What do people think about the reliability of The New European? It has been cited over 100 times per theneweuropean.co.uk  . Obviously it has a pro-EU, Anti-Brexit stance, and I would consider it to be usable for at least attributed opinion on that topic. However, it looks almost all of the UK politics news stories are written by Jonathon Read, which imo makes it somewhat blog-like. I can't find any evidence of a editorial policy but they at least have a complaints page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Not blog-like in that it has a printed paper version that exists in reality, but magazine-like in the wide variety of editors, at times casual wording, and opinion-type pieces. Something like a slightly more opinionated Economist or newer Spectator? GPinkerton (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It's just a WP:NEWSORG, surely? Seen no red flags about it - David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Has a definite POV, I would say handle with care in anything to do with Brexit, but it crops up on my social media feeds quite often and I haven't found any obvious bollocks yet. Guy (help!) 21:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Its pretty hard to think of a paper that did not have POV when it comes to Brexit ;-) ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Everyone had a dog in that fight, at least in the UK, hard to think that in itself would disqualify them.--Hippeus (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Catholic-Hierarchy.org

• catholic-hierarchy.org  

Many Catholic biography articles either cite to Catholic-Hierarchy.org or list it in the External links section. However, citations to CH often run into trouble with some editors, who claim that it is an unreliable, self-published source. Rather than duplicating it, I will point to the extensive explanation in the previous discussion of why CH passes the reliable source criteria. In short, it is a well-researched and accurate website that is routinely cited by other authorities and whose content creator (User:Dcheney) has come to be regarded as a published expert in the field. It is also considered a reliable source on other language Wikipedias. Ergo Sum 16:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• As Elizium23 pointed out in the previous discussion, the website is a self-published source. It is therefore never acceptable as a source on third party BLPs, and should be avoided as an external link on BLPs for the same reason. Anything on this website that's WP:DUE should be also located in a more reliable source, such as Annuario Pontificio. buidhe 05:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The self-published source policy says that SP sources are considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. As was explained by the earlier discussion, the publisher has come to be known as a subject-matter expert who is published. Many official church authorities cite to him and directly publish his work. Ergo Sum 18:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

    As you say, the information may well be accurate, and I wouldn't be as aggressive at removing it as a source on non-living people, but SPS and BLP policy are pretty clear that this can't be allowed. (I checked duses and it seems that many but not all uses are related to living people, such as Róbert Bezák and Jean-Claude Boulanger.) buidhe 18:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• "The website is not officially sanctioned by the Church. It is run as a private project by David M. Cheney in Kansas City". It's cited by a number of sources, but that may be due to the same mistake made here: assuming it's an authority. In the end, as a one-man self-published source with no editorial review, I don't see how it can be RS. Guy (help!) 09:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  Appears to be self published then.--Hippeus (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• WP:SPS is pretty clear here. There's no way whatsoever this source can be used as a reliable source on BLPs. Even though I definitely agree that this person is likely a subject matter expert, this source still can't be used with respect to living people. However in general this site probably is a reliable source. It's been cited by many members of the Catholic Church and researchers in that field. Our own article on the website provides numerous instances where it's been treated as a reliable source. I would definitely be OK with using this website as a source on historical bishops or the general hierarchy of the Catholic Church (preferably better sources but it's possible this might be the only source in many cases) although our policy is clear we can't use this for BLPs. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

References (Catholic-Hierarchy.org)

References

For referencing orders and awards of a particular person, are uncaptioned pictures of the person wearing the regalia acceptable sources?

As I have been cleaning up royalty pages (removing blogs, Royal Ark, The Royal Forums, other royalcruft) I've come across a surprisingly conserved cross-cultural trend when it comes to sourcing the sundry Titles and Honors awarded to people, which is to cite a picture of the subject wearing [what is presumed to be?] the badge/sash/medal in question. These are images such as this used to support the assertion that Queen Anne of Romania is a recipient of "Knight Grand Cross with Collar of the Order of Carol I". I interpret this as blatant WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and remove such refs whenever I see them, but considering how widespread this format is, and given that I have been reverted before, I wanted to ensure there is consensus. I couldn't immediately find a policy stating "you can't just find a picture of Prince Keith wearing what users on some royalty forum or pinterest have tentatively identified as The Order of the Meticulous Hairnet and cite it as a source for his being a recipient of said honor", although I didn't look particularly hard. You also can't just wholesale delete citations of the form "Images of Queen Bayleigh on 3 March 1991" as sometimes they do have an accompanying caption explicitly mentioning the award.

So what does Wikipedia think? JoelleJay (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that someone wearing a badge indicating that they received an honor is like me putting on a t-shirt that says "#1 Curler"... it's an act of self-publication. And while we accept self-publication for people's statements about themselves, we limit it to things where people would not have a reason to lie - i.e., they are not boastful. An honor is inherently a boast. As such, no, someone pictured wearing the badge is not sufficient. --#1 Curler Nat Gertler (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay, No. This is WP:OR. It requires individual Wikipedians to recognise the regalia. Guy (help!) 23:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Guy - it's OR. Neutrality^talk 23:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Definitely not usable. If it's self-published it clearly fails the unduly self-serving clause of WP:ABOUTSELF, and even if it's published elsewhere it is WP:OR to draw conclusions from it without some statement in the source indicating what the image means. --Aquillion (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

(EC) So, the same IP (148.252.132.141) from earlier reverted me again here and here on Princess Marie of Romania to add back images (and blogs and forums) as references, despite the discussion we sort of had on the talk page. It would be helpful if there was a concrete policy to point to for this (apparently not obvious) example of OR; I don't think it would aid in this case since the IP doesn't seem to care (they were blocked 24 hrs for vandalism elsewhere on the 18th), but for good faith edits by people coming from royalty fansites it would at least be an explicit link to shoot them in an edit summary rather than trying to explain the nuances of OR. JoelleJay (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC) No, not only as the identification is OR (is it the Victoria Cross or the Victorious Cross) there is the fact that it may have been self awarded.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not, interpretation of an image is OR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

It could be enough that the original photographer verified it but caution is still required. Generally, no. Zero^talk 08:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur with all of the above objections. Not only does it take a Wikipedian to individually decide they recognize the medal/ribbon, it supposes that they do with exact accuracy, which cannot really be guaranteed, not only because of photo quality in modern subjects, but potential artistic license or error in old paintings. While the results are probably correct in most cases, that's not how we write an encyclopedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd have to say we shouldn't (in general) rely on photos as a source. Firstly we'd need to ensure the PHOTOS are reliable, as photos are often doctored by people and a random photo could have been altered in many ways. Secondly even if the photos are real there's no guarantee the person wearing the regalia has actually been awarded the medals in question. A person wearing medals is essentially someone making the claim they were awarded the honours in question; it's certainly "unduly self serving" under the first criteria of WP:ABOUTSELF. I can post a photo of myself wearing the Medal of Honor if I want and nobody can stop me. However it's not necessarily original research to identify specific medals in a photo. Many photographs of awards are very unambiguous and while in some unclear cases it would be WP:OR to identify a medal nobody is going to dispute that File:Joe Biden Receives Presidential Medal of Freedom.jpg is unambiguously a photo of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Interpretation of an image isn't allowed but in very clear cases there's no interpretation or ambiguity involved.

Additionally there are cases where it probably is OK to use photos of medals as sources. For example, an uncaptioned photograph published by a reliable source of a person receiving a medal is probably OK. For example if someone finds an uncaptioned government archival photo of John Doe very clearly being awarded a Purple Heart from an officer that would be OK to use as a source because it's not "self-published", someone else is giving Doe the award, and the source (government) is reliable and it's unambiguous what a Purple Heart is. Likewise for official military portrait photos of someone which I believe are often used as an implicit source for decorations, as it's not self-published (the government creates the photo) so it doesn't fall under WP:ABOUTSELF. Take Mark Milley who's the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The image in the article is a good enough citation for the fact he was awarded a Army Service Ribbon as you can very clearly see he's wearing the ribbon on the bottom right of his chest so it's not WP:OR to do so. There's no interpretation about it. Nor is it a self published source as it's a US government produced photo. I think that while in the cases User:JoelleJay has provided it's clear those images shouldn't be used as a source, there are definitely many other cases where it IS appropriate to use uncaptioned images as sources and we shouldn't make a general rule here without considering its broader applicability or that there may be exemptions to the rule. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chess: My feeling is there still isn't any reason to use images as refs since, if the awarding of the honor was notable enough for there to exist photos from reliable sources, there should be supporting text somewhere as well. In the unusual circumstance that a recognizable award is visible in an official governmental/military picture but there is no written record of its reception or mention of it by an RS, then in my opinion we should not be acknowledging the award in the subject's page. It's also not clear that there's no interpretation about it regarding the Army Service Ribbon; could the average reader identify it in a portrait? For the Purple Heart medal (although not the service ribbon), I could maybe see an official picture of it being awarded as theoretically an RS on its own, but practically I find it highly unlikely this would not be accompanied by some textual detail somewhere, in which case referencing the image would be redundant. Maybe others here like Guy, Aquillion, SMcCandlish, etc. have more insight on whether such an RS image would be DUE to include as a source in addition to a citation for a) a written account by the same source describing the events taking place in the picture; b) a written account by a different source describing the events in the picture; c) a written account otherwise verifying the subject is a recipient. Would this be an example of excessive refs, or would it just be treated the same as any other RS for a multiply-referenced statement? That is to say, does WP think an uncaptioned but evocative and unambiguous image provides further information or evidentiary support in the way a second news article or book does? My guess would be no. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: Probably the most important exception to creating a rule like the above would be military awards based on official portraits, as it seems to be current practice to list awards shown in the official portrait without a citation. I don't think we should override that consensus here; that's something that should be discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history as they appear to have had multiple discussions on this issue already. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 111#RfC: The use of medal ribbon pictograms in articles for example.

While I agree with you that there's often not much of a reason to use uncaptioned images as sources for honours and it's hard for me to come up with scenarios where it would be necessary, that doesn't mean there might not be plenty of scenarios where it is appropriate to use uncaptioned images as sources. The point I'm more or less trying to make is that we should be flexible and not dictate a very wide rule with no exceptions in the consensus of this discussion. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It should not be re-discussed at WT:MILHIST; that's a house organ of the very editors doing things that other editors consider to be OR and reliance on dubious sources or things we do not treat as sources. This should be discussed right here, or at WP:NORN, or at WP:VPPOL. The entire nature of the problem is that MILHIST (or some participants therein) have come to an in-our-little-echo-chamber decision to do what they are doing, without broader consultation, and we already know there are objections (since we're making them right now). Wikiprojects don't get to make up their own counter-policy "rules"; cf. WP:CONLEVEL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There have been many more discussions over there with far more people than there are here. Overturning that long-standing consensus as a side effect of a small discussion relating to royalty would violate the spirit of WP:CONLEVEL in favour of the letter. Just because RS/N is a more "global" board than the military history talkpage doesn't mean we should overturn multiple large discussions with a smaller one here. I support having a discussion have on the merits of including honours based on official military portraits but let's make it a separate heading and a formal RfC where we can notify the people who might actually want to contribute to this discussion. The reason why I thought it might be a good idea to have a discussion on the military history WikiProject is that they'll be significantly affected by this change and I'm unsure if any of them are aware of the discussion we're having here. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 04:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Similar discussions have appeared here before (e.g., recently). The sourcing described is obviously inappropriate. The behavior being described as standard for MILHIST is also obviously inappropriate. --JBL (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Bitcoin Magazine reputable

Is BitcoinMagazine.com reputable? Retimuko doesn't think so. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Retimuko:, seems like it is, according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#BitcoinMagazine. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That archived discussion does not seem conclusive at all. Regarding Bitcoin Magazine: co-founded by Buterin, editors claim to hold BTC (conflict of interest), almost not cited by reliable sources. So it seems to be an industry source with almost no history of doing quality journalism, with unknown editorial practices. In light of the general sanctions around cryprocurrency related topics I would suggest avoiding such industry sources altogether. Retimuko (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

We have an informal consensus that we are not using any cryptozine sources for articles that fall under WP:GS/Crypto, and both bitcoin magazine and CoinDesk both fall under that. They are top shelf junk. It is my personal opinion that the clamp down on sourcing as well as GS has made article quality better. As far as I have seen the regular crypto genre editors (even if we disagree on content) have all agreed on excluding these types of sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ysangkok, I would ask David Gerard, as the resident expert on crypto. Guy (help!) 15:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard:, would you mind chipping in? I know BitcoinMagazine isn't completely neutral, but I think Aaron van Wirdum writes well researched articles, here is a list [172]. Wouldn't it be possible to at least allow his articles to be referenced here? --Ysangkok (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It tries its best, but has all the problems in that CoinDesk discussion, i.e. it's fundamentally an advocacy blog rather than the specialist trade press it looks like. I would not use it for notability. I don't think it would deliberately lie, and I don't know of it being pay-for-play, but I would not trust its opinions on the facts or the spin it presents them with either. So no, file it as pink-rated with the rest of the crypto blogs - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: but you have written a book on Bitcoin, isn't there a conflict of interest here? It was described as the "first serious publication dedicated to cryptocurrencies", do you think that isn't true? You describe it as a blog, but a blog is defined as "diary-style". A blog typically is written in first-person, but Bitcoin Magazine is not. Why do you think it is a blog? --Ysangkok (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ysangkok, no, being an expert is not a COI. There is no financial incentive for David to advance any specific POV here. Being an advocate might be, though. Guy (help!) 09:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Less free information on Wikipedia means more people buy your book. What does 'expert' mean? I was working on Electrum, can I be an expert too? By having single Wikipedians dictate what constitutes reliable, and then having everyone refer to the (see above) 'resident expert', isn't that a problem the same way primary research is a problem? I am not the only one that thinks the articles by Aaron van Wirdum in Bitcoin Magazine are reputable, and I am not convinced there is consensus that they are not reputable. David is not neutral at all, he is an admitted sceptic, and it manifests itself in the book he wrote. Is Wikipedia officially the 'sceptics' encyclopedia? No, that is not applicable because we just quote facts and statements. So you say being an advocate disqualifies you from editing, right? Why doesn't being a sceptic disqualify you? --Ysangkok (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ysangkok, that is the most ridiculous argument for a COI I think I have ever heard on Wikipedia. The chances of David Gerard losing a single sale because someone can read in-universe cryptobollocks on Wikipedia are zero and the assertion itself, truly remarkable. Guy (help!) 15:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: your use of superlatives ('most'), vulgarities ('bollocks'), religion ('cult', below) is tiring, and it derails the discussion. Could you please at least attempt to communicate in a civilized manner? I know that you consider yourself experienced and such, but you're not helping, not even helping yourself. Tone it down, now. I may reward you with some wikilove on your talk page if you behave. :) --Ysangkok (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ysangkok, are you familiar with the actions of the crypto cultists on Wikipedia, at all? Guy (help!) 18:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:, no, please enlighten me. I love cults. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Ysangkok, well, we got here, so look in the ANI archives for blockchain. Guy (help!) 21:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

more ridiculous was the one where I was accused of being an NSA shill - David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Also David had a COI case raised as well and it went nowhere. Why are you pushing to use Bitcoin Magazine as a source while simultaneously nominating a number of bitcoin articles for AfD (that if Bitcoin Magazine could be used for notability would pass)? What's the rush? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I am pushing Bitcoin Magazine because I like the articles by Aaron van Wirdum and I don't see any issues with them. There is no rush in making a decision, but the articles are about similar subjects, if you have an opinion about A, you may also have one about B. Now that so many people have commented on article A, and they have researched the matter enough to form an opinion, why delay a decision on subject B? And I don't understand the question about AfD vs sources, those two matters are separate, no? Why would nominating for deletion cause me to not like a specific source? --Ysangkok (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This RS noticeboard is because you like a blogger's posts? I like to read zerohedge sometimes, but I am pretty sure it isn't an RS per WP:SENSE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that it is probably reliable for non-contentious information but its information should be considered a dependent source - it is owned by BTC so there's a clear vested interest in promoting one form of cryptocurrency over another - and thus definitely should not be used for purposes of establishing notability. I don't do much in the area, but I see the work as something that if an existing RS mentions a subtopic Y as part of a larger topic X, and this source has more details on Y, I'll use that to expand reasonably, but not to build an a standalone on Y. --Masem (t) 15:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: The articles by Aaron van Wirdum are not pitting cryptocurrencies against each other, they are talking about features and products the same way a review in e.g. the New York Times would. How can you judge a media solely based on who owns it? If anything, they would have a pro-Ethereum interest because it was founded by Buterin. But look in the articles, is it unfairly biased for Ethereum? No. Did we stop citing WSJ because Bezos owns it? No, give the man a chance, if the articles are all right, they can be used. Everyone can be accused of bias, but you can't dismiss everything. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying they can't be used, they just can't be used to establish standalone notability, nor should be used for rather glorified claims (something akin to "Our analysis found that cybercurrency had the best rate of return compared to any other investment at 2000% in 5 years.) But if you have RSes already talking about a topic, then its fair to bring in this source to give some additional detail that the RSes likely will not have or overlook, but not too much detail. --Masem (t) 15:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, nothing about crypto is non-contentious, though. It's like any cult: a description of its beliefs as if they are genuine, fails NPOV pretty much by definition. Guy (help!) 15:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There are things about cryptocurrency that can be said factually - how it is meant to operate in terms of its basic principles of computation and why it would be considered a currency -there's definitely a realm of actual facts to explain. Now as for being a "true" system of currency and claims from that, I agree now you start getting into claims which is where you would have to be careful.I would say, for example, if one way trying to describe how the creator of a new cryptocurrency envisioned how it was going to work via this source, that's a claim but that's not a contestable one - that's what they believed they could do. But then if the source makes the claim "This clearly is better than gold, invest in it now!" yes, there's a line there. There's a spectrum here for certain and we'd expect editors to be careful. Treating it as a dependent source, which are the type of sources we try to minimize in use, is a good way of approaching this. --Masem (t) 15:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, yes, we can describe the technicalities - there are decent academic sources for that. But these in-universe sources are like citing Freedom as a source on Narconon. Guy (help!) 15:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, again, by tagging these as dependent sources, it would push editors to locate independent sources for replacement and avoid inclusion of outlandish claims from it otherwise. If you do that for the technical side, the only real areas I could see (doing a quick check on some articles this source provides) would be citing interviews with the creators of certain currencies on their reasonings for it, and the like, which is an acceptable use. --Masem (t) 16:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• We may be confusing reliability, neutrality and notability. I would say the magazine is generally accurate as a source of facts, but perhaps a bit biased in its opinions due to its ownership. The same could be said of the Washington Post, Fox News or any other source. Coverage of a topic in the magazine would contribute to notability, since it seems to have wide readership, but I would warn the reader with an inline citation: 'According to Bitcoin Magazine, "this technology is deeply flawed ..." ' Aymatth2 (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't edit crypto areas, from my cursory reading of the sanctions, the placement of effectively self-published crypto blogs sites as generally unreliable questionable sources and unable used to establish notability seems well founded. I don't see a reason to make an exception in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: What makes you think it is a blog? Is it diary-style? No. So what is it? --Ysangkok (talk)

I am using "blog" as effectively equivalent to a zine. Bitcoin Magazine is controlled by BTC media since 2015 a cryptocurrency related company, I don't think this establishes independence from effectively being self-published. The website also looks pretty unprofessional, having a "You on Kazoo" meme hype video right at the top of the page. I'd say it's about on par with The Grayzone, which places it barely above totally self-published, but not enough to matter. Like The Grayzone, it clearly has a non neutral point of view regarding its main subject matter. Being published in print does not make something reliable, see the Daily Mail or The Sun. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

BTC media is a company that covers cryptocurrency topics, as one might expect for the owner of Bitcoin Magazine. To show that the magazine is unreliable, we would need examples of repeated inaccuracies. See this article, a film review first published in Bitcoin Magazine, republished by Nasdaq. Nasdaq, which most people would consider reliable enough, is comfortable endorsing the views given in the Bitcoin Magazine article. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

So what? Nasdaq also publishes CoinDesk, which according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#CoinDesk "should not be used to establish notability for article topics, and that it should be avoided in favor of more mainstream sources. Check CoinDesk articles for conflict of interest disclosures, and verify whether their parent company (Digital Currency Group) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk." Advice which I think is also salient for use of Bitcoin Magazine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Should we be using opinion pieces from non-experts?

The rapid expansion of the internet has resulted in far more opinion-based commentary, even from reasonably high-quality sources, than was once available. In practice this makes it easy for any editor to find a source for any opinion they desire, which frequently turns sections of articles devoted to reception or opinion into dumping-grounds for commentary from sources whose only credentials are being a columnist and having opinions that an editor agrees with. Often these sections become massively bloated as editors argue back-and-forth by proxy, or become painfully one-sided as one editor overloads it with opinions they agree with.

Those things are theoretically addressable, but... assuming their opinions lack secondary coverage (ie. there is no reason to think they are significant or representative of anything), what value is served by including them? There is a huge risk that their inclusion could mislead readers into believing they represent some meaningful opinion or credible, reliably-sourced facts. Even the implicit assertion that an opinion is representative (eg. citing a single commentator from a well-known liberal or conservative publication with the implication that this is the liberal or conservative position on a topic) is WP:OR. Furthermore, opinion pieces often have lesser or no fact-checking, yet are frequently used to introduce "facts" to the article, or arguments made by someone with no expertise in the field that we have no genuine reliable source for.

Therefore, I suggest changing WP:RSOPINION to require that opinion pieces either be from published subject-matter experts (as with WP:SPS), or that they have secondary coverage in a reliable source. Obviously, opinion can still be included from non-opinion pieces when it is reported there (that would be using a secondary source!); the point is that this would place additional restrictions on using labeled editorial or opinion pages. What do people think? --Aquillion (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The only issue I have is how we ascertain who is a subject matter expert. I say this in the knowledge that I have seen some sections of Wikipedia argue that a paid professional critic isn't notable / relevant, despite being a paid critic / commentator on that specific subject because he wasn't a formal "expert". This is particularly common around new media formats. Koncorde (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that the WP:SPS definition is usually all right - even if sometimes it results in back and forth, it's generally a discussion worth having. There's no rule or guideline that would be completely certain; it's enough to ensure that we're actually having that discussion rather than having people citing people with no relevant expertise whatsoever. I'd also say that what they're being cited for matters. For instance, we could cite a professional book reviewer to say "this is a badly-written book." We shouldn't be citing them to say "this book is wrong on the science" unless they actually have the relevant scientific expertise in that field to back it up. --Aquillion (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, This was just discussed: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298#Proposal:_Guidance_note_on_"attributed_opinion"_sources (t · c) buidhe 09:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The book/film/etc review question raised there struck me as important, and not particularly well answered. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't that just make those who do this claim that sources whose only credentials are being a columnist and having opinions that an editor agrees with are subject matter experts? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned this above, but my answer is that they have to have expertise in the specific things we cite them for; "established commentator / critic" has to be considered in the context of what specific statement we're citing for and what expertise means in that context. We could cite Roger Ebert to say "this is a bad film", because his expertise as a film critic is impeccable. We should never cite him to say "the science in this film is wrong", because that's outside of his field of expertise. We can cite Paul Krugman on economics because he's a Nobel-prize winning economist, not because he has a NYT column. But we shouldn't cite his opinion for points of facts on genetics, or arguments that rely on or imply points of facts on genetics, even if he's discussing them in a cultural / political context. --Aquillion (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I am unsure we can say a critic (which by its very nature is a matter of taste) is an expert in the same way someone who is actually qualified in a subject is. That is why we have undue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

How about this? If someone is reasonably well-known as a commentator or reviewer, they can be cited on that basis only for things that are genuinely subjective (ie. matters of taste.) They cannot be cited for statements of fact even phrased as their opinion. Saying that a film is not entertaining is opinion; saying that it got the science or history wrong (even with an in-line citation) is a statement of fact that ought to require appropriate expertise. --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I would echo those who say how do we determine who is an expert.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, I've said it before, I'll say it again: opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one (and most of them stink). No we should not be using opinions from non-experts. In my view we should not be including opinions unless they are demonstrably significant, with a presumption that they have been mentioned in secondary sources. We're not supposed to be part of the echo chamber, we are supposed to get past the bluster and bloviation and look at the facts. The use of opinions, especially self-published ones, is far closer to what you'd expect from a news publisher than an encyclopaedia. Guy (help!) 15:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• For determining expertise in science, I'd propose a bright-line definition of having a Ph.D and actively publishing in the area. For clinical medicine we can require practicing MD. JoelleJay (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

In the relevant field? After all having a PHD in Klingon would not make you an expert about Shakespeare.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah the "in the area" should be distributive. JoelleJay (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

So would a practising GP have expertise in rare tropical diseases? how broad do we count it, does a phd in history make you an expert in all human history, or just your specialised field?Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It would depend on how general the opinion is supposed to be, but "in the area" should be interpreted to mean "in the topic under discussion". Medical specialization should apply too. JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: That particular line would exclude the rare prominent researcher that hasn’t held a PhD for one reason or another.

In mathematics alone this includes the extremely influential Srinivasa Ramanujan, Stefan Banach, and Mary Everest Boole. Moving away from mathematics (and living/recently living people), this also includes Freeman Dyson, Jane S. Richardson, Oliver Heaviside, and Ed Fredkin off the top of my head. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21:That's true, although (from the wording "rapid expansion of the internet") I interpreted this question as regarding opinions in the very recent past or in the future, which would exclude most people with such a distinction for the obvious reasons. Opinions from the past should be treated with the same discretion we use for a lot of historical subjects (although scientific opinions become outdated very quickly, so someone's input on a contemporary issue would probably become unDUE unless it was otherwise newsworthy). For those few who gained esteem as academic researchers before the barriers to entry made it difficult to even get a post-doc, I would say holding a professorship and/or winning prestigious awards would suffice. JoelleJay (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There are more recent examples as well, and this even extends to undergraduate degrees as well, e.g. Edward Witten doesn’t have a Bachelor's degree and Jack Horner has no degrees!. I’m fine with what you’ve said in principle, but just wanted to exclude the strict bright-line for the occasional exception that does occur with provisions based on professorships and awards (essentially a WP:NACADEMIC-lite). — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Witten has a Ph.D in physics according to his page. Anyway, I agree we can leave some room for exceptions; my concern is leaving the wording vague enough that editors could cite idiots like Ocean Ramsey as experts because some news sources mistakenly credit her as a "marine biologist". But if we throw in professorship/awards as alternative requirements then that would be fine. JoelleJay (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• For politics, ANY opinion will be contentious... even those by “experts” with PhDs in political science. In-text attribution is fundamental. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitely, but I'm mostly concerned about the use of sources who have no expertise at all, or whose only "expertise" is being a cultural commentator with a column. Sources like those shouldn't be cited for definitive statements of fact (even when phrased as their opinion) in areas where they have no other expertise. If we're going to cite someone saying eg. "in my opinion, the US is heading to a recession for reasons X, Y, and Z", they need to have actual economic credentials. Perhaps it could also be noted that opinions should be replaced with ones from more authoritative sources rather than allowing a WP:FALSEBALANCE between experts and non-experts - the example (and this is something we see a lot) would be eg. "here's a bunch of expert sociologists and historians talking about the history of a social issue; now here's a bunch of opinion-pieces from people with no expertise in either field disagreeing with them." In that case the opinion pieces should be omitted or condensed to a few brief sentences cited to secondary sources to note their existence, rather than massive quotes that treat them as equally-authoritative. Contentious opinions are fine, but we have to rely on the best sources there like we do for anything else. Similarly, if someone wants to argue "this opinion, while it goes against the experts, is common, and we need to show that fact to the reader", we should rely on secondary sources to establish that. --Aquillion (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose this proposal as written. Where would I find a subject matter expert on the question of whether a comic book character has been successfully translated to live-action film? There is no degree in that discipline, so it has to suffice that a venue with some editorial control specializing in the area allows publication of that opinion on their platform. I would agree that specifically with hard science questions, hard science qualifications should be favored, but in areas of the arts and popular culture, we must be on footing more grounded in the reality of what is available and what people generally trust as sources. BD2412 T 17:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, Joe Blow, respected film critic, said "this is an excellent film" is an entirely reasonable thing to cite to someone who has an established history as a respected film critic. Joe Blow, respected film critic, said "this film gets the history entirely wrong" is not. The in-line attribution does not change the fact that we are citing them for a statement that they have no expertise to support. Partially this might also be interpreted as saying that we should cite opinion-pieces from people whose expertise is "commentator" only for actual opinions (ie. matters that are genuinely subjective); if a quote makes a definitive statement of fact then expertise should be required to cite it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This. Taking the case in BD2412's example, the question if a comic book character was translated to film well, I would be looking for an expect in comic books or in film, and ideally one that has shown interest in book. There are experts that fit that bill (Kevin Smith would be a starting point), but to identify those, if that was an issue, would be require consensus discussion on the talk page of the work/character in question , and if needed, drawing in from appropriate Wikiprojects and potentially pinging a Village Pump for input. What I would say that at minimum, such "experts" should have at least had been recognized, even by a name drop, in an normal RS as an expect; that still can lead to be debate if they are the best expert but that's a way to avoid "but YouTubeFanboy2003 is really an expert!!!" type arguments. We can consensus build on who the experts should be with some help from sourcing - it will take work to do that but its not insurmountable and it is not an impossible task. --Masem (t) 21:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this. Most news articles, even, are not written by people who are themselves noteworthy or passed upon in other media. If something is published on CBR or ScreenRant, the presence of the piece on the notable platform should suffice, irrespective of what third parties have to say about the author. BD2412 T 02:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If I understand the OP point, and given how I see CBR and ScreenRant categorized for matters for comic book and film articles, those are actually RSes, and we would not have to be reaching into RSOPINION to ask their opinions to be considered to be used in an article. UNDUE would become a factor at that point, but that's a separate matter. What I read would be like if we were talking, in the example, Kevin Smith's personal blog commenting in depth about something, which would definitely be an SPS and fall under RSOPINION but as a subject matter expert to draw from. In other words, the question here is being asked beyond sources already considered RSes. --Masem (t) 14:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as too restrictive, attributed opinions such as the film got the history wrong (don't they all?) should not be omitted if they have been published in a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Either way they are one step removed in wp:relevance E.G. in the "Person A" article, if person "B" expresses an opinion about person "A", this is not info about person A, it is info about person B's opinion about person "A". And the wording to include that inherently includes attribution. Such should require stronger reasons for inclusion in the article than info about person "A". North8000 (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

If we are talking commentary about a living person, WP:BLPSPS explicitly disallows the use of self-published sources, no matter how expert that other person may be, to be used in such cases. --Masem (t) 14:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the opinions by non-experts can be included, but not in all cases. A couple of examples. #1. [173] - Yes, Harding is great investigative journalist and his opinion matters, but he tells nothing of substance on the subject in this example. #2. [174] - Using vews/opinion pieces by notorious xenophobes like Aleksandr Dugin and Igor Shafarevich [175] to accuse others of xenophobia is bad. My very best wishes (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This proposal basically describes the existing guidelines on self-published sources: they may be used (with discretion) as sources on themselves, or where there is significant secondary source coverage, or where author is an established expert writing within their field. Two other points:

• It is not universally true that opinion pieces are not usually fact-checked. Any publication with a solid reputation for fact-checking is going to fact-check their op-eds as well. Not for the opinions or personal experiences relayed therein, but for the statements of fact.
• The line between conventional news reporting and opinion has blurred immensely, to the point that many younger journalists, in particular, openly view their profession as a vehicle for advocacy, and are taught to do in journalism school. People writing op-eds are at least more likely to be up front about where their biases lie, and there are circumstances in which an opinion essay, written by an expert and grounded in empirical evidence, may in some cases be more useful as a source than a news article.TheBlueCanoe 22:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Three-finger salute (Serbian)

Article Three-finger salute (Serbian) and information: During the Croatian War, there were instances of massacred Serb civilians having had their three fingers on the right hand cut off.[176] Source for this information is Serbian or Bosnian book ("Станко Нишић (2004). Од Југославије до Србије(From Yugoslavia to Serbia). Књига-комерц. p. 162. ISBN 9788677120399. одсечена три прста десне руке" (cut off three fingers of right hand)). As far as I can see there is little information about this writer Станко Нишић(Stanko Našić). What I found is this "The first doctor of military sciences in the Banja Luka district, he graduated from the Military Academy in 1961 in Belgrade. After serving in the JNA for five years, he graduated from the Higher Military Academy in Moscow in 1971. In addition to his work, he studied pedagogy part-time at the Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje and obtained a master's degree in industrial pedagogy in Rijeka. He also graduated from the School of National Defense in Belgrade and received his doctorate in the field of military education system in Belgrade. He has written several books in the field of Geopolitics." In serbian [177]. Since I can’t check what exactly is written in the book I found this in google, page 162 from his book: "Вршене су и масовне егзекуције, па је, на примјер, у Жарговићу пронађено девет убијених цивила старијих од 50 година, којима су претходно одсечена три прста десне руке. Радио Лондон не рече која су то три прста, али зна се — три прста православног крста, да се, стари четници, више мртви не би крстили или показивали три прста у знак побjеде. Не зна се за двије стотине људи из тог краја" "Mass executions were also carried out, so, for example, nine killed civilians over the age of 50 were found in Žargović, who had previously had three fingers of their right hand cut off. Radio London did not say which those three fingers were, but it is known - three fingers of the Orthodox cross, so that, old Chetniks, the dead would no longer be crossed or show three fingers as a sign of victory. It is not known about two hundred people from that area.... "[178] [179] [180]

• Since in the source is mentioned Radio London, Chetniks, village Žagrović I assumed these were events from WWII not from Croatian War. I tried to find possible crimes of the Croatian army(91-95) in village Žagrović but I did not find anything, even Serbian sources do not state anything, Serbian Wikipedia also. Whether this information can be part of the article even though it can’t be verified and whether that source is RS at all. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

As always with Balkan related article subjects, outside sources are preferred. Although there were several crimes committed by both sides in the nearby area (at least judging by HRW reports), this particlar claim is so specific and exceptional it requires a better source. Maybe the very next source (Martin Gilbert (1997)) in that paragraph offers a better context? Pavlor (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem is and with information from source(Martin Gilbert (1997)) as well, see talk page[181] I can't find that book publicly. Otherwise 9 people had been killed and their fingers had been cut off, I think the whole Croatia would known that. I immediately assumed it wasn’t about Croatian War. Mikola22 (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

That is an assumption, and thus cannot be used to dismiss a source (not can you not having access to it).Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You mean at the first book "Од Југославије до Србије(From Yugoslavia to Serbia)from Станко Нишић (2004) "? If you are right, then we must state everything which is written in the source, ie that 9 people were killed in Zagrovići and that three fingers were cut off from their hands for which we do not know which they are because Radio London did not specify. In addition, we will state the fact and that this is happened in Croatian War(91-95). This means that we will have a new crime in Croatia for which no one has been accused or convicted, nor do Serbian and Croatian sources mention that crime. Did I understand you well? Mikola22 (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I will look into our library, if that book by Gilbert is there (no guarantee) and report back. Pavlor (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: It looks like this third volume is not available in any public library in my country (even university libraries and National library have only the second volume). Pavlor (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Gilbert is citing Misha Glenny (The fall of Yugoslavia: the third Balkan war) and his interview with a refugee that talked about her lossing three fingers in an attack on them. On page 282 is her statement:

"Vacillating between tearful hysteria to the numb indifference of deep trauma, a middle-aged woman holds up a tree-stump bandage around her left hand. 'Some shells hit our village which began to burn, so the whole family, seven of us, piled on to our tractor and left without taking anything. We were just outside Knin when some Croatian soldiers hidden by the side of the road opened up with machine guns. Three of our men died immediately. I suppose I was lucky just to lose three fingers.'"

That is not related to the three-finger salute. Tezwoo (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a picture of the scanned page. The book is per WP:RS, for now. I could get the book but not any time soon. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

forbes.net.ua

Was this a fake site pretending to have an affiliation with Forbes? The site has been sold as per here but is used on 41 articles here, a number of which are promotional and/or suspected upe articles such as SoftServe, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This article gives a handy explanation. Essentially the story is the website was originally opened as forbes.ua in 2012 as the website of the officially licensed Forbes Ukraine (set up in 2010-11) run by UMH group. In 2013 the group (including Forbes Ukraine) was sold to Serhiy Kurchenko, and the original editor in chief resigned stating that he thought it was likely that Kurchenko would interfere with the editorial policy. In 2014 Forbes revoked the license of which is stated in the piece to be due to "editorial interference" by the UMH group, although other sources state that is due to Kurchenko being under US sanctions and a fugutive after the Euromaidan.

The website then moved to forbes.net.ua while UMH appealed the license decision which failed and the website stopped being updated in February 2016, (this is contradicted by the internet archive which shows that the website stopped updating in early 2017) but the website was only taken offline during mid-2019. So the website (at least initially) was legit. As to whether it is reliable? I would say that the publication was probably reliable for its initial year of existence, but the alleged editorial interference since the sale in 2013 would make me question its reliability for the remaining lifespan. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. So it can't be outright deprecated but is at least questionable from 2013 Atlantic306 (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Jacobs 1919. Valid source for an exceptional claim

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.

---

Joseph Jacobs's book published posthumously in 1919 was in the lead of Judaism, with, to my knowledge, an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims need multiple sourcing. The sentence I removed, one stuck there with a request for a page number for three years, and the link only to a Questia registration of its title, stated

Many aspects of Judaism have also directly or indirectly influenced secular Western ethics and civil law.

Jewish law (religious) and Western law are usually treated as diametrically opposed, for the simple reason that one stems from a sacred text, and the other from both Roman and canon law, and cannot find any source that gives even a bare warrant for this exceptional claim. II duly removed it. The revert was challenged, and when restored, again back, without a talk page comment and after I had notified the relevant page of this discussion (tagteam editwarring). I don't mind anyone citing anything, as long as the source is competent. This one is a popular book written by an Australian folklorist, a century old, for an exceptional bold and broad generalization. So? Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, for starters, it would help if you weren't so antagonistic. But right off the bat, the Golden Rule had an impact on western ethics, and while you may claim it is not entirely Jewish in origin, the spread to Western ethics is primarily from Judaism and Pirkei Avos, not from the Eastern Religions. It's also not an absurd claim for a western civilization based on Christianity to have Jewish ethics or laws as a foundation since that was the original foundation. Judaism has a system of jubilee and tithes, it had a system of courts and judicial districts, etc. Not everything needs to be a dispute because you have an issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I want authoritative evidence., not your personal impressions on the topic, such as the comically erratic notion that the golden mean was originally Jewish. From the above, you don't seem to have read anything relevant to the issue. Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, Try to read what I wrote a bit more carefully before you insult. Not everything has to be so confrontational with you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the facts, a better source than a 101-year-old semi-scholarly book like this is needed. Zero^talk 17:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Regard for the facts is important. The concept of Judaism, the word itself, emerged after the establishment of the Christian heresy. It cannot therefore be said to have influenced Roman law- a totally independent tradition,- or ecclesiastical statutes on organization and procedures at a time when Christianity and Judaism were in radical conflict, and most Church fathers could not access halakhic texts (which don't follow the Golden Rule, since ethics there is related primarily to Jewish obligations to Jews, with some subsidiary different principles regulating Jewish relations with Gentiles). Jeezus, this is obvious to anyone with a minimal interest in ancient history, as is the absurdity of claiming halakhic law influenced the secular legislation (an extraordinary claim of influence on a congenitally anti-Semitic civilization likt the West). Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If this claim is possibly true and due weight, it must be in some more recent, more reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 19:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

We've been waiting three years for someone to check the source, provide a page number, and supply the ostensible source text. That's too long. No one should edit Wikipedia without a strong source at hand. And no one should restore 'information' that has consistently failed to be verified. These are basic rules, and are being ignored by the reverters, who are restoring the source without even reading it, on faith, because apparently, they think what it is supposed to state seems reasonable (instead of being bizarre, which it is, if one has any basic knowledge of the two civilizations involved).Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Here are some more items that had an impact on Western Civilization, including the nada and monetary damages (as opposed to death penalty), and free public school for all children. [182] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  Aish is not a reliable source for anything except Orthodox Jewish theology. (t · c) buidhe 21:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that Sj, who introduced it, doesn't know that several claims there are nonsense. SJ, have you ever read anything about the history of the ancient Middle East? Anything= The mythical Moses in 1400 BCE introducing the first census in history, 2,500 years before the Doomsday Book? Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I've only skimmed thru the introduction and a couple of chapters, but i can look closer if anyone would like or provide some quotes. My first impression is that Jacobs is focusing on the Jewish people and their contributions to liberalization of Europe, rather than Judaism. both as regards the sphere of private life, and as regards the action of the state, we should easily discover how very much besides religion we owe to the Jew, but Jacobs discussion here is concerning the Bible. He is making an argument against antisemitism and there is no real discussion of Judaism. The Bible is a creation of the Jews and the book that has thus made the Jews what they are has also, in large measure, laid the foundation of European civilization. I think a citation to a work that has more discussion of Judaism would be more appropriate, Jacobs is i think more concerned with an argument against antisemitism. fiveby(zero) 21:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for going to that trouble. If you can find the exact page where he is said to have made this extraordinary claim, I'd be much obliged. I know modern scholarship on legal systems will not support his contention, and it is too dated, but once does well to be scrupulous. Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I am not sure this qualifies as an exceptional claim. It is quit logical and commonplace knowledge. Secondly, I see no problem with the source, and disagree with the unexplained assertion that this is a "semi-scholarly book". The author was a scholar, including in the field of anthropology. He was President of the Jewish Historical Society. In my understanding that makes for a reliable source. Nor do I agree that because it is an old book, it is less true or authoritative, although I agree that any claim that is true, can probably be found in more modern books as well. Just trying to give some perspective on the subject of this section. Debresser (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I just now noticed that another editor also think that this claim is not so exceptional.[183] Debresser (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I.e. SJ. Jews themselves down to the first centuries CE did not describe their acts and beliefs as 'Judaism'.His edit summary shows he is unaware of the fact that the concept of Judaism came out of Christian polemics, the adversary's nomenclature. This much is known.Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

To repeat (surely you and SJ have been here long enough to know this) 'l0gic and commonsense' by individual editors have zero value in a discussion of Reliable Souces. zilch, nada, naught. We have a mass of modern scholarly works on law in Judaism and Western civilization. Find one that repeats what was the putative view (unverified) of Jacobs, and well and good. I'm not going to waste time listing a dozen sources that say the opposite. Anyone can google and read. SJ began this under the misprision that the Golden Rule was a product of Judaism. Well let him explain how Judaism influenced Thales at Diogenes Laertius 'Life of Thales,' 1.36 (πῶς ἂν ἄριστα καὶ δικαιότατα βιώσαιμεν, "ἐὰν ἃ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐπιτιμῶμεν, αὐτοὶ μὴ δρῶμεν:"); Plato at Laws XI.013 (τὸ δὴ μετὰ ταῦτ᾽ εἴη συμβολαίων ἂν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἡμῖν δεόμενα προσηκούσης τάξεως. ἁπλοῦν δέ γέ ἐστίν που τό γε τοιοῦτον: μήτε οὖν τις τῶν ἐμῶν χρημάτων ἅπτοιτο εἰς δύναμιν, μηδ᾽ αὖ κινήσειεν μηδὲ τὸ βραχύτατον ἐμὲ μηδαμῇ μηδαμῶς πείθων: κατὰ ταὐτὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ περὶ τὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐγὼ δρῴην, νοῦν ἔχων ἔμφρονα); or Isocrates at Busiris (καίτοι πῶς οὐκ αἰσχρὸν τοιαύτας ὑπὲρ τῶν ἄλλων ποιεῖσθαι τὰς ἀπολογίας, ἐφ᾽ αἷς ὑπὲρ σαυτοῦ λεγομέναις μάλιστ᾽ ἂν ὀργισθείης). Moses Hadas indeed saw it the other way around, and conjectured, before his untimely death, that Plato's Nomoi had exercised a major impact on rabbinical thinking, per Hellenizing Jews. Why are we forced to waste time saying the obvious to correct errors based on a total lack of knowledge of the subjects, the basis of this consistent revert practice? Nishidani (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought we were trying to verify it here? Will provide a fuller quote of the passage it think was meant to be cited. fiveby(zero) 22:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, Please don't put words into my mouth. I already asked you to read my comment more carefully before you decide to go your usual route of being insulting to editors. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It is being insulting to other editors (a) to edit without familiarizing oneself with the topic (b)when pressed to find a replacement source for at least a book, come up with googled junk by a fundamentalist religious organization (Aish HaTorah) financed by the Israeli government to promote (dis)"information". I always feel obliged to read a link, or a source, and reading that tripe was a pain in the arse, one feels put on by a bad joke. After the IZAK case, everyone should know fundamentalist skewing is not acceptable, and RS exclude religious propaganda. You know that, but went ahead posting the rubbish as a legitimate option to source a grandiose statement. That is insulting to any wikipedian's intelligence and time.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

But the book that has thus made the Jews what they are has also, in large measure, laid the foundation of European civilization. In all matters spiritual the Bible is the one common fountain-head of European thought and feeling, as, with perhaps Æsop's Fables, it is the only book which every European has read who has read any book. If, in Matthew Arnold's phrase, Hebraism rules the conduct of three-quarters of life (for most men he might have made it ninetenths), for the majority of men it has been the Bible alone which has represented what the poetcritic calls Hebraism. In the Middle Ages, indeed, the remaining quarter of life, which is filled up with art and thought, was also mainly dependent upon the Bible for its influence...Even in law, in which the genius of Rome was ultimately to exercise so supreme an influence on European legislation, the Bible in the beginnings had its word to say. Alfred Dooms were prefaced with extracts from Leviticus adapted to the needs of Anglo-Saxon England, and in almost all the early Teutonic codes, when written down, were extracts from the pentateuchal codes which formed part of the record; nor must it be forgotten that the Digest in its final form is a Christian document and has undergone the influence of the Christian, which includes the Hebrew Scriptures..."It would be a mistake, however, to ascribe to Roman legal conceptions an undivided sway over the development of law and institutions during the Middle Ages. The Teuton came under the influence, not of Rome only, but also of Christianity;and through the Church there entered into Europe a potent leaven of Judaic thought. The laws of Moses as well as the laws of Rome contributed suggestion and impulse to the men and institutions which were to prepare the modern world; and if we could but have the eyes to see the subtle elements of thought which constitute the gross substance of our present habit, both as regards the sphere of private life, and as regards the action of the state, we should easily discover how very much besides religion we owe to the Jew."

Footnote to the last quote: Mr. Chamberlain, however, goes too far in suggesting that the universalistic element in Roman law is due to Semitic (he hints at Jewish) influence. Here, of course, he is working as usual for the nationalism of his party against any taint or tinge of universalism.

Jacobs, Joseph (1920). Jewish Contributions to Civilization: An Estimate. pp. 64–6.

Is that sufficent or should i keep looking in the source? Anyone feel free to move this quote to the talk page if that's more appropriate. fiveby(zero) 23:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

More than sufficient, thanks for your sedulous care for examining the source for the rest of us.

Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Many aspects of Judaism have also directly or indirectly influenced secular Western ethics and civil law.

In short, fiveby's quote shows that we have an exemplary case of WP:OR and that the text failed verification. Sincde 3 years have passed since this was questioned, and now, examined, it failed the test, both source and ostensible paraphrase must be removed.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a statement that begs further explanation, my question is where can i find such explanation on WP? Not in the article and not in Jewish Law or Halakha. As GreenC puts it "depending on depth of perspective", as a reader i should be given the perspective to understand. I don't think statements in the lede should be cited at all, but summarize article content. Where do i find this content? fiveby(zero) 14:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The source is used in the lead of Judaism. I haven't read the article - I find this 'stuff' unbearably ill-informed- and give up after a few paragraphs (there is a massively glaring error in that lead which no editor has noted, to fo do with sects)But if you have read it all, and cannot find a section which this curious assertion is per WP:lede supposed to summarize, that is one more reason to expunge it.Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Judaic led to Christian led to Roman. There was not a neat separate of church and state, Augustine's City of God ensured the mess we have been trying to untangle ever since. The quote can make total sense, or no sense at all, depending on depth of perspective. -- GreenC 23:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Reduce it to , um, 'logical' form and you get

• The West is a product of Christianity
• Christianity is the product of the Bible
• The Bible is a product of Judaism
• Ergo the ethics and civil law of the secular West are products of Judaism

Now, out of kindergarten and back to the real world. How ‘secular’ (the division of state from church, with the latter’s influence radically cut back) fits in to this mess is left obscure. How 'Judaism' whose halakhic system excludes a separation of state and society came to influence the emergence of Western secular society, premised on their radical separation, is left obscure. C'mon. This is all obvious. The Bible in Jacobs' usage refers to two bodies of documents: one is canonical for Judaism (Tanakh/OT), the other, the New Testament, writes a New Covenant that in good part abrogates the legalistic core of the Old Testament. Judeans were predominantly responsible for both, but Judaism excludes Christianity, as Christianity boasted of burying Judaism. I once tried to state the obvious in our list of distinguished Jews, adding Christ. It was repeatedly erased as offensive. Now that I try to eliminate a suggestion that Judaism influenced via Christianity western secular law, I get reverted again. Go figure.

Can we agree therefore that a folklorist's book with a popular slant, verbal haziness and largescale generalizations about complex historical questions, published in 1919 is not appropriate?Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2020 (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.

Are Political Think Tanks considered reliable sources?

Hi, would like some input here. I edited the Three Percenters wikipdia page by removing a claim of them as a "paramilitary group," as the only citation for this was a book which, itself, cites a self-described "social justice think tank." I thought it was a pretty comfortable assumption that a left-leaning progressive think tank wasn't a Reliable or NPOV Source for describing a right-wing movement as "paramilitary," when the group, itself, does not consider itself as such - but my edit was VERY quickly reverted by the user Jorm who told me to take my issues with the source to this noticeboard. What's the ruling on "politicalresearch.org" or, more generally, relying on political think tanks as WP:RS when they are the only source to characterize a movement on the opposite end of the political spectrum? Thanks. Krakaet (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to the claim, "Paramilitary" in the article is currently sourced to an academic book titled Violent Extremists: Understanding the Domestic and International Terrorist Threat. I don't see anything wrong with the sourcing. (t · c) buidhe 19:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you think I can't read? What does that book cite? That book, citation 73 under the claim in the book, is citing the source that I linked. Don't patronize me. Krakaet (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

References

And the book apparently found that the description was accurate. If the book is reliable that is fine - that kind of vetting is why we use secondary sources. - MrOllie (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The book confirms the assessment. It's a solid reference. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• The sources cited by the book don't matter at all. Provided the book itself (or its author + publisher) has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires, we can trust that they've researched and verified the claims make, or that they are willing to stake their reputation on them. Otherwise you end up in an absurd situation where we couldn't have cited Woodward and Bernstein because they relied on the then-anonymous Deep Throat. --Aquillion (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Avoid all think tanks like the plague. They are designed to try to influence opinion, they are often obscurely funded so we don't know who pulls the strings, and they are a cancer on all discourse. Guy (help!) 21:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

^ Ok, that's kind of funny.

In this case, I don't see why the book cited above would not be reliable, but if I'm missing something please explain. Would it be acceptable to the parties involves to say something to the effect of "the three percenters reject their classification as a paramilitary group, yet according to so-and-so, they imitate the structure of a citizen militia?" TheBlueCanoe 22:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

TheBlueCanoe, the sourcve here is not a think tank, it's a book published by ABC-CLIO (and thus presumed reliable unless the author is a known crank). He says "they have been aptly described as" and then links to someone describing them as, but the "aptly" is the author's judgment and thus this fact is "fact-washed" via the author.

But also: avoid think tanks as sources. BNever cite them on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 23:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, How do you define think tank? Shrike (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, by reference to reliable independent sources. Guy (help!) 09:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It depends on the think tank. Think tanks vary - some, like the Brookings Institution or the Council on Foreign Relations, are highly reputable, reliable, and expert-based; others, like the Center for Security Policy, are downright fringe. If a statement is seriously contested within the expert/academic world or is only supported by one or two think tank sources, it would be wise to consider whether in-text attribution is necessary. Neutrality^talk 00:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, Even so, I would not include their content unless via secondary sources. The influence of think-tanks is pernicious, and is deliberately designed to place ideology-driven arguments on an equal footing with academic analysis. That's why refuted concepts like trickle-down remain in play. Guy (help!) 10:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• The question is overly broad (nearly infinite in fact as *all* think tanks have a political dimension by definition) and doesn’t actually appear to be based on the issue at hand. Think tanks run the gamut from generally reliable to publishes false and misleading information, painting with a single brush is simply not possible. On the more specific question of whether the use of the term paramilitary is acceptable I say yes it is but I note that its sourced to a book not directly to the think tank. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with User:Horse Eye Jack that the question is overbroad. Think tanks are essentially a hybrid between a lobbying firm and a research institute. If their values reflect the former, they are worthless as an RS, if the latter, then they may have some value. We should treat each think tank separately, and we should be aware that, just as with universities, individuals working at think tanks vary in their reputation. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Think tanks vary, the question is overbroad. As for the content here, Violent Extremists: Understanding the Domestic and International Terrorist Threat, [184], is a reliable source. Krakaet is trying to challenge citation 73 in that source, but that's second guessing the work of Dr. Thomas R. Mockaitis and ABC CLIO. --Bob not snob (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Avoid, at least in the area I am (mostly) editing in: the Middle East (=ME). Most of the think tanks (or "stink tanks" as they are commonly known as in the ME) are funded either by: Saudi-Arabia/UAE (eg Center for Strategic and International Studies, or by Qatar (eg Brookings Institution), or by Zionist (eg The Washington Institute for Near East Policy). And it is very easy to see who funds them by what they write, Huldra (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources for party positions

1) Far-right position - In the Miroslav Škoro Homeland Movement article, a new party formed in February 2020, there is a source for the far-right position. It is an op-ed from September 2019, from a Croatian web portal telegram.hr, and in Croatian language: "Konsolidira li se oko Miroslava Škore skoro cijela hrvatska radikalna desnica?" ("Is almost the entire Croatian radical right consolidating around Miroslav Škoro?")

Is that source enough to put the "far-right" position in the infobox/lead?

2) Labels of parties and the coalition - In the article body, there is a source to another Croatian web-portal, index.hr: "Zapeli pregovori Škore sa Suverenistima i Mostom" ("Škoro's negotiations with the Sovereignists and Most are stuck"). This source is used for the following sentence, and the underlined text is the subject of dispute:

"Opinion polls conducted before the election have shown that right-wing populist and nationalist coalition led by Miroslav Škoro – consisting of Škoro's own party, some of the parties of the far-right Croatian Sovereignists coalition (which was formed to contest the 2019 European elections) and several other smaller right-wing and far-right nationalist parties"

The text in the article on index.hr starts like this:

"PREGOVORI o zajedničkom izlasku na izbore široke koalicije desno od centra oko Domovinskog pokreta Miroslava Škore dospjeli su u slijepu ulicu, piše danas Večernji list. Istovremeno, navodno su zapeli i pregovori sa Suverenistima." ("NEGOTIATIONS on joint participation in the elections of the broad right-of-centre coalition around the Homeland Movement of Miroslav Škoro have reached a dead end, Večernji list writes today. At the same time, negotiations with the Sovereignists allegedly stalled.")

Should those underlined labels in the first text remain there based on this source, or should that source be used to describe the coalition as a "broad right-of-centre coalition"?

3) Environmentalist position - can these two sources be used for the Environmentalism position: first from dalmatinskiportal.hr - "Miroslav Škoro simbolično posadio dva stabla javora" ("Miroslav Škoro symbolically planted two maple trees") - quote from the article: "Zalaže se hrvatsku poljoprivredu, samodostatnost, zaštitu okoliša i nacionalnog blaga" ("He advocates Croatian agriculture, self-sufficiency, protection of environment and national treasures")

2nd source is the Economic program of the party. Among the seven points, number one is Energy and environment, where they present their views on energy and climate goals, etc. Can their own program also be used for a party position? Tezwoo (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

For something like party positions, I would rely on reputable newspapers independent of the party or (better still) books published by university presses or major publishing houses. Certainly, the party's own manifesto/agenda could not be used in most cases to classify positions, since that would involve a measure of OR. But something like this Guardian article could certainly be used to classify Miroslav Škoro as hard right. Neutrality^talk 00:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

There are very few if any such sources (and no books) in English for this party as it is a new one and has no MP's. I'd say all of those four Croatian portals are also reliable sources, it's more of a matter of interpretation of their texts and the types of articles that are suitable to describe a party position. Unfortunately, none of them are in English.

That Guardian source is about the presidental election campaign, which happened about 3 months before the party was formed, so I'm not sure if it can be used for a position of this party? Tezwoo (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The party's own statements on matters should always be given credence, although they are primary sources so we should be cautious. But if a party writes in their manifesto that they consider themselves to be "centre-right" while other sources call them "far-right" we should inform the reader of those facts. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There's an article, from the Associated Press, that was just published by both Washington Post and New York Times. The article calls them right-wing: "The right-wing Homeland Movement, which is led by folk singer Miroslav Skoro".

There's China-CEE Institute's "Forecast of Political Events in Croatia", which says "political movement that assembles different people from different backgrounds that have been, or still are, in charge of some minor parties on the right." Tezwoo (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I just found one more new article, this one is for point 2) (the party's partners in coalition) from SeeNews. The article says "conservative Croatian Sovereignists", not far-right. Tezwoo (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Op-eds in internet portals are not a good source. However, I did come across a good source, the Financial Times: [185] "Miroslav Skoro, who sings of heroes defending their homeland, is head of the newly formed far-right Homeland Movement, which could potentially form a coalition".--Bob not snob (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

AfterEllen

What is the reliability of AfterEllen news articles? From my own understanding AfterEllen does not identify as tabloid news, but I'm not sure how useful their articles are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speaker of Truth and Wisdom (talk • contribs)

It's a lesbian focused pop-culture site, I think it is probably usable for pop-culture reviews, but I wouldn't use it in BLP articles, particularly as a source of sexual orientation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a WP:Reliable source. Obviously. It also falls under WP:NEWSBLOG. And, yes, we use it for BLPs, especially for interviews with BLP subjects. All sources should be used with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in mind. I believe that the above account saw my post here at the WP:BLP noticeboard and brought discussion of AfterEllen here. Not a coincidence. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: Simply asserting a source is "reliable" because it agrees with your position in a dispute is never a convincing argument. I was previously unaware of the transphobic context. Per WP:RSPMISSING, not being on the perennial sources list does not mean that the source is reliable, it just reflects the relative obscurity of AfterEllen and therefore lack of discussion of it. Despite the lack of discussion it is suprisingly frequently used, with over 1,000 citations per afterellen.com  . AfterEllen fired all of their staff including their Editor in Chief in 2016 due to profitablility issues and all content since then has been done by freelancers, they then hired Memoree Joelle as the new EiC later in 2016, upon which the site began to take a transphobic bent.[186][187] Given that it's apparently being written by freelancers makes it equivalent (on pure reliability terms) to sources like Bustle, which is considered yellow rated at RSP. I think for its opinion on transgender issues it is likely to not constitute due weight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, no need to ping me. I didn't simply assert that a source is reliable because it "agrees with [my] position in a dispute." I never do, as many know. I stated that it is reliable per what is made clear at the WP:Reliable sources guideline. In the discussion I pointed, I stated, in part, "AfterEllen counts as a WP:Reliable source, and we use it in a number of Wikipedia articles. This includes articles it was used in long before certain LGBT sites got together and deemed it transphobic. It is not simply some blog. And on the topic of blogs, WP:NEWSBLOG is clear. And unlike PinkNews, AfterEllen is not listed at WP:RSPSOURCES as a generally unreliable source. That stated, we also apply WP:CONTEXTMATTERS when we use sources. In this context, AfterEllen isn't the best source to use to state 'Rowling's words also found widespread support.', given the controversy surrounding AfterEllen on trans issues. It, however, is not a source that is blacklisted, including from being used for its own personal commentary on trans issues. And regardless, it is not like I suggested using it, YouTube, or Twitter as a source in the article." I was commenting on the source, not giving my personal opinion on how I feel about the Rowling drama. I was not stating or suggesting that "not being on the perennial sources list [means] that the source is reliable." I compared it to PinkNews because both are within the realm of LGBT sources. AfterEllen is not obscure when it comes to sources for content about lesbian and bisexual women or fictional characters.

As for it being deemed transphobic by a few LGBT sites? It became embroiled in what is a culture war, which is noted in its Wikipedia article. There are various reliable sources, including The Guardian, which comment on this culture war and note that many people (both trans and non-trans) do not agree with everything that is deemed transgender rights or transphobic these days. This 2020 "JK Rowling row hints at generational rift on transgender rights" The Guardian source is a recent source to comment on it. Whether or not "genital preferences" are transphobic is one of the recent debates when it comes to transgender issues. And that is the debate that AfterEllen got itself embroiled in. And, yes, including their commentary on the matter is completely WP:Due. We aren't going to have one-sided content on that matter, just like we don't do that in the TERF and Feminist views on transgender topics articles. If a source such as this 2019 "Some women have penises. If you won't sleep with them you're transphobic" source from The Spectator criticizes the viewpoint it mentions, we may include commentary from it with WP:In-text attribution. We aren't going to exclude the viewpoint of conservative sources like The Spectator. Likewise, we aren't going to exclude the viewpoint of lesbians who disagree with notions that some trans people (or trans activists who aren't trans themselves) hold. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces rather than original reporting, including the piece you mention, which falls under WP:NEWSBLOG rather than the general reliable sources guidelines and these pieces should be attributed and used with discretion. What expertise does James Kirkup, the author of The Spectator piece you mention and the director of the Social Market Foundation thinktank have on transgender issues? Why is his opinion on the matter considered important enough to hypothetically warrant inclusion? I agree that its interviews are usable per WP:ABOUTSELF like most other outlets, but you didn't address my main issue which is that the outlet apparently relies on freelancers after the 2016 firings by Evolve Media, unless this changed after Memoree Joelle bought out the website in 2019? The alleged erasure of bylines of former reporters to simply "staff" after they publicly criticised the outlet online is also concering per Out:

It’s hard to discern which is more painful for the former AfterEllen community: watching the website veer into transphobia, seeing the archives and the work of some contributors disappear overnight, or witnessing their bylines simply changed to “staff” with no reasoning offered. [Current Editor in Chief Memoree] Joelle suggests it was part of a companywide sweep not specific to AfterEllen, but [former contributor Ali] Davis suspects otherwise. “It's a punitive thing when you tangle with AfterEllen’s Twitter,” she says, “or publicly take issue with their current editorial direction. I'm assuming that my content will disappear after this article goes up.”

Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You stated, "The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces." Yep. And still allowed. Much of the commentary seen in the TERF and Feminist views on transgender topics articles are from opinion pieces, as has been made clear on the talk pages of those articles. For most of the current literature on these topics, the sources are mainly media sources (especially opinion pieces) rather than academic sources. Anyone who has thoroughly read the literature on all of this, like I have, knows that. We can't treat either side as the one true "correct" side. At least not yet. Not ever, really. As for the rest, it's culture war stuff...like I stated. The Spectator is allowed to have its opinion on it. No expertise needed. In our medical articles, for example, we don't deem that expertise on any one issue is needed before certain opinions can be included in the "Society and culture" section. Nothing about that at WP:MEDSECTIONS. Across Wikipedia, we judge matters on WP:Due, yes. But I don't see what expertise is needed to comment on whether or not "genital preferences" are transphobic. I'm not concerned about the internal happenings with AfterEllen as far as Wikipedia goes. I'll leave that for others to comment on.

And regarding this and this? Guess I will alert editors at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability for wider input. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable per Flyer22 Frozen, opinion pieces obviously should be attributed as such. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  Okay great, thank you everyone. I didn't see that previous post actually, but that's helpful @Flyer22 Frozen:. How about using it as a source to provide information about a relationship on BLP articles? Specifically, I am thinking in terms of on the Jordan Nobbs page. A user named AmSam13 recently attempted to add info to her article documenting how her girlfriend is Leah Williamson, citing an AfterEllen article. Significantly, the article also states that both the players are openly lesbian. This is the article: https://www.afterellen.com/sports-people/576413-she-believes-recap. Other users removed the cited content the user added, but to be honest I don't see anything wrong with what AmSam13 was trying to add. Just wanted to know what the precedent was in these situations.Speaker of Truth and Wisdom (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  AfterEllen routinely interviews lesbian and bisexual women. It is perfectly fine to use it when reporting on what lesbian or bisexual women told them. If it is reporting that someone is lesbian or bisexual, or in a same-sex relationship with someone, without being an exclusive interview, it is best to not report on that unless other reliable sources are also reporting on it. I would not simply go by what one source states if it's not an exclusive interview. If other reliable sources are not also reporting on it, it begs the WP:Due question. It puts the reliability of the report into question. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's reliable per what Flyer22 Frozen said, of course in accord with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I don't really have anything more to add. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

(I saw a notice about this on WT:V, which as an aside should be an acronym for the Wikipedia version of MTV.) The site underwent editorial changes in 2016, after which the quality of its 'reporting' has decreased. We should probably evaluate the reliability of articles on a case-by-case basis (not unlike Bustle), mind its editorial bent and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV in-text where necessary, and not use it as a sole source for exceptional claims (and using it as a sole source for claims that someone is dating someone else raises WP:WEIGHT questions, as Flyer says), whereas using it for statements about its current views, governance, etc should be fine. -sche (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm very impressed that someone found this noticeboard with their fifth edit. Guy (help!) 08:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: What you trynna say? Speaker of Truth and Wisdom (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Speaker of Truth and Wisdom, that you carry three of the most compelling idicators for abuse: immediately piling in to contentious areas, immediately finding obscure project pages, and a username containing "Truth". I'll put a dollar on you not lasting long here. Guy (help!) 22:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not generally reliable on trans issues; if Pink News is unreliable for sensationalism on this subject, then AE is too, from the other side (their continuing hagiography of a anti-semitic conspiracy theorist because she agreed with them is a case in point) . OTOH, I'm not too fussed about their articles outside of that sphere. Sceptre (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable because it focuses on issues concerning lesbians and bisexual women. When dealing with topics involving lesbians, bi women, and other segments of the LGBT community, AfterEllen meets WP:RSCONTEXT. (The general "LGBT media", be it print or online, publish articles and commentaries about the LGBT community, but don't typically center their attention on any segment. But there are still a few, such as Instinct (magazine) and Towleroad.com, that lean towards gay men and their interests; Bi Community News focuses on bisexuals, and The Fence zine on bisexual women.) AfterEllen began to publish more political stories and op-eds after 2016, and some who disagree with post-2016 AfterEllen have campaigned to discredit and marginalize it and its staff. However, AfterEllen doesn't invent controversial subjects, it reports and expands on them. It also has published pieces from individuals that have experienced suppression tactics from members of the LGBT community. As for the above comment regarding trans issues and AfterEllen ... WP:BIASED states: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Add to this WP:NPOVS : Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. per Sceptre and Hemiauchenia. Particularly concerning is the fact that many entries are written not by journalists or specialists, but by "bloggers" (that's how they describe themselves). daveout 👾 ^(talk) 00:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

They didn't state "generally unreliable." Hemiauchenia expressed concern about the source being used for "BLP articles, particularly as a source of sexual orientation" and for reporting on trans issues. Hemiauchenia also questioned the internal aspects of the site, and compared its reliability to Bustle, which has not been deemed generally unreliable. And Sceptre was very careful to limit its supposed unreliability to the topic of trans issues, not to anything else. But either way, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:In-text attribution have been cited above. Should AfterEllen be used to state an opinion as fact on trans issues? That is a no per WP:WIKIVOICE. Can it be used for its opinion on trans issues as they relate to lesbians (or bisexual women, etc.)? Absolutely. Our rules support that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

And what did PinkNews in is not its sensationalism, but what is stated in the most recent WP:Reliable sources noticeboard discussion about it. It took Genericusername57 looking into the matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2020 Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. (UTC)

Please ping my username when replying to me, otherwise I most likely won’t notice it. I’m aware they didn’t say ‘’generally unreliable’’, I said that. I only mentioned those users because I agree with their reasonings (but not necessarily with their conclusions). I’ve probably made a poor choice of words (if that ‘’per’’ sounded misleading, I apologize) daveout 👾 ^(talk) 03:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Daveout: The only staff writer identified as a "blogger" by AfterEllen is Claire Heuchan. She is well known in Scotland. In 2016, her blog Sister Outrider was named Best Blog by Write to End Violence Against Women Awards; and Heuchan was shortlisted for the Emma Humphreys Memorial Prize. She co-authored, with Nikesh Shukla, the 2018 book What is Race? Who are Racists? Why Does Skin Colour Matter? And Other Big Questions. She has also written for The Guardian, Glamour magazine, The Scotsman, and others. She has been interviewed, for example, by BBC Radio, and has received media coverage. So ... please explain, exactly what makes someone a "journalist" and what are the qualifications for being considered a "specialist" in lesbian, bisexual, and LGBT-in-general, matters? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Pyxis, that's pretty misleading as there is only one other person listed on the about page, which implies that the rest of the content is contributed by freelancers.Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If you can’t tell the difference between a blogger and a journalist, it’s not up to me to explain that to you. Katiee McKinstry, too, identifies herself as some sort of professional blog writer. Gabrielle Alejandro identifies herself primarily as a fiction writer. My point is: most, if not all, of them don’t seem to have much recognition on the journalism sector. Yes, we do have self-proclaimed journalist and specialists everywhere, but what lacks in such cases is a more robust peer recognition and quality check. This source should only be used for providing opinions on pop-culture matters, not on transgender people. daveout 👾 ^(talk) 12:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I can tell the difference very well. Many journalists are also bloggers (for example, Jon Slattery), but blogging does not in and of itself negate their being journalists. When someone writes for newspapers, magazines, and websites/blogs such as, for example, HuffPost, they cross into the journalism field. "This source should only be used for providing opinions on pop-culture matters, not on transgender people." Unfortunately for you and others who share your opinion, an LGBT website that covers transgender-related subjects conforms with WP:RSCONTEXT. Just because you don't like what it may publish about it does not invalidate its knowledge about the subject. As much as some editors may hate it, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable, same reasoning as daveout. Even setting aside the transphobia allegations, a site written by bloggers is a blog, not a news site. A site needs an editorial process to be reliable, and from what other editors have been saying, it doesn't appear they have much of one. Loki (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for what its interviews say. The question "What is the reliability?" is meaningless as is seen in the edit notice displayed while editing this section—a meaningful question needs source + article + content. The source is not reliable for views about astronomy, but is reliable for the sorts of things mentioned in some comments above. A more honest appraisal would say that no sources are reliable for blanket statements regarding sexuality because the science is not settled. Claiming that a particular source is or is not reliable based on claims of transphobia indicates the issue concerns ideology, not reliability. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable in context It looks OK along the lines of Pyxis Solitary's comments. I would certainly be careful about using it in wiki voice but as an noted view on LGBT subject matter it seems reasonable. Springee (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, in context. It's not really any different from other WP:NEWSBLOG resources. It having, editorially, a general socio-political stance is irrelevant, or we'd have to ban most newspapers, etc. (the majority of which are firmly left-of-center). The fact that not everyone agrees with everything AfterEllen publishes in relation to transgender/non-binary topics doesn't make them unreliable, it just means there are activists with strong views and sharp tongues for those who don't share the same dogma. Like other works of this sort, AfterEllen is a useful source for interview material (WP:ABOUTSELF), and for op-ed material written by persons who are notable or are reputable within their field. On many topics pertaining to LGBT matters, there is little published material other than this variety, and we use it regularly, despite it essentially being WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. This publication is obviously not a reliable source for things outside its bailiwick, like WP:MEDRS claims about TG/NB psychology and neurology, etc. I.e., use WP:Common sense, as always.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  If it was just polite disagreement on trans issues, then I wouldn't have gone for unreliable on that issue. But their hagiography of the anti-semitic transphobe Magdalen Berns as a "feminist warrior" is proof positive that their coverage on the issue can't be trusted. Sceptre (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  As seen in this section at the Magdalen Berns article, sources like the Morning Star also praised her. And before anyone calls it a tabloid, I point out that tabloid (newspaper format), which is the format this paper is published in, is not the same thing as tabloid journalism. The section also notes that Berns was posthumously shortlisted for the Emma Humphreys Memorial Prize, which the organization awards to women it deems to have "raised awareness of violence against women and children". It states that she received a special award from the organization. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  
  Sceptre: There's no particular connection between feminism, and viewpoints that don't directly relate to women's equality, beyond a general but very loose trend toward "being under the left umbrella" and thus being statistically more likely to be supportive of other civil-rights and social-justice causes. But marching together in lockstep with all of them in every detail is not a definitional requirement of "feminist", especially when one of them conflicts with some definitions of what feminism is/means. My own mother was a whitebread American southerner. She was an outspoken feminist, but long shared the same "casual racism" (of negative assumptions, etc., not outright hatred) as most of her yokel family members. Didn't make her not a feminist (and she was actually LGBT-friendly, unlike most everyone she grew up with). More to the point, we know for an undisputed fact that a branch/wing/whatever of feminism (mostly populated by middled-aged and older women, with a disproportionate percentage of them lesbians) is not exactly transwoman-friendly. That doesn't make them not feminists, it just makes them an unpopular kind of feminist. (Though not universally so; the "TERFwar" issue has been described in many sources as a wide-ranging, fundamental schism within feminism, especially among the second wave.) This publication doesn't somehow become unreliable because they profiled a person with exclusionary definitions. Magazines and other publications pretty often profile controversial people (because it sells). In these overly-polarized times, it is difficult sometimes to remember that a publisher may have multiple (and often undisclosed) reasons for shining a light in a particular direction, or lending the podium to a caustic and contrarian voice. Just stirring the pot is a common one. We usually do not use Medium as a source, unless the writer is a known subject-matter expert. But it's not because Medium published a piece by a co-founder of the trans-exclusionary group ForWomen; it's because Medium permits WP:UGC (at all, regardless of the subject matter). The nature of the editorial process (and real-world editorial reputation) matter, but the viewpoint doesn't, as long as it's not blatant falsehood.

  I would think that encyclopedists, more than anyone, would understand that proper biographical coverage of a subject doesn't ignore their successful/influential/positive work just because there was also a darker or debated side to the subject. And any general writer and reader understands that obituaries (and "pre-obituaries" of people on their deathbeds) are by their nature designed to focus on the positive. Not agreeing with someone on a particular socio-political matter doesn't mean one should demonize the other side (something so many ethically myopic activists forget or never learn – and it's getting to the point of misogyny and even direct advocacy of violence against alleged "TERFs", e.g. from groups like Action for Trans Health London). I have no personal strong feelings about Berns, but she self-described as a radical-feminist lesbian and a firm believer in the primacy and meaningfulness of biological/birth sex. Ergo, it is not unreasonable to expect her to have been actually radical, and focused on "fully biological" women, even if we don't all agree with her. But lots of people do (keep in mind that the recent, Western, liberal, accepting viewpoint about TG/NB people is a very small minority position among the total world population, even if it's arguably more just and is increasingly backed in various ways by cognitive science and other disciplines). "Feminist warrior" really does seem like an apt description of Berns (in kind of a WP:BATTLEGROUND-ish sense, plus it's also a play on words, in that she was a competitive ring fighter).

  There's actually a whole lot of coverage of her in other publications. Just a few examples from the first page of Google hits:

  • The National Review (who called her a "shero", "a captivating and insightful speaker", "a great source of inspiration and clarity for those trying to resist gender extremism")[188]
  • The Post and Courier ("online feminist influencer" whose impending death from brain cancer was openly celebrated by a TG-activist Rachel McKinnon, which has of course turned into a counter-controversy, on top of other ire directed at McKinnon)[189]
  • Camden New Journal ("took a stand for women's rights .... [H]er sharp wit and the incisive intelligence ... made her an international hit and ... one of the best-known feminist speakers of her generation")[190]; same piece also published in the [UK] Morning Star[191].

  They're a wide range; TNR is right-leaning, though secular. TPaC is a regular newspaper, in a conservative-leaning US state, and seems centrist to weak right, while CNJ is left-leaning as the leading London "alt" paper. MS is far-left. And, of course, innumerable feminist and lesbian and civil-rights/social-justice magazines and blogs published even more praising material; I am hard-pressed to find any feminist works that are critical of her, though some are respectfully critical of one of her socio-political positions. Are all these publications unreliable because they "failed" to call her a TERF and a supposedly a Jew-hater? I think not. I certainly don't see an RSN thread seeking to deem TNR and TPaC and CNJ unreliable. PS: I can't find a single actually reliable source that says Berns was an anti-Semite. So: . I would bet real money this is another case of someone with an activist hare up their butt taking some comment out of context and blowing it up into a manufactured "controversy" as a form of character assassination. But this isn't Facebook, so that doesn't fly here.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I don't you should be commenting on anything related to transgender issues after that (now blanked) 2019 signpost entry that was regarded by many people as transphobic Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for pop-culture pieces and if there are appropriate interviews, probably elsewhere too. Everything would depend on the context. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, on the context thing that I and others (you included) have cited, when AfterEllen is commenting on trans issues, it's in the context of lesbian issues (at least in part). And the "generally unreliable" view would be a concern when one considers the pre-2016 state of the site. This is why a case-by-case basis makes sense if we were to state that its post-2016 state is generally an issue. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Anti-Defamation League (ADL)

1. Is the ADL a generally reliable source?

2. Is the ADL a reliable source on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States?

3. Is the ADL reliable and/or a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics?

4. Should the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) be attributed?

The Anti-Defamation League has been cited around 1,000 times on Wikipedia according to adl.org   Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses (ADL)

• They are reliable with attribution for whatever they say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• 1. Yes, 2. Yes, 3. Additional considerations apply and 4. Yes. I think that the ADL is generally reliable and reliable for the topic of extremism and hate groups in the US. However, I think that for Israel/Palestine related issues, as a Pro-Israel advocacy group it is a biased source and in this area its use should be evaluated if it is due weight or not, especially in BLP articles. All labels applied by the ADL, especially to living individuals should be attributed per BLP policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• It is not reliable for anything to do with Israel/Palestine, and one must be extremely wary of material it produces conflating criticism of 'Zionism' with anti-Semitism. It is a political lobby with a one-eyed approach to those complex realities which are, in any case, almost always described in numerous mainstream newspaper and academic sources. See John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Penguin 2007 pp.188-196 for a damning record of its unreliability in those areas. Of course, the ADL branded that impeccably academic documented piece of forensic scholarship 'a classic conspiratorial anti-Semitic analysis invoking the canards of Jewish power and Jewish control' (M&W p.194), which just goes to prove they hadn't read the book and reply with smears when legitimate concerns about their lobbying emerge from serious critics.Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, reliable with attribution, yes as with any other labeling by any source. Not really much else to say that hasn't been said over and over again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, it isn't on the Perennial sources list, despite qualifying for an entry and I didn't want to synthesise an entry description without a clear concensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• 1.Yes, generally. 2. Yes. 3. Less so than for 2. 4. If it was an extraordinary claim that only the ADL has made then yes I would attribute, the vast majority of their designations are not extraordinary claims however. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• I do not know. General awareness makes me assume it is fine, but I haven't looked into this much. I notice that ADL separates its news from its blogs from its press releases, which is a good sign, and it clearly separates its articles from its op-eds. What this means exactly for an advocacy organization, I don't know. They include a collection of instances in which they are cited by news and academic outlets, and I have personally/organically come across both attributed and un-attributed citations to the ADL when reading serious work on extremism. This indicates a reasonably strong WP:UBO argument. However, I have been unable to find a clear description of their editorial policies (though their website is massive, with lots of little pockets, so it may exist somewhere). Again, my gut reaction is similar to others': Yes/Yes/Less so, but still usable. But I don't have good justification for that. Jlevi (talk)

Eh. Glancing through the past discussions, there is clear consensus that this is a strong, attribution-requiring source. It's used plenty in all the sources that matter. I remain a little surprised that there's been no discussion of this source's particular editorial processes (Has it ever issued retractions? Does it clearly mark edits to articles? Who exactly provides editorial oversight?), but it looks plenty strong. If I'm missing that discussion, I would love to see it linked for reference. Yes+Attribute/Yes+Attribute/Yes+Attribute. Jlevi (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Still reliable with attribution, same as all the previous times. Guy (help!) 00:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Has a strong record of accuracy and is reliable with attribution, although it may not be the best source for all content. (t · c) buidhe 00:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• It's about as reliable as the the SPLC on issues of general hate groups. Their opinions should be generally attributed much like the SPLC. Additionally, anti-Zionism is in a lot of cases anti-Semitism by a different name. [192] For example, the Zionist occupation government conspiracy theory which states that Jews secretly cotnrol many governments. Likewise with using anti-Semitic canards such as cartoons of hook-nosed people making Palestinians into Matzah. Just because the ADL treats criticisms of Zionism as often being anti-Semitic does not make it an unreliable source as some editors describe. The reason why the ADL shouldn't be generally used as a source for facts with respect to Israel/Palestine is because it is decidedly not neutral in that conflict. They are decidedly pro-Zionism and they're an interest group in that regard. They're too biased and in all honesty we should be attributing in general. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 00:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's fine on general hate issues but I differ re 'In a lot of cases'. If you trawl the internet, twitter, facebook etc or the global streets, and go ballistic at every piece of prejudice and idiocy in slogans, cartoons and banners, then we are in a great age of existential threats to Jews (and a huge number of other ethnic groups, for that matter). If you live in reality, and recall intimately what programmatic anti-Semitism meant for Jews in its 'classic' cases, then, unlike the ADL, you will note that talk of a New anti-Semitism is basically a cynical calculation for rhetorically gaming language in order to shut down or silencing dissent in the ranks, or seed the idea that criticism of Israel's devastation of Palestinian nationalist aspirations must be vetted by an appropriate committee before it can be deemed legitimate or anti-Semitic. The ADL virtually equates Anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It has repeatedly and shamelessly gone for the jugular of historians and thinkers of the stature of Tony Judt for daring to state the obvious about what actually goes on in the occupation. With that record, in any other context, Wikipedia would almost automatically adopt a very guarded attitude towards the general use of a source like the ADL which has had a very noble role in identifying and combating discrimination until it began to use its weight on the IP issue. We make an exception here because of the usual sensitivities, so fragile that someone like myself can't edit any topic on Jewish history without suffering an automatic revert on the apparent belief among several editors that I must be, if not anti-Semitic, then certainly 'anti-Israel', even if I am making an edit on obscure points like halakhic dress codes or Islamic/Abbasid stereotyping to Jews in their community.

Official lobbies,government sources, think tanks, anti-terror agencies, activist bodies with no record for careful fact evaluation, for whatever interest groups, are overused on Wikipedia. If you want fairly accurate information on most of the topics they are cited for their opinions on, there is more often than not a fairly ample body of material put out by peer-reviewed scholars, or competent critics, in specialized journals or cautious mainstream sources. We don't want opinions here ('according to this lobby, that think tank'), but ascertained or verifiable facts. These cautions are particularly true given the intense lobbying to get the Working Definition of Antisemitism pushed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance to inflect legislation in a way that challenges free speech in numerous countries. Nishidani (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This looks like Nishidani's opinion about what they consider to be antisemitism rather than a useful evaluation of the source's accuracy, and goes far off topic. (t · c) buidhe 09:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I nowhere pretend to define anti-Semitism. I could write a densely footnoted article on the ADL's targeting of legitimate critics. I thought the Judt case, enough. One could quote, contra, its defense of George Soros for slurs about his Jewishness, no problem, but when its 2016 survey of anti-Semitism in the US identifies anti-Semitism as highest among the elderly and poor, and other bodies like PEW found that these elderly folks that the highest index of sympathy for Israel, you understand immediately the flaws in the ADL polling model (11 pages). The ADL model would have it that if you are pro-Israel, you are not anti-Semitic, against a lot of evidence to the contrary. The ADL accurately represented its own view. It did not accurately grasp that the results it got were flawed by lack of sophisticated analysis (compare the excellent methodology of Staetsky's analysis, 82 pages of such trends in the UK). Editors who 'vote' should have some widespread familiarity with the topic and the relevant research, in order to evaluate the worthiness or not of bodies like the ADL which have put at risk their justified claim to be an important source for identifying hate crimes and ethnic/racial prejudices by their chronic incapacity to see that what they deplore in the US, is standard in Israel's treatment of its captive populations in Gaza and the West Bank.Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is relevant anymore to the overall discussion and is going off-topic. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There was no discussion of the paradox that a body devoted to anti-defamation has lost several court cases for engaging in defamation. Editors who vote should be aware of its patchy record in that regard. My remarks were totally focused on this, and it is relevant.Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Easy question. Attribute, attribute, attribute and attribute, respectively. But before using at all, look for better sources. Zero^talk 08:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• The group is reliable and widely used by others WP:RS(which is one of signs of reliability) but if it only source to the claim it maybe better to attribute --Shrike (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable, without reservation, for all topics. The ADL's work on extremism is widely cited by other reliable sources and its assessments are done by experts with appropriate oversight. People designated for their hate speech often oppose the ADL or the Southern Poverty Law Center, but such protests are routine, expected, and of little relevance.--Hippeus (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I.e. it is reliable, without reservation, when it calls Norman Finkelstein a Holocaust denier, lambastes two outstanding chaired academics, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt as promoters of anti-Semitic canards, or makes private phonecalls to cancel free speech, a talk by Tony Judt. Only on Wikipedia do we bend otherwise stringent rules about reliability this way.Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for their views as any other organization is. Perfectly fine to use as an attributed source for antisemitism in the United States. Not really a source of information on Israel/Palestine, they dont publish any original research or work on the topic afaict, only their views and just as anything is they are a reliable source for their own views. Should those views generally be included? Less so outside their area of expertise (anti-semitism in the United States), eg in I/P. nableezy - 15:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

They seem to conflate opposition to Israeli policies and concern over Zionist influence over United States foreign policy with prejudice against Jews. They appear to be a highly ideological Jewish nationalist group and and should absolutely not be treated as a reliable source. Jontel (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, but, as always, use caution on I/P issues. On the anti-semitism question: if the alleged anti-semitism directly concerns the I/P conflict, then use caution; if it doesn't, then there's a case of WP:MANDY when the alleged anti-semites try to claim it's about Israel. (I never understood how blaming the Holocaust on Hitler's mental health or blaming Jews for the transatlantic slave trade was criticism of Israel, for example...) Sceptre (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable But bear in mind, like any reliable source, not every type of article published can be considered reliable, for example opinion pieces. TFD (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. Expert source in wide use by scholars and media. Agree with TFD that each individual type of article published needs to be considered.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable: Very much reliable for their work on extremist and hate groups, but does have a decent pro-Israel bias. If an organization has been labeled antisemitic by multiple groups (including the Southern Poverty Law Center), the ADL is great for backing that up. However, there have been a number of Palestinian activists labeled as antisemitic by the ADL whose great offense is opposing Israeli policy (see Roger Waters, BDS movement). Generally a reliable source, but exercise some caution on Israel/Palestine matters. PickleG13 (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable on all matters concerning extremist and hate groups and individuals, with no exceptions. Complaints against the ADL are limited to those being designated and their supporters. It is an authority in the field and used by others. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (ADL)

Previous discussions of the ADL include 1 2 3 Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

gamasutra.com

I am looking into [ https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134614/the_burger_speaks_an_interview_.php ], used as a source on the Rebecca Heineman BLP. Am I right to assume that the words of the person being interviewed (properly attributed and quoted) are reliable but that the thirteen paragraphs of introduction are not? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Speaking from the video games project Gamasutra is one of the key reliable sources (it is our NYTimes in video gaming to speak), so generally the source is RS for the field, but obviously to be careful on the BLP factor that may be in place. Gamasutra has a range of staff writers but hosts a number of special articles - this would be one of them - that are still editorially vetted so mud's not being slung around. The first 13 para (and then the bolded text after) are the words the byline Matt Barton, who, as per the profile is "assistant professor of English at St. Cloud State in Minnesota" so its probably fair game that while the language is formal, the details aren't wrong. So I would consider the first 13 para to also be reliable particular given the content being a high level overview of Heineman's career to date. --Masem (t) 14:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Gamasutra is as reliable as say NME for music or any other reputable entertainment magazine. It has a full editorial staff and well-regarded writers. Is there a specific thing in the article that its being used for that seems problematic? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I was concerned with the sourcing for calling Rebecca Heineman a lesbian. When it comes to sexual preferences, I really prefer a source where the person self-identifies over one where someone else identifies their sexual orientation for them.

Full disclosure: I was active in the effort to defeat 2008 California Proposition 8 and have a pro LGBT-rights position, and thus I am not neutral on this issue. Please let me know if ever see my opinions on this overriding Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and neutrality. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, in this, neutrality is itself not a neutral position. Guy (help!) 17:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Other reasonable sources GLAAD and LGBTNation. --Masem (t) 17:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

LGBT Nation says that Rebecca Heineman is transgender, which the BLP covers. It says nothing about Rebecca Heineman being lesbian. Gender identity and sexual preference are not the same thing. GLAAD says that Rebecca Heineman is LGBTQ without specifying which of those letters apply. Where is the source where Rebecca Heineman self-identifies as a lesbian? Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines says "A living person may be categorized and identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) only if they themselves publicly identify as such" (Isn't there a policy on this? I did a quick search but did not find it.) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

So looking around I found where she self-identified as trans from her livejournal here, while she makes a more explicit statement as to being lesbian in her twitter here [193]. I think as long as we are citing these directly after the statement, we should be good. --Masem (t) 01:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I will note that in the lead-in to this publication of the sameinterview, it says not that she is a lesbian (which would be them identifying her as such) but that she identifies as a lesbian, which would be reporting what she says about herself, even if it's not a quote. So if we accept that book as a RS, then we can accept that she has made such a self-identification. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone agree or disagree that the above establishes self-identification?-Guy Macon (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Never mind. Didn't notice the Twitter cite above. That one is unambiguous self-identification. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC: FrontPage Magazine

Should FrontPage Magazine be deprecated?--PatCheng (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of deprecation, it shouldn't even be an issue here. It's an hysteric phobic screed not worth a nob of goatshit.Nishidani (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Depreciate FrontPage is cited 400 times on Wikipedia per frontpagemag.com  . FrontPage is run by David Horowitz a far right anti muslim campaigner who is associated with Jihad Watch. According to the SPLC

  In 1988, Horowitz launched FrontPage Mag, an online publication that exists under his DHFC’s umbrella. FrontPage, which is still in operation, has become a platform for publishing a plethora of far-right and anti-Muslim writers and commentators. The DHFC employs a few dedicated writers to produce content on the website, including Daniel Greenfield, a prolific anti-Muslim blogger and writer.

  According to the SPLC piece FrontPage reprinted an altered version of an article from American Renaissance, a white nationalist publication. Any use of FrontPage as a source of opinion is likely to constitute undue weight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Definitely deprecate. Brought to you by the man behind the triumph of senselessness, Discover the Networks. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate near-zero due weight for just about anything. "Horowitz's racial bigotry is scarcely shocking for his website FrontpageMag.com often includes articles that “flirt dangerously with racism or even praise it outright.” One such example was a piece penned by John J. Ray which praised a “very scholarly” book on IQ by Christopher Brand, a devotee of eugenics who believes that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites.469 Horowitz has also extolled the virtues" of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a segregationist association." Springer book It's hard to find factual inaccuracies in this source because it's light on facts and often not even wrong. (t · c) buidhe 15:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• We need to start chipping away at those 400 times FrontPage is cited on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed my tithe of 10 this morning, as soon as I saw the link to the articles where it is used. If a couple of dozen editors reading here chip in for 10 minutes each, the whole mess could be fixed rapidly.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Deprecate. Clearly unreliable for facts, and the opinions are sufficiently problematic that we should never be citing those either. Guy (help!) 19:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate unreliable extremist site run by an unreliable extremist, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Depreciate as said above: totally unreliable extremist site. (That it was one of the inspirations for this shit doesn't help.) Huldra (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Deprecate The amount of factually incorrect information on this site means that it should never be cited. It's not different from other deprecated sources. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Previous discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4 — (t · c) buidhe 14:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)? memri.org   has been cited around 400 times on Wikipedia.

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Responses (MEMRI)

• Option 1 Yes there were some controversies in the past but but there was some controversies with other WP:RS doesn't meant we should disqualify it.It widely used by others WP:RS [194],[195],[196],[197] and I could find many more.Yes it have agenda like many others so it maybe best to attribute --Shrike (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Generally reliable, they do a very high volume of translations with only a very small percentage ever shown to be misleading or erroneous, and are heavily used by others. I don't think it's necessary to attribute because they aren't giving their opinion, just a straight translation of primary source material. However, that also means that, as Memri is a primary source, it doesn't lend weight unless the quoted material is covered by a secondary source. (t · c) buidhe 14:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Its an informal Israeli agitprop organization with strong Israeli defense connections. The question is, has MEMRI's documented methods, and purposes, which created the ruckus back then, changed, when it was exposed for altering a Palestinian child saying:'(They/Israelis) are shooting at us' to 'we will annihilate the Jews' Despite the protest of Arab translators, its founder Yigal Carmon, had the chutzpah to go on Glenn Beck's programme and defend the distortion as, yes, accurate, though he doesn't know Arabic. These are the precise words. He overrode the objections of CNN's translator, and insisted they translate it differently:

'You know, Octavia, the order of the words as you put it is upside down. .. Even someone who doesn't know Arabic would listen to the tape and would hear the word "Jews" at the end and it also means it is something to be done to Jews not by Jews.'

As independent experts on translation have noted.

Carmon does not just challenge the expertise of CNN's Arabic department here but also ignores what all Arabic grammars have to say on the structure of Arabic and the mobility of the object in Arab syntax.(See Mona Baker, 'Narratives of terrorism and Security: "Accurate" Translations, Suspicious Frames,' in her Researching Translation in the The Age of Technology and Global Conflict: Selected Works of Mona Baker, ed.Kyung Hye Kim, Yifan Zhu Routledge, 2019 ISBN 978-0-429-65670-5)

The man who refused to admit the translation was falsified, even when it was proven to be such, i.e. Carmon, still runs the outfit. He was a military intelligence colonel who had been the effective military governor of Palestinian territories for several years, and who was stoutly opposed to peace agreements with them, its method is to select the worst they can find on numerous Arab media outlets, and highlight the putative content, to create a sense of chronic terrorism in that world. They have upgraded their accuracy since, yes, but not changed their selectivity, and the aim of publishing whatever looks bad, however parochial, to skewer the 'Arabs'. The results are predictable. If any Arab organization imitated their tactics, they could produce the same hysteria by excerpting and translating from English motherlodes of stuff from Fox News the Drudge Report, and any of the thousands of shock jock radio programmes in the US, like those of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and take them as representing a threat to the world. A sense of proportion of what dickhead said what, where, and in what context is lost from view, as is invariably the case in intelligence disinformation operations like this, which use raw material that has some basis in reality, to influence public perceptions. Memri's translations should only be cited through secondary sources written by competent area scholars, and should never be used as a Primary Source, which is an open sesame to the usual wiki editor engaging in original research, usually for BLP articles.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Support Option 4 This is literally MEMRI... This is the poster child for a bad source which we use as a derogatory comparison for other sources. They have a long history of publishing both false translations and false analysis, I literally cant think of another organization in their space that does a worse job (if anyone can name them). If MEMRI isn't a 4 nobody is, they’re the bottom of the barrel. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

​I'm not so familiar with this source. When I look at its WP page, it seems like most specific incidents mentioned in the article occurred back around 2007, and I don't see a source that obviously talks about the reliability of MEMRI in a general sense. Do you know of sources that talk about MEMRI on a timespan longer than a single event, or that makes general statements about the source? If MEMRI is a poster child for this issue, then I assume I'd be able to look at articles about the issue somewhere. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you catch the "poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation” part? MEMRI faded out of relevancy in the early-mid twenty teens due to their hijinks, they are not currently regarded as reliable by anyone I know of and if you do a google news search for MEMRI you will find that they are no longer used as a source for translation or anything else by WP:RS as they once were. The news organizations all got burned by MEMRI, they’re not trusting them again. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Way back in 2002 we had the Guardian do a whole story on how unreliable MEMRI was, “Selective MEMRI” [198] which is still a good read. This sort of thing is why I’m surprised we’re having this conversation, we knew MEMRI was garbage two decades ago and they’ve done *nothing* to dispel that notion since. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, Lets not forget that Guardian has its own bias yes they selective but as many other biased sources that we do allow.And you own source says Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its output. Shrike (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion of reliability not bias and the Guardian's reliability is not up for dispute here. You will be overjoyed to learn that since 2002 there has been dispute over the general accuracy of Memri's translations as is covered extensively on the page. They got worse, not better. Nobody has yet made an argument that MEMRI satisfies WP:VERIFY, if you would like to then go for it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 at least and probably Option 4, according to Middle East Media Research Institute. We will mainly be using the translated documents and in fact often using MEMRI for the translations, because this is the English Wikipedia. The fact that those translations have been found to be be selective is a pressing concern. Guy (help!) 17:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Everyone has their bias and they regularly used by respectable WP:RS.I don't see any difference for example from Btselem if we allow such partisan sources with clear agenda there is no problem to allow Memri--Shrike (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with bias or partisanship, this discussion is about reliability. They also *used* to be regular used by WP:RS, they aren’t anymore (its down to maybe two Israeli papers and even then its infrequent). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly Book from 2017 [199] Book from 2018[200],Book from 2018 [201] Does it recent enough? Shrike (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Those appear to be from general commercial publishers not academic publishers. Try a google news search limited to the last month, thats always the easiest way to check relevancy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Please look again Routledge and Walter de Gruyter are academic publishers --Shrike (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Shrike (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You are right, I didn't recognize de Gruyter as it was rendered. Routledge is borderline with a more commercial outlook post 1998 although I’l give it to you if that moves the discussion along. My question still stands, they aren’t as widely used by WP:RS (particularly news outlets). Can you name three reliable news sources that have used them in the last month? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Not everything is picked by the media but here is an example from NYTIMES on last year [202] and washPO[203] from April 2020, BBC used their clip on their program [204] I think its recent enough.If they use it there is no problem that Wikipedia will use it--Shrike (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Those first two feature quotes from the head of MEMRI and discuss their published reports or soon to be published reports but they don’t make any comment about MEMRI’s reliability nor do they adopt those assertions as their own. MEMRI is certainly a notable think tank/advocacy group (thats why they have a wikipedia page) but neither of those speaks to their reliability. Can you specify when in the 27 minute audio clip the MEMRI bit is? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I liked the article about radical islamic groups exploiting Covid. Shrike. Yeah, MEMRI would report that. Neither it nor the mainstream media reported that Israel smashed a structure set up for a clinic in the poorest area of the West Bank, one that could have served Covid testing among Palestinian herders. Yes, B'tselem did report it, but of course that is, as you say, as biased as MEMRI, with the difference that the IDF itself recognizes B'tselem's accuracy, and B'tselem always reports Israeli casualties and deplores terrorism, from either side. Mainstream reportage is already notorious skewed to one partisan narrative without adding insult to injury.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment No one is saying that they translate everything, which would anyway be impossible. I don't see how being selective about what they cover is evidence of unreliability, but then again I don't think this source grants any due weight per WP:PRIMARY. If we don't use MEMRI, what do we use? Random WP editors translate stuff all the time without attribution and they certainly have much less evidence of being reliable. (t · c) buidhe 00:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

'If we don't use MEMRI, what do we use? .' If we had the option of being allowed to use any source simply because we have no other available, Wikipedia would be chaos.(b) I've long seen them translating an extensive quantity of obscure crap (my analogy with shock jocks). Who establishes what is newsworthy, MEMRI, an informal arm of Israeli intelligence? No, reliable secondary sources that establish relevance, notability and WP:Dueness.Nishidani (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 and I'm curious why this user is opening up RFC's on specific sources all of a sudden. What is the impetus behind it? I don't see any discussion on talk pages or anything drawing it to an RFC that preceded it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. Quoting Federico Zanettin's 2016 paper, [205], who notes some criticize MEMRI's selection of which pieces it translate but that:

  "The accuracy of the translation of the particular texts chosen by MEMRI is, however, generally not disputed, and MEMRI’s media releases seem to be regularly used as a source of information by mainstream media."

  MEMRI's translations are used widely. That MEMRI, as a media watchdog, is selective in choosing which pieces it covers is to be expected. In any event, the translations themselves are considered accurate.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. I'd be open to the argument that MEMRI had turned over a new leaf if they apologised for providing twisted translations, but in fact they doubled down on them. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Some instances of controversy don't warrant a deprecation. Yes, they are selective in the same sense as for instance SPLC is actively scanning for hateful content. As for political ramifications or controversy, you can't really blame them for Arab language TV channels broadcasting such content. --Pudeo (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 without independent confirmation. They took an interview with Norman Finkelstein on Lebanese TV and edited it so that he appeared to be a Holocaust denier. This episode alone proves that they cannot be trusted. The very reason MEMRI exists is to misrepresent the Arab (and Persian) world to the advantage of Israel. Zero^talk 12:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 maybe 4, seems there is enough smoke for a fire here:

Mona Baker (25 October 2018). Translation and Conflict: A narrative account. Taylor & Francis. pp. 137–. ISBN 978-0-429-79645-6.

Full text for free here. Zero^talk 13:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Christopher A. Bail (2 August 2016). Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream. Princeton University Press. pp. 82–. ISBN 978-0-691-17363-4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs)

• Option 4: MEMRI "translated" a child's response: ""I'm going to draw a picture" to "I will shoot". And they translated the child's "The Jews are shooting us" to "We will annihilate the Jews". (See Mona Baker, 2010, Narratives of terrorism and security: ‘accurate’ translations, suspicious frames), Worse than that: when confronted by their mis-translation, Yigal Carmon stated: "Yes, we stand by the translation by the very words, by the context, by the syntax, and every measure of the translation." (see Tomorrow's Pioneers#Translation_controversy. Mistakes are one thing; pretending your mistakes are correct is immensely worse. Huldra (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, per above comments, this org has clearly published fabricated content deliberately and systematically, and therefore they should be deprecated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 Fairly simple, imo. The degree of misinterpretation points towards disinformation, further affirmed by the long form publications presented above. Not to mention the ties with the Israeli intelligence community are not endorsements. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 This seems pretty clear to me just based on what others are saying. If they did anything like what Zero or Huldra are saying they did this is unambiguously a 4, and the supporters of 1 frankly don't seem to have a lot of evidence backing them up. Loki (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. Did people here actually read Mona Baker who is cited above? Ignoring the fact she is a leader in the boycott movement (The Times: Don’t play the nutty professor with David Irving, International Journal of Discrimination and the Law : Boycotting Israeli academia: Is its implementation anti-Semitic?), her article after noting one contested translation of an ambiguous passage in Hamas-run TV, is all about narrative complaining that MEMRI highlighting hate speech in terrorist-run TV promotes a narrative). Baker concludes with the opposite point on translation: "more important argument that I have tried to elaborate here is that attempts by Arab and pro-Arab activists to challenge neo-conservative organisations such as MEMRI by casting doubt on the accuracy of their translations miss the point. A group called MEMRI Watch for instance, operated for a short while in 2007 ... but clearly did not find enough such instances to justify continued engagement". Baker herself does not contest MEMRI being accurate. Other editors above have pointed out sources showing use of MEMRI translations by both media and scholars. It is used by others, and even ideological opponents admit that the translations are generally accurate. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Very astute comment, I would like to add that Wikipedia guidelines explicitly allow any user to translate content without infringing on reliable source or original research. No one arguing that the source should be deprecated has been able to show that it is less accurate or reliable at translating material than the average Wikipedia editor. One disputed translation certainly doesn't do it. (t · c) buidhe 08:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Since you are refering to Baker (2010), I did read it and I think you're missing the point she is making as well, the question isn't about mistranslation but misinterpretation or in her words "misleading narrations". It is very much possible to produce factually incorrect translations with accurate translations, however odd that might sound. The point she is referring to in the quoted line is present in the introducing lines of the "Narration theory" section.

The model of analysis adopted here, and which makes it possible to demonstrate how narratives elaborated about Arab and Muslim communities through translation do not have to be ‘linguistically inaccurate’ to be misleading, is elaborated in greater detail in Baker (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009) and elsewhere.

For example, in english one can say "I want a hotdog" which can be accurately translated to mean "I want a dog that's hot" which can also be accurately translated to mean "I want a dog that's attractive", etc. This gets even easier and much more confusing when you add another language to it. There's an example of it in Baker (2018) long form.

MEMRI insisted that Bin Laden 'threatened each U.S. state, and offered an election deal to the American voters - a sort of amnesty for states that don't vote for Bush', and that 'the U.S. media have mistranslated the words "ay wilaya" to mean a "country" or "nation" other than the U.S'

(Ball 2016; linked above) and Harris 2003 make similar observations as well. The Baker (2018) long form has referenced the latter. (Bolding is my own)

Harris (2003) similarly insists that 'MEMRI engages in the practice of publishing selective and decontextualized excerpts of the Arabic press in ways that can present opponents of [Israel's] occupation as religious extremists or Anti-semites'

It should also be noted that the MEMRI Watch that is referenced to by her in your quoted text has still also found instances of direct mistranslations and doctoring albeit perhaps not as much as expected. At the very least MEMRI is an advocacy group with questionable reliability and questionable independence in relation to a belligerent party in a conflict zone. I don't see how this is of any value for encyclopedic purposes. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Harris(2003) is a Counterpunch essay, hardly a high quality source. Baker is a leader in the boycott movement, she has her own narrative. Both are are relatively dated. In contrast, Zanettin, Federico. "‘The deadliest error’: translation, international relations and the news media." The Translator 22.3 (2016): 303-318, is a later academic work by a neutral party who refers both to Baker and Harris (whom Baker cites) that states:

"Various commentators have, however, questioned MEMRI’s impartiality, both in view of its covert ideological standpoint12 and in consideration of the apparent bias in the choice of source material it translates. Harris argues that ‘MEMRI engages in the practice of publishing selective and decontextualized excerpts of the Arabic press in ways that can present opponents of [Israeli’s] occupation [of Palestinian territories] as religious extremists or anti-Semites’ (Harris 2003) This ‘selective appropriation strategy’ is also discussed by Mona Baker (2006, 108–109), who similarly contends that the choice of material translated contributes to the elaboration of a narrative which portrays those who oppose neoconservative politics as extremists. The accuracy of the translation of the particular texts chosen by MEMRI is, however, generally not disputed, and MEMRI’s media releases seem to be regularly used as a source of information by mainstream media."

In short, the translations themselves are accurate even according to detractors.11Fox11 (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (MEMRI)

MEMRI has been substantially discussed three times, but these were between 2007 and 2009, over a decade ago. 1 2 3 Given that much of the controversy over MEMRI's translations is over a decade old, so I would like to know if anything has changed since then. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

They’ve gotten worse not better, its bottom of the barrel sludge and I say that as someone on the Israeli side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Bollywood Hungama

I see the source from this cite is cited generally in Bollywood related articles as according to my research its one of the reliable sources when it comes for Bollywood related stuff, Still i wanted to confirm weather i shall take this as Reliable or not? some of the examples of this used as a reference is Imran Khan (Bollywood actor) and Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards and (https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebrity/vivek-verma/filmography/) ref for Vivek Verma.Stonertone (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Bollywoodhungama may have some pieces which are reliable but links to filmography are not reliable for the purposes of establishing notability or much of anything else for the same reason iMDb isn't. Praxidicae (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Zak Smith#RfC: Allegations of Rape Sourced to Game Blogs and Fanzines

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zak Smith#RfC: Allegations of Rape Sourced to Game Blogs and Fanzines. This invitation particularly pertains to those who are knowledgeable in the area of reliable sources. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 04:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Based on this version, sources are below. There are also denials from Smith's website.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Quartz

Is Quartz [206] a reliable source and can it be used in a Wikipedia article. Also, if something is featured in Quartz does it establish notability. Quartz has a Wikipedia article: see Quartz. Thank you.

• I see no reason not to treat it as a normal WP:NEWSORG. Was there a particular issue where it's being used that you were wondering about? - David Gerard (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable, probably something akin to the Intercept (see recent above) in that exceptional claims should probably attribted to them but that's it. --Masem (t) 16:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This is the site: Quartz (publication) - mostly I know them for their pop science coverage; worst I've seen from them is slightly breathless bitcoin coverage, but I haven't seen anything that would make me go "what on earth", they're not even particularly controversial in their coverage - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I've seen Quartz and used them, never seen them in anything overly controversial, but just as they are not NYTimes or BBC, if they ever put their heads into a hot topic, just the usual caution I would give these types of sites. --Masem (t) 16:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you for your response. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

stalkerzone as a source for claim about Bellingcat

One of our editors recently posted a link[207] to an article on the site stalkerzone which claimed that Bellingcat was in the process of manufacturing evidence of Russian interference in the 2020 United States presidential election.[208] There has been no previous discussion about the reliability of stalkerzone although it is being used as a source in three articles on wikipedia. Does anyone know anything about this site and whether it would be a reliable source for this claim? Burrobert (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable It describes itself as "• Anti-capitalist. Anti-war. Anti-liberal. For building a better world for our present and future children. Searching for and transmitting important information." Looks like an incredibly dodgy SPS/group blog, absolutely not reliable. There's no link with any of the bylines and I suspect that they might be fake pseudonyms of a single author. The twitter link identifies the author as Ollie Richardson, which from this tweet looks like he supports George Soros conspiracy theories. Sourcewatch identifies Ollie Richardson as a "translator", but doesn't specify the source of the content, it also states that he was involved in the production of "8 Months in Ukraine (Euromaidan - MH17)", a pro-russian documentary. I would never trust this source for any information that was only found there. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Can't tell yet about reliability, but this looks like a very, very marginal source (at least based on English-language sources). I can find almost no references to it in English-language material. Given that Wikipedia can use non-English material, it is always possible that weight could be established from sources I cannot review, however. Given this, even if this source is eventually determined reliable, it may not be admissible from a perspective of weight.

From a reliability standpoint, this site is ringing alarm-bells. Its about page indicates some off-putting perspectives: "Anti-capitalist. Anti-war. Anti-liberal. / For building a better world for our present and future children." Looking through a variety of articles, it seems like the primary editorial perspective of this site is "Ukraine Bad." One thing that stood out was its editorial style in its article Nazi Militant Biletsky: We Need to Strike Donbass the Same Way Israel Strikes Palestine. It is just... odd? It kind of just translates from what it describes as a Nazi and lets that text sit there without any additional context.

Again, I have not looked deeply at this source, but I would definitely want the editor suggesting it to provide evidence of reliability and weight prior to inclusion. Jlevi (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Russian disinformation. Worthless as a source. Guy (help!) 22:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it Hemiauchenia and Jlevi. I'll refrain from including the statement until we get independent confirmation. Burrobert (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

They're literally a blog that doesn't know how to put people in the byline field in their CMS. Their very pro-Russian stance (nor their stances on other issues) isn't nearly as much of a problem as the fact they're obviously a self-published source. I wouldn't go so far as to characterize it as "Russian disinformation" though. They're clearly just a pro-Putin blog and I see no reason to disbelieve that their opinion on the homosexuals infiltrating America [209] aren't actually held by them. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 05:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Dodgy as hell, deprecate.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Journal of Natural Science Biology and Medicine

Is this reliable?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4518420/

Cited at Talk:Ayurveda#Suggestion to Shed Biases in response to Talk:Ayurveda##Tooth Fairy Science. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable There are always predatory publishers willing to publish bogus studies supporting the effacy of traditional medicines, so I was supicious from the start. The publisher of the journal Phcog.net, an Indian organisation, is obscure, but was on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers between 2012 and 2015. Per WP:RSMED primary studies on the effacy of treatments should not be cited in articles as they lend undue weight to the effectivess of treatments in comparison to reviews. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable. Medknow is a curate's egg, with some good journals but a lot of bad ones. Thgis oine uses some fake impact factors and other indicia of bogosity, and the paper itself is a standard True Believer comparison of a normal procedure branded with Added Extra Woo, and a different procedure. Indian-authored papers on ayurveda and homeopathy are as unrelibale as chinese-authored papers on TCM. Guy (help!) 22:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• (EC) Unreliable Going off the objective parts of the Think.Check.Submit checklist for trustworthy journals: It is not indexed by DOAJ, the Directory of Open Access Journals. It's published by Medknow (a publisher of one of the journals duped by the Bohannon sting), but is not among the Medknow publications affiliated with COPE. It is not an OASPA member. Compare the qualifications of their editors with those of a medium impact journal like eLife. The latter team comprises scientists who are all at least established associate professors running their own labs, and is mostly full profs and directors of institutes. JNSBM lists, as full editors, current PhD students. Their editorial board includes an associate professor of electrical engineering, a "research scientist" with only a BA in physics, and someone whose only google search hits are the JNSBM board page and some unsecure mirror site for "Journal of Contradicting Results in Science" (that has an archived list of the editorial board of the phcog predecessor(?) scibiomed). Probably their most distinguished board member is a pharmaceutical sciences department head whose university profile lists many, many professional affiliations and memberships (including editorships) but does not mention JNSBM.

why did I spend so much time digging into their editorial board

The first 5 editors listed on their site: Editor-in-Chief: Arun HS Kumar -- ok research background, although his linkedin education section is cluttered with a variety of corporate "certifications" and the rest of his profile has a highly entrepreneurial/commercial bent. I also can't find evidence that his Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree from UAS Bangalore is legit (it doesn't appear as a program on the site now), especially as he describes that degree as an "undergraduate program"... But he does at least have a PhD in pharmacology (2004) with focus on cardiovascular pharmacology, and lists his involvement in phcog.net. Is apparently a research group director at U Dublin. Editors Barbara Kemp-Harper -- PhD in pharmacology (1995), focus on pulmonary vascular function. Research fellow/senior lecturer (not professor) at Monash, but does lead research groups. Doesn't mention involvement with phcog or JNSBM. Chien-Ling Huang -- PhD (2009), focus on cardiovascular regenerative medicine. Assistant prof. at Hong Kong Poly, spent ~4 years as a post-doc in Ireland. Doesn't list involvement with JNSBM. Early career, not a major publisher in her field. Gustavo Adolfo Lopes Ferreira da Silva -- Does not have doctoral degree, but has three MScs in pharm, chem, and herbal medicine and is currently a PhD student at the university at which JNSBM claims he is a "principal investigator" (he does not show up on their list of funded projects or researchers or staff). Lists association with JNSBM in linkedin bio. Some low-impact pubs. Jitesh Iyer -- PhD in cell bio (2007), focus on inflammation, oxidative stress. According to his linkedin, he started editing JNSBM in 2009 while working at a pharma company.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

faluninfo.net

• faluninfo.net  

This is cited a number of times but appears to be an activist website for the Falun Gong cult, of no obvious reliability. Guy (help!) 22:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

They claim to be the press office for Falun Gong. [210] They're clearly a self published source and we should treat them as we do any other "information" websites for religious movements. WP:ABOUTSELF likely applies here, assuming they're telling the truth about their affiliations. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 23:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable. This website is absolutely a mouthpiece for the Falun Gong (a.k.a. Falun Dafa), as described by independent researcher Noah Porter who has written a number of scholarly articles about Falun Gong. Porter wrote in Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study that faluninfo.net is a Falun Gong website. Benjamin Penny, another scholar who has written extensively about the Falun Gong, said in The Religion of Falun Gong (2012) that faluninfo.net is a Falun Gong website.

The website lists a number of staff[211] who may be quoted in news sources about the Falun Gong. For instance, Levi Browde, executive director of faluninfo.net, shows up a lot in reports about the Falun Gong.[212][213][214][215] Similarly, spokesperson Erping Zhang has written or been quoted about Falun Gong topics.[216][217][218] I think we should count faluninfo.net unreliable, as well as any statement by a member of their staff. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Fine to use with attribution, and/or to cite the views of the Falun Gong group itself. This is basically the press office for the Falun Gong spiritual movement (dubbed a "cult" by the Chinese government, which tries to eradicate the practice through extrajudicial killings, mass imprisonment, reeducation programs, etc.) The Falun Dafa Information Centre is frequently cited by scholars, human rights groups, and government bodies. It is sometimes treated as a reliable source in itself, or as a reliable source for the views of Falun Gong. Sometimes it's cited the caveat that data related to the persecution in China published by the Falun Dafa Information Centre cannot be independently verified. We can do the same on the encyclopedia.TheBlueCanoe 05:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  TheBlueCanoe, it is a new religious movement, which is the new name for cults. Being a cult does not mean that they are not ruthlessly suppressed, just as being wildly successful litigants does not make Scientology somehow not a cult. Guy (help!) 08:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, when contributing to a reliable source noticeboard, wouldn't it be best to keep the discussion neutral and not engage in tendentious comments about the subject in question? The entire status of the term "cult" is useless as a social science category (one woman's cult is another's religion, as the saying goes). By using this label here, other editors may well be prejudiced against the group and not refer to the actual data that should be determinative in the decision. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Having visited the website and looked through it, and scanning the sources The Blue Canoe posted, I think we can say that the Falun Dafa Information Center is a reliable source for the views of the Falun Dafa Information Center, which seems to be the most professional entity Falun Gong has got to an official vehicle for communication. I.e. it's the source for Falun Gong's official view on itself and whatever else. It's a primary source so must be used with care, but it seems obviously reliable for representing Falun Gong's own views. TheBlueCanoe has shown how the source is used by human rights groups, scholars, and Congress. Thus it's a primary source, but there's no indication that it has any problems not inherent to all primary sources. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  Cleopatran Apocalypse, so it's a cult's source for the cult's views, and thus useless for anything else (e.g. statements of fact about China, where it would clearly be completely unreliable). Guy (help!) 08:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

References

• Obviously not reliable. Falun Gong is not a reliable source about itself: Keep in mind this is the same organization behind The Epoch Times and numerous other propaganda extensions, who are absolutely not reliable. Best to stick to secondary reliable sources on these topics for evertything about the organization and topic. Beware single-purpose accounts swarming around this topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Scientific American

• scientificamerican.com  

Is Scientific American a reliable source? It's not on the WP:RSP list. A lot of their articles are written by guest posters who are generally working at Universities in teaching positions. Sxologist (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It's reliable depending on the context. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. And while Scientific American doesn't only post on topics that fall within the WP:MEDRS realm, WP:MEDRS does address it in its WP:MEDPOP section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Omniglot

Is omniglot.com a reliable source? It's a resource about writing systems of different languages, but it seems to be managed by only one person. I also know that users can send an email to the site manager to request information to add. In some cases this has resulted in the addition of personal writing systems or obscure systems that may not be widely used (especially in the constructed scripts section of the website). On the page about requesting a script to be added, the author of the website says "I don't add every alphabet I receive to this site - only the ones that really appeal to me." His basis for adding a page for a writing system is if it looks good, not if it is notable or well-sourced.

This source is cited in multiple pages sometimes being one of the only websites cited:

• Writing systems of Southeast Asia
• Bengali numerals
• Writing systems of Africa
• Hawaiian alphabet
• Languages of Djibouti
• Toki Pona
• Folkspraak
• etc. (it's often found in the resources section of a page about a language or its writing system)

LesVisages (talk)

Monkey Cage

The Monkey Cage appears to be a political blog hosted by the Washington Post. This view is supported by the publisher's (John Sides') description of TMC. Specifically: "TMC is an independent site currently published here at the Washington Post." The "articles" published under the Monkey Channel banner are not subject to editorial review or fact-checking by The Washington Post. I would like clarification on two points:

1. Should articles published under the Monkey Channel banner be cited as articles published by The Washington Post?
2. Should articles published under the Monkey Channel banner be afforded the same reliable source designation as articles in The Washington Post?

If it helps, one of the Monkey Channel articles in question is titled "The white press has a history of endangering black lives going back a century". There are several problems with this article - I can elaborate if necessary. Seamusdemora (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The Monkey Cage is run by recognized experts and all the op-eds are written by recognized experts. The blog does have editors and they do provide editorial oversight. The author of the article you're talking about is Megan Ming Francis, an associate professor at the University of Washington, and author of Civil Rights and the Making of the Modern American State (Cambridge University Press, 2014). The article in question appears to be derived from parts of her peer-reviewed Cambridge University Press book. So, to answer your questions: The article in question is a reliable source. The Monkey Cage blog is a reliable source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure "recognized experts" is defined somewhere - could you share that with me?

I'm also curious how an article with a clear and obvious flaw in it can be declared "reliable". Are "recognized experts" relieved of all responsibility for accurate and factual reporting? And I'm not talking about a difference of opinion - this is a clear and obvious gaffe. Seamusdemora (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

She is a PhD, she is a professor and has published peer-reviewed research. Thus, she is a recognized expert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Newsweek reports on exclusive reporting from The Daily Mail

Newsweek recently published an article entitled Mary Trump's Brother Says She Shouldn't Publish Tell-All Trump Book.

Mary L. Trump, Donald Trump's niece, is about to publish Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man.

When she and her brother, Fred Trump III, challenged the will of their grandfather, Donald Trump kicked them off the list of family members whose medical care was paid for by a foundation set up their late grandfather. Donald, and his siblings, used the desperately needed medical coverage to force them to agree to a settlement of their claim on the estate.

Now, Newsweek reports her brother, whose son has expensive on-going medical expenses, called on her not to publish her book, out of fear it violates a non-disclosure agreement they signed, in 2001, which will trigger terminating the medical coverage of their branch of the family.

So far, so good, right?

Except Newsweek's reporting relies on reporting from The Daily Mail. Some years ago there was a long discussion over whether contributors should be prohibited from using The Daily Mail in references. I came across this discussion, which I personally disagreed with, after its closure.

What I am looking for today was endorsement of using RS that trusted The Daily Mail's journalist's reporting. In this particular case Newsweek reported

"At the time that our lawsuit with the family was resolved, Mary and I had each received a generous financial settlement from the family and were more than willing to agree to execute non-disclosure provisions, all of which had been approved and recommended by our attorneys and advisors at that time," Fred Trump III said in a statement obtained by The Daily Mail.

We consider Newsweek an RS because we trust the profession standards of its jounralists and editors. So, I suggest that we allow the use of Newsweek, and other RS, that choose to base their reporting on exclusive reporting from The Daily Mail. Geo Swan (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Newsweek, post-2013, is situational, and I would definitely not use it to re-quote DM. (In 2013 Newsweek was purchased by an organization that decided to degrade the quality of its reporting and took it into clickbait material).

But if there was a hypothetical case of a good RS like the NYTimes quoting the Daily Mail for the same statement, that would be fine, as long as it is clear the statement came via the DM's ringer with our referencing showing the NYtimes blessed it that way. (We don't have to mention the NYtimes in running prose). --Masem (t) 01:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Could you clarify "took it into clickbait material"?
• Practically every traditional newspaper and magazine's future is threatened. Their old revenue models had them relying on (1) print ads; (2) subscriptions.

Now that advertizers have more options, like advertizing online, publications have a deficit to make up elsewhere. Subscriptions are down also, as readers read news online.

Consequently print publications have tried other revenue streams, including:

1. Paywalls. The NYTimes tried their first paywall system, a decade ago, for about three years. They decided to go paywall free, for several years. They are on their second paywall system. I decided to pay up, because I use them so often, even though there are workarounds, like opening all your articles in an incognito window, or looking for the version on the wayback machine. Publications can use clever programming to defeat those techniques. I figure that, when they don't, it is because they have found those counter-measures interfere with their paid-up subscribers.
2. Including paid links, to other sites - maybe what you call "clickbait material", at the bottom of their own legitimate articles, links that might be confused for their own legitimate articles. No, those third party links were not subjected to the review of their editors. But, if this is what you mean by "took it into clickbait material", I think your standards are too narrow.

   Even if, for the sake of argument, Newsweek were providing paid third party links, that kind of looked like links to their own articles, but were actually external links to crap non-articles, that tricked readers into reading about, I don't know, boner-pills, this will not fool any competent wikipedia contributor into using a non-RS link in an article.

   1. First, any competent wikipedia contributor, who didn't recognize they followed a link from a legitimate publication, to an illegitimate article on a third party site, will recognize this when they go to populate their {{cite news}} template, and they see the URL they copied is not from Newsweek.com, but rather is from BonerPills.com.
   2. In my experience the third party links to less reliable sites - to what you might call "clickbait material", aren't hard to distinguish from legitimate publication's internal links to their own legitimate articles.

• What are your favourite RS? Are you sure they too don't provide some links to third party sites that could be mistaken for a link to one of their own articles, if you were tired?
• If we were to prohibit use of all RS that accepted paid links to third party sites that might look like articles, we'd have to prohibit not just Newsweek, but a significant fraction of the RS we use.
• With regard to Newsweek, post new ownership - did you have the url to any Newsweek articles that were demonstrably unreliable, since te purchase?

  Could you provide even one url to an unreliable Newsweek article, where the unreliability is due to the recent purchase?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

See This RFC in Dec 2019 that put Newsweek post-2013 into the "generally not reliable" category. As you read there, in 2013, it was bought by International Business Times (IBT) which drove it to clickbait journalism. It had some newsworthy stories but the site serves more to drive clicks for ads and not serious journalism as it once was. This is not about advertising (which all sources have) or the once-in-a-while story meant to get you to click on, but that's not their day-to-day purpose. --Masem (t) 18:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• I was not familiar with the 2019 discussion you linked to above. Thanks. I am going to want to take a good look at it.

The Guardian says "In a statement, which the Mail said was provided by Eric Trump, the president’s second son, Fred Trump III said: “At the time that our lawsuit with the family was resolved, Mary and I had each received a generous financial settlement from the family and were more than willing to agree to execute non-disclosure provisions … in my opinion, those provisions of the 2001 settlement agreement are still in effect and binding today.' So, basically the same quote Newsweek used. Geo Swan (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian would be sufficient to bless that quote from the Daily Mail without having to source the DM --Masem (t) 21:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That is sourcing Daily Mail, The Guardian tells you the source is Daily Mail. WP:DAILYMAIL says "nor should it be used as a source in articles", and WP:RS says "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." So you'd be violating both WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:RS. You can propose an exception to the ban, but it's easier to leave out the quote. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That is not sourcing the Daily Mail. We routinely allow the use of unreliable sources that are quoted in a reliable source as along as the name of the unreliable source is asserted in that statement. The fact that a well-respected reliability source (The Guardian) has decided to quote the DM here (with attribution in their articles) means we should consider that at face value by taking the Guardian as the source. As a hypothetical, what if the Guardian simply restated what Eric Trump said but didnt state the origin of the quote? Is that an issue ? Again, the DM ban was using DM directly. This is not that. --Masem (t) 22:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Saying not doesn't make a not, the source is Daily Mail. I quoted WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:RS, you replied with assertions backed by no references to any RfC result or guideline or administrative closer's statement. And if your hypothetical had happened, then the source would have been The Guardian, but it didn't happen. Instead The Guardian, which you call well-respected, says the source is Daily Mail, so respect that. The Daily Mail ban was about using Daily Mail. This is that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

When we usually say "use as a source on WP" that means "using it as what comes in the ref/citation tags". That another source that we consider reliable compiled information from the DM should impact the use of that reliable source at all, because we are not touching the DM directly as a reference. It's still why the source quoting the DM should be a high quality source because we're trusting in that source that they believe what they're using from the DM is legit. Otherwise, you are now creating a case where for any source, we need to check that they don't use DM or any other deprecated sources, then check recursively the remaining sources and check for DM and other sources, and so on. Its why I consider it a "blessed" aspect, so that we are putting the onus on the Guardian to take the fall if the DM falsified the information there.

Also remember that the RFC's language is should not be used not must not be used. It is not a total ban against the DM as a source but we should be always questioning if the use is needed, like is if this case is UNDUE or not (I don't know). --Masem (t) 23:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Peter Gulutzan, WP:Verify says we should aim for verifiability, not truth. Now, apparently, we have made specific decisions to not use articles from They Daily Mail, or post-2013 Newsweek, as references. But if the reliable professional journalist and editors, at The Guardian, or The New York Times, decide an article from Newsweek or The Daily Mail is worth reporting on, prohibiting their reliable reporting, wouldn't that lapse from WP:NPOV, WP:Verify, and WP:NOTCENSORED?
• Thought experiment - did you see that movie The Interview, which may have triggered North Korean cyber-warriors to retaliate against Sony, for producing a film they thought insulted their leader?

  In that film James Franco plays a moronic interviewer, like Alec Jones of Infowars, disrespected by everyone - except the leader of North Korea. He scores an interview with the leader of North Korea - the only westerner to ever get an interview with him. Suppose Alec Jones, of infowars, scored an interview with the leader of North Korea, or some other politician who never gives interviews? We decided not to allow references to articles from infowars, but The Guardian, and The New York Times would not ignore an interview with a country's leader, even if it came from infowars. If Alec Jones seemed to accept highly questionable assertions, at face value, how would The Guardian or The New York Times report them?

  They'd probably say, something like, "Kim Jung Un told Alec Jones that North Korea had the fairest justice system in the World, but, when The Times asked JQ Smartypants, author of North Korea Today, he named a large number of North Koreans arrested and held without charge, in 2019."

  When an RS covers something published in an Unreliable Source, it is not necessarily an endorsement of the POV of the original unreliable source. And, when an RS comments on material first published in an unreliable source, without an explicit challenge, that is still not an endorsement of the conclusions in the unreliable source.

  In my experience many wikipedia contributors do not attribute comments to their sources, often enough. Exclusive reporting from The New York Times should be attributed to The New York Times, even by contributors who consider it the most highly reliable source.

• WRT NPOV, The New York Times is an RS. I'm not. Masem isn't an RS. Jimbo Wales isn't an RS. And you aren't an RS. Prohibiting coverage of NYTimes coverage of reporting from an unreliable source is pitting the judgement of the professional journalists and editors at the NYTimes, who are RS against your judgement and my judgement, individuals who are not RS. I think our policies are clear. The editorial judgement of wikipedia contributors should never trump those of RS.
• I've made this point in other discussions. During my fifteen years here I must have made well over 10,000 edits to articles where I personally disagreed with every RS. I think contributors in that situation have just two policy compliant choices. (1) Do our best to fairly and neutrally cover the RS we disagree with; or (2) walk away, and let other contributors work on those articles. I think I did an okay job of ignoring my personal conclusions, and fairly and neutrally covering what RS wrote. I think any contributor can do that, if they try hard enough. I'd like to be able to count on every other contributor to stick to those two choices. Can I count on you to set your personal opinion aside, and rely on the RS you personally disagree with? Geo Swan (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Determining whether a source is SPS in deciding whether BLPSPS applies

I have two general questions arising from the WP:BLPSPS prohibition:

(1) WP:BLP speaks to “information [or material] about living persons.” If a non-biographical WP article includes info about a living person, am I correct in understanding that the material about other content doesn’t have to meet BLP standards, even though the material that refers to the person does have to meet BLP standards?

(2) Given the WP:BLPSPS prohibition, how do we determine what constitutes WP:SPS when it’s unclear whether the author and publisher are the same / whether it’s a SPS? I'll specify 3 sources below, in "More background."

Background:

• I’m a “learner”-stage editor, and I’ve been working on a draft for the legal case US v. Flynn, which has just been split from Michael Flynn’s page. Flynn’s page is clearly BLP, and I want to check whether the entirety of US v Flynn is BLP or only the sections that focus on Flynn, Judge Sullivan, or some other specific person.
• Some online legal fora, such as Just Security, appear in the references for US v. Flynn. They’re written by experts and are WP:RS for appropriate claims (perhaps in the author’s voice rather than WP’s voice, depending on the particulars), but I’m trying to determine whether they’re SPS and have to be rejected as BLPSPS.

I’d appreciate a more general discussion of my questions, as the issues aren’t limited to US v. Flynn and specific sources, or even to pages about legal cases and online legal fora. Depending on the discussion, it may be that WP should slightly revise Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works, and Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources. Or, if the general questions should be discussed someplace else, please let me know.

More background, this time about three online legal fora where I'm wondering if they're SPSs:

• “Just Security [219] is based at the Reiss Center on Law and Security [RCLS] at New York University School of Law,” is “editorially-independent” of RCLS, and has a large editorial board of experts (see the masthead: [220]). Some of the editors work at NYU and others of don't; some (maybe all) of the editors sometimes publish articles there. It also has an advisory board: [221].
• Lawfare [222] is “Published by the Lawfare Institute in cooperation with Brookings.” The Lawfare Institute and Brookings are both 501(c)(3)s, and the former only exists to support the blog. It has multiple editors: [223]; some are at Lawfare/Brookings, some are faculty at law schools and/or associated with other non-profits such as the Hoover Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations. The editors sometimes publish their own articles; other times they publish work by others.
• SCOTUSblog [224] strikes me as self-published for the primary staff. But they also publish work by diverse other legal scholars (e.g,. in sponsored symposia), and I'm wondering if it becomes more like an outside publisher at that point. They are extremely reliable, have a neutrality policy, publish corrections, and are cited by MSM and legal scholars.

None is self-published in the sense of an individual or group Wordpress blog.

Yet more background: I discussed this with a few editors while trying to get clear on my questions and where to ask them before learning about this noticeboard and bringing them here. I’m including links to those discussions for reference, but no need to read them:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Online_fora_as_reliable_sources_(or_not)_for_factual_info_and_commentary_on_legal_issues (permalink)
• User_talk:FactOrOpinion#Where_to_post_question_re:_intersection_of_WP:SPS,_WP:BLP,_legal_cases,_and_legal_fora_as_sources (permalink2)
• User_talk:FactOrOpinion#Q2_Re_"Never_use_self-published_sources_as_third-party_sources_about_living_people,_even_if_the_author_is_an_expert,_well-known_professional_researcher,_or_writer." (permalink3)

I’ve searched a few different talk archives but haven’t found clear answers to my questions. Some of what I found that’s relevant:

Some discussion of SPS/not-SPS in terms of things like editorial scrutiny, author-publisher connection, and whether the current definition of SPS would imply exclusion of government publications:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_37#One_topic_publishing_house_acceptable_as_RS?
• Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_63#Definition_of_Self-Published
• Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Publisher_as_employer

Some discussion of scholarly online fora and whether they’re RSs:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_225#Question_on_Blogs - includes discussion of fora such as: SCOTUSblog, Just Security, Lawfare Blog, and The Volokh Conspiracy (law), The Monkey Cage (political science), Skeptical Science and Retraction Watch (science/science policy)
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_38#Tom_Goldstein_and_SCOTUSblog_as_sources_for_Supreme_Court_articles and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_91, both saying more about SCOTUSblog.

Sorry that this is so long. I’ve tried to condense, but also wanted to include relevant background. Thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. just learned that someone has published the US v. Flynn draft, so I'm updating the URL: United_States_v._Flynn

-- FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

In general, when we say "Self-published sourced" and its application to SPSBLP, we're talking about a singular individual or a very small group that publishes without editorial control, so that we're not letting small solitary voices be able to throw their weight around, but it is good to be cautious. We're also talking about a legal

SCOTUSblog is not an SPS. They have an editoral staff, and while they are connected with a law firm they aim for impartial coverage of events at SCOTUS (and whenever a case that the firm is part of comes up, they always add that disclaimer). See [225]. So no issues there. Just Security has the same set of principles and approach that I can see, so again, I would think they are fine. And same with Lawfare. Now, I can't speak much to the last two but I can speak to SCOTUSBlog and there, you just want to watch the difference between case summary and opinions by others that submit to it. Eg at SCOTUSBlog Amy Howe is their workhorse in writing the SCOTUS news, and nearly all her pieces can be taken as RSFACT while they often get a number of guest contributors that are clearly RSOPINIONS. So to take a recent case page like [226], all those that start with Symposium should be treated as opinions. --Masem (t) 01:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem - Thanks. I agree that SCOTUSblog is very reliable, and I'm comfortable separating out RSFACT and RSOPINIONS. But my concern is partly with how WP defines SPS: "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same." As best I can tell, Amy Howe is both a key writer and a publisher there. Could you say more about why you think "SCOTUSblog is not an SPS," as distinct from it being RS and ethical? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Amy Howe is not the "publisher" for SCOTUSBlog but ...uh, Goldstein and Assoc. I think ? Additionally, with the editorial staff sitting between her and and publishing (outside of the live blogs). That clearly sets it apart from what we'd normally take as an SPS. Key is that editorial staff, as it doesn't let Amy or any other writer (even their opinion pieces) to write their mind without a editorial check. --Masem (t) 03:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Amy Howe and Tom Goldstein are married, and they both founded SCOTUSblog when the firm was Goldstein and Howe. She eventually left the firm to work fulltime on SCOTUSblog. Presumably they're the ones who employ those editors and other people, which would make them the publishers. This highlights the challenge of figuring out whether something is a SPS under the current definition (e.g., what kinds of details one has to ferret out) and also whether the current defintion of SPS (which boils down to author = publisher) is a good one. Because even if author = publisher for Amy Howe, there are lots of other legal experts whose work is published by SCOTUSblog, and for them author =/= publisher. So do we conclude that in a situation where some authors are publishers and others aren't, then it's not SPS? or do we conclude that it's SPS for articles written by the author-publishers but not the rest? I agree that independent editorial oversight (as contrasted with editors who simply do as ordered) should be central to the distinction between SPS and not-SPS. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There's enough of a distinction in the two agencies (SCOTUSBLog and the law firm, despite the married relationship and past factors) that its still not a self-published blog. When we're talking self-published, the intent are things like posting to social media, or a personal blog space, or a company or group posting to their website's own blog but with no clear sign of any oversight in that post. Things like SCOTUSBlop, or the Southern Poverty Law Center, or the American Civil Liberties Union when they post items to their websites, while the groups are "self publishing", we do not consider these SPSs, there is that factor that there is editorial oversight and control that prevent raw thoughts from going from pen to publication without any check, and that's basically what's the distinguishing factor here. But basically, the SPS is more gears to individual blogs more than anything else. --Masem (t) 13:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've got to disagree with Masem a bit on this. While the obvious cases of self-publishedness are social media and personal blog spaces, our policy doesn't end there. The full determination is whether or not there are independent reviewers, (those without a conflict of interest) are there to check content. Certain organizations (aka advocacy groups) have an inherent conflict of interest with regards to their own advocacy, and as such their internal review mechanisms cannot be viewed as independent. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree to an extent, but now we're getting into areas that in reference to the specific article in question (a pending case in the US justice system) and the sites in question (those that try to cover the legal system in an impartial fashion but from the law angle) aren't an issue. BLPSPS is a valid concern obviously, and we want to make sure we're not introducing new claims here, but I think for the purposes of what FactOrOpinion is looking to write, which should be using the three foremention sites to summarize the history and ongoings in the case in regards to a named BLP, these should not be called "SPSBLP" as they're not trying to advocate anything here on either side of the case but cover it in the remit as part of a legal/judicary process. If we were talking, say, a similar group but with clearer partisan interests like The Lincoln Project, yes, I would agree that the COI that they may have would warn away from that. --Masem (t) 14:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know for certain whether the law firm owns SCOTUSblog or if the latter is a distinct entity (say, an LLC). Masem, do you know for certain that it's owned by the law firm? And even if it is, if Goldstein owns the firm, isn't he still an author-publisher? I don't think these 3 online fora should be considered personal/group blogs, but my central question is whether the WP guidelines are sufficiently clear about these issues for people to make appropriate decisions about them. I think the guidelines can and should be made clearer, so that they not only address personal/group blogs and newsblogs but also say something more explicit about scholarly fora with editors, about work published by advocacy organizations like the ACLU, web content published by the government, etc. Maybe this isn't the right place for me to have asked my questions (maybe they belong on the talk pages for BLP and RS guidelines), but I'd rather not move the discussion yet again. Kyohyi, you say "The full determination is whether or not there are independent reviewers, (those without a conflict of interest) ..." If everyone agrees that that's a key issue, then shouldn't it appear along with the discussion of whether author=publisher? Masem, just to be clear: all three legal sites do sometimes publish opinion pieces that advocate on one or the other side of a legal issue. But with respect to BLP, the question is still whether they're SPS; if they are, they can't be used, but if they aren't, they can serve as RSOPINION. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The first part of my comment is a paraphrase of note 10 in WP: V which is referred to in the section of WP: SPS. To quote the first sentence of note 10 "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content." The second part of my comment is my view that by their very nature advocacy groups fail this. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kyohyi: Thanks for pointing out that footnote. I'd read it previously, but had forgotten and missed it when I went back to review the guideline before posting my question. If reviewers are key, I think it would be good to mention them in the body, not just the footnote (and then footnote to the quotes). Also, when I look at WP:Identifying and using self-published works, the different sections are internally inconsistent with respect to the role of reviewers. For example, in the first section, it says:

Self-published material is characterized by the lack of reviewers who are independent of the author (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents.

But then the second section makes no mention of reviewers:

Identifying a self-published source is usually straightforward. You need two pieces of information:

1. Who is the author or creator of the work?
2. Who is the publisher of the work?

If the answers to these questions are the same, then the work is self-published. If they are different, then the work is not self-published.

And further down it suggests that independent reviewers may be important in determining if it's RS but not to determining if it's SPS:

According to our content guideline on identifying reliable sources, a reliable source has the following characteristics:

It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s). It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing. It is a third-party or independent source. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes.

A self-published source can have all of these qualities except for the second one.

Perhaps some of the problem is also figuring out who WP has in mind when referring to "author" and "publisher," as there are cases where the individual who does the writing is the author and other times when the employer is considered the author even if the individual writer is credited with authorship. In discussing SCOTUSblog so far, it's unclear who the publisher is (e.g., Goldstein's law firm?). Maybe it would help if we also discussed who we think the publisher is for Just Security and Lawfare. I'm really not sure what the answer is. For ex., is Just Security itself a publisher? or is the publisher the Reiss Center on Law and Security? or New York University School of Law? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think all three sources are reliable and are not self-published --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't want to try to answer more (I personally think that none of the three blogs here are "advocacy" in same manner than we're worried about), but I do want to highlight probably the most closest last case to where we drew a line, and that was after a lot of debate - that was on Quackwatch. Quackwatch is a site run by one person that highlights people that claim to offer medical advance but which is considered to be pseudoscience or false claims. The guy that runs the sight has good knowledge in this area, but also relies on a number of experts - anonymous for the most part but assured they are experts - to double check. We came to the conclusion this was an SPS because what the guy wrote didn't have the editorial control expected. To me, when we put SCOTUSBlog there, there is editorial control (the editor board is clearly named), thus making it better here. But again, I offer that discussion as it touches on several same points. --Masem (t) 18:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• For the record, I agree with all of the analysis of Masem above in this section. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Masem, Kyohyi, and Guerillero: et al.: I, too, agree with comments about editorial control and fact-checking. Thus, imagine my surprise to find that the definition at Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works contradicts our view of this, and that of countless discussions. Sufficiently so, that I think this needs attention at the source: I've raised WT:USINGSPS#Definition is misleading in an attempt to change the definition at that policy supplement page, and this related discussion pre-dates it. In my view, the discussion here, is dependent upon the outcome of those, or they should be merged. Kudos, btw, to FactOrOpinion who is coming along fast as an editor, for raising this here and describing it appropriately and raising the essential points. Mathglot (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Drazen Petrovic father is ethnic Serb, RS?

Article Dražen Petrović.[227] and talk page[228] Source is "Magazin Pečat je politički nedeljnik koji izlazi petkom. Posle četiri godine izlaženja postao je najčitaniji list ove vrste u Srbiji, "[229] [230] ("Pečat magazine is a political weekly that is published on Friday. After four years of publishing, it became the most read newspaper of its kind in Serbia.") In this magazine is column of some private person(journalist) and his claim. Personal information about his family. "Njihov otac Jovan (zovu ga Jole, kao Stojana Stojko) rođen je u selu Zagora, opština Trebinje, Republika Srpska." ("Their father Jovan (they call him Jole, as Stojana Stojko) was born in the village of Zagora, municipality of Trebinje, Republika Srpska.") The source does not mention that he is an "ethnic Serb", so I am interested in whether this information is allowed "ethnic Serb" in the article without evidence in the source, is this column in the source RS and whether that political magazine is RS? Mikola22 (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Drazen Petrovic father is ethnic Serb, RS II?

Article Dražen Petrović.[231] and talk page[232] Source is "Dušan Čolović (15 August 1990). "Igraću samo za Jugoslaviju!". Tempo (1277)."... ("Dušan Čolović (August 15, 1990)." I will only play for Yugoslavia! ". Tempo (1277).") Tempo is magazine[233] Information that father of Dražen Petrović is ethnic Serb can be verified WP:VERIFY. I am interested in whether this information ethnic Serb is allowed in the article without verifiability and is this source RS?Mikola22 (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Drazen Petrovic father is ethnic Serb, RS III?

Article Dražen Petrović.[234] and talk page[235] Information from the source "Divac believes that Petrovic, whose father is a Serb, froze him out because Petrovic felt pressure to prove his pro-Croat bona fides."[236] This is a personal statement of a Serbian basketball player Vlade Divac. The source does not mention that his father is "ethnic Serb". I am interested in whether this information ethnic Serb is allowed in the article that is, whether the statement of some private person in some source is RS. We know that Vlade Divac and Dražen Petrović were not in good relations (Serbian-Croatian conflicts). Mikola22 (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Editorial stock imagery (Getty Images, Alamy etc.)

Many of the sources deemed reliable for use in Wikipedia do more often than not rely on stock imagery sites to supply them with images for their material. Such editorial stock imagery does seem to be acceptable by dint of being part of whatever source is being cited, but I wonder what the attitude would be if the originating stock imagery sites were to be cited in their own right.Dvaderv2 (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

An image as such is rarely if ever a reliable source for a factual claim in an article, because basing a factual observation on an image would constitute WP:OR in most cases. I'm not quite sure what kinds of use you are thinking of, so I can't say much more about it right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Fake journalists outed by Daily Beast - use in Wikipedia articles

I removed two articles by Lin Nguyen and one by Raphael Badani from William Erbey, as these are not real journalists. See https://www.thedailybeast.com/right-wing-media-outlets-duped-by-a-middle-east-propaganda-campaign. Other sources in that bio may need checking, Erbey seems to be a beneficiary of their faking. More generally, it's possible other articles are affected. Fences&Windows 11:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a means to search on references to find the named "authors" (double checking in case of legit authors with same names outside of this "sting") to figure out much of their stuff was used. I saw one of those you removed didn't include author fields so its not as simple as just checking the ref field names, but this is something that should be elevated to be an high priority removal. --Masem (t) 13:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If anyone has a contact at The Daily Beast or is willing to ask them via social media, for example, they might share the list of URLs with us. The rest of the references in William Erbey checked out fine. Fences&Windows 14:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I reached out via social media to the author of the piece. We'll see whether I get a response. Jlevi (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The author has a thread on Twitter with some fascinating details (that presumably didn't fit into the article), including a list of names. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The Lin Nguyen mentioned appears to be the same as this SCMP contributor Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Those 5 are not used. There are 43 other links to SCMP opinion articles: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scmp.com%2Fcomment%2Fopinion%2Farticle%2F&title=Special%3ALinkSearch Fences&Windows 19:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If the account that started the Erbey article isn't controlled by a PR agency then I'm Walter Winchell.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, they stopped editing in February after being challenged on their talk page. Fences&Windows 19:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• What on earth is up with that article? Just a quick search of Google - or even parsing the sources already there - makes it clear that he's mostly notable as the founder of Ocwen Financial Corporation, yet until I added it just now the article didn't mention it at all. Given Ocwen Financial Corporation's reputation and the fact that he was forced to leave amid serious conflicts of interest, I'm guessing the article was entirely promotional - it's not something that could reasonably be missed. --Aquillion (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)